Previously, companies had an incentive to raise wages for workers because it provides better outcomes, as time progressed the incentive for cheap labor has increased

My question is, if a company can automate its business, doesn't the endgame of capitalism indeed lead to massive unemployment? Why would I as a company owner hire people when I can automate the whole process for much cheaper? And how would that benefit the mass population?

I guess to summarize, in the automated age, what would create jobs, and how would someone from any background be able to rise to the top when everything would require tons of materials a normal person would never have? From a libertarian sense if the market stop prioritizing people, is it still beneficial even if the prices of everything go down?

He is the most libertarian president deregulating so much,cutting taxes, pardoning ross ulbricht and many more gains.

Yet losertarians still dislike him,

I assume there would be more competition, but is there anything else to note?

Whenever I talk with friends about libertarianism I lose them at the idea of deregulation. The mental hurdle seems to be that if we scale back the government, who will protect us from the big bad capitalists? Isn’t government there to protect us?

What is your best strategy to help people get over this mental hurdle? Would love any ideas or further reading.

Heard from an american friend that these are quite questionable because they cut costs everywhere and the ones who suffer can be the patients and staff.
So I asked myself what is the general opinions of Libertarians on that?
Persoanly I am a conservative and lean into the opinion that a lot of things in the world should be left to the individual to decide and that is the best way for economy to work.
But certain sectors feel a bit too predatory in theory to me. Like medicine.

Biologically is gay sex just as valid a concept as straight sex? Is gay sex even real sex?

And do you think gay relationships should be just as culturally significant as straight relationships?

Note. I don't mean this at all in terms of individual views and individual practices and the right to be free to persue whatever you want.

I get it everyone can have their own view but this isn't what this post is about. I'm asking about your views about what you feel in regards to this issue is true.

Personally I think they should not be regarded similarly. I think that society has treated gay relationships as being on par with straight relationships while acknowledging gays are fewer in number.

So essentially like left handed and right handed people. The two handedness' are equally ​valid. Right handedness just happens to be more frequent.

But this isn't the case. Left and right handedness are indeed on par.

But gay sex and by extension gay relationships aren't the same relative to straight. The former is more akin to a fetish (even if technically not so, not sure but whatever) where as straight sex is actual biological sex.

I feel by pretending otherwise society is participating in mass delusion. similar to the idea that a man can become a woman.

my argument for this isn't simply that straight relationships can produce children. opponents of my stance would rush to say but not all straight relationships can produce children.

my argument is the fact that only straight individuals have **sexual** organ systems that are even biologically complementary to esch other in function in order to perform the function of ​**sex**. the anal canal in men is not designated in biology as having that function whether as a primary or a secondary function at all.

yes you can do anal in straight relationships but you can also do piv. you don't have rhat option in straight relationships.

for me, even though i don't want to force anything on anyone, I just wish society would stop participating in this mass delusion.

you can acknowledge that people can be romantically involved with people pf their own gender without ignoring basic facts about biological reality

​

​

Specifically in the US, have Libertarian groups and/or Libertarian communities made any large, significant inroads in the past 100 years?

I think of John Stuart Mill's quote, "The freedom of the individual is limited thus: He must not make himself a nuisance to other people."

(I sincerely apologize if I've already been a nuisance here.)

As I think of that quote, I think, "Holy smokes! If I only had a nickel for all the times that I've perceived that ideal of Mill's to have been infringed upon or absolutely disregarded!"

As I write this, I also think of two individuals: Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. But did they really significantly advance the libertarian philosophy?

Let's say a child ends up having diabetes, and the parents decide to not treat it. They say medicine is witchcraft and that they'll pray the illness away instead.

What should happen to the parents when the child dies? Would this scenario be a thing that's allowed?

For those of you who are familiar with this: What are your thoughts about praxeology? I know that Austrian economists really popularized it, and I find it interesting. But while there is much that I appreciate about praxeology, I find that it makes assumptions I disagree with. But I wanted to know your thoughts about it, as well.

As a woman, I am grateful for having more rights to everything (at least in the western societies), but the individualism it brought with itself is just total chaotic. People don't have empathy or the slightest understanding towards each othed... and the main argument is usually something like this: "I've paid for it so why should I give it up, even if it causes you discomfort". I hate it, and with the demography constantly declining, honestly I fear for the future.... maybe the AI and robotic stuff is mot a coincidence too, and I don't think they will aggressively take over our jobs... since there won't be too many people... even Nigeria is declining (maybe from 8 to 6 point something... still high, but also declining)

tD; how to overcome this tendency? Back to the middle ages where one main ruler was? (papacy as the legitimacy of the kings). What is democracy now? Are we really aware of our choices in everyday life?

Kurzgesagt just made an excellent video on what AI has done and the implications of it. They pointed out that if this goes unchecked it could lead to some serious damages. One commenter pointed out that these AI agents are created and experimented on by businessmen, not scientists. Another one said if a dog bites someone, the owner is punished.

Should OpenAI or some people working there be punished? Doesn’t this also mean AI and the companies creating them need to be seriously regulated and overseen, as it looks like they can’t do it on their own.

i’m at work and haven’t had a chance to read thru all of it. can’t tell if i’m disgusted or genuinely impressed at Block’s ability to stretch the NAP to whatever he pleases

https://www.independent.org/wp-content/uploads/tir/2025/08/tir_30_2_10_block.pdf

Not a troll .. just I'm not sure any more.

Basically my core principles have always been "dog eat dog". No one owes anyone anything and everyone deserves to be left alone. The default outcome is "assume I don't exist, what happens then".

That being said, I also believe in common sense and would pick a realistic "non libertarian" outcome over an idealistic "libertarian" one every time. So say I believe in no taxes. But we have a welfare system and we also have taxes to support it. So as long as we can't get rid of that system, at least limit the damage. close borders, limit who receives it. Be unfair. Kill it by any means.

I would never pick an option that realistically means more taxes or me benefiting less from them over any idealistic or moral choice. So no taxes > taxes but I get max benefits > anything else.

Basically, I think I am a libertarian but I would abandon any morality and would pick any option for a realistic libertarian end goal and would never settle for a worse option because the alternative is too authoritarian or non-libertarian. Results matter, nothing else.

i have never seen any libertarian online even mention friedman. why is that

"Not everything is about Trump. I just believe every citizen's vote ought to count the same. And that the person who gets the most votes ought to win. Also, wouldn't it be nice for Utah to no longer be ignored in presidential politics?" - Pete Buttigieg

The debate over the electoral college rears its ugly head during every election cycle. Libertarian consensus on the electoral college seems to heavily lean into the direction of maintaining the system, despite from pushback of those who lose elections.

The solution has been relatively made simple: Just ensure that the office of President is made to be less powerful, as it's seen major expansions over the last 237 years.

Two states have already offered their own compromises: Maine and Nebraska, who have replaced winner-takes-all and turned the decision over to congressional districts based off of popular vote.

Buttigieg is arguably wrong in his approach to his question: the electoral college exists in order for all votes to count the same. Libertarian thinking lines up well with Washington's view on political parties - if not for the tribalism that only exists thanks to the duopoly, then Buttigieg would have less to be concerned about.

My solution is to compromise so that those who are concerned with the current state of the political climate and electoral college system can be heard and represented.

The biggest concern with the electoral college is that, even though it's the best example of the republic, it's also the biggest example of the winner-takes-all system. Tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority are two major talking points, and the former is more favorable over the latter.

So is proportional representation the answer?

"Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats."

Is this not a decent solution based off of the intentions of the Framers?

Proven time and time again, people care more about grocery and gas prices then they do liberty, so why not tie personal liberty with a low-price bow? Socialists use the aesthetics of class struggle in order to empower the state, so shouldn't libertarians embrace the rhetoric of "class struggle" against the non-productive class? I used to be a social democrat until I learned the free market is what get results, and if the socialistic people of the nation vote for liberty, doesn't that mean libertarian succeeds?

"We will pass the death penalty for large-scale drug dealers, human traffickers, and anyone who kills a police officer."

President Donald Trump announces a major push to expand capital punishment while taking aim at no-cash-bail policies and touting what he described as historic drops in crime.

The president has pushed similar proposals before, including directing the Justice Department to seek the death penalty in eligible cases involving the murder of law enforcement officers.

Ok I am dropping the neutral act for a second if you still support this guy as a libertarian how literally how

A Republican pollster just said the quiet part out loud: "A growing number of Republicans are saying they're going to vote for the Libertarian."

In the Texas Senate race, Libertarian Ted Brown is polling at 3-4% in polls, with Democratic strategists saying it could hit 3-4% by November. In a race between Paxton and Talarico this close, that's more than enough to decide it. A Democratic pollster told The Bulwark that if Libertarian candidates hold their current position nationally, it could be the difference in flipping the entire Senate.

If that costs Trump the midterms, we aren't "spoilers". We're the direct consequence of your own record. You reap what you sow.

• Promised no new wars, then launched an unauthorized one in Iran
• Promised fiscal sanity, then drove debt toward $40 trillion while expensive gas and groceries crush working families.
• Promised to drain the swamp, then became the most corrupt president of all time, sat on the Epstein files and expanded warrantless mass surveillance.

You don't get to betray every promise you ran on and then blame the people who held you to it.