Am I a libertarian?

[u/KayleeSinn]

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.

[u/different_option101]

You sound like a centrist, with some right leaning views. Check out classical American liberalism, I think it will help you to understand where you belong.

Libertarians significantly vary in their view. They come in many flavors. Some are closer to you in their views, some are “small state” libertarians aka minarchists and even many anarchocapitalists consider themselves to be a part of libertarians and vice versa, though most libertarians support some form of government and by definition, that’s not anarcho-

But most importantly, don’t label yourself. Allow your views to change. Just like you said - you do you, and it’s nobody’s business.

[u/tocano]

You sound like a libertarian with a willingness to be pragmatic at times, which is fine. Nothing wrong with that.

Challenge is finding (and maintaining) the right balance between pure principle and compromising pragmatism.

[u/Plenty_Trust_2491]

What’s worse?

(A) The government steals money from innocent people, calls it “taxation,” and gives it to the poor, disincentivizing them from becoming productive members of society, whilst keeping most of it for the political class.

(B) The government steals money from people, calls it “taxation,” and uses it to build a huge regulatory system; steals land along the border, calls it “eminent domain,” and uses more tax dollars to build an unconstitutional wall along said border; steals from every business owner the freedom to decide whom she/he may hire; and steals from every American landowner the power to decide to whom she/he may sell, lease, or rent her/his land; while also restricting who may move where.

[u/KayleeSinn → u/Plenty_Trust_2491]

Both are bad.

A - you left out that there is not one all powerful and overwhelming government. So if it extracts resources from group X but group Y and Z also come in, take some of the money they never contributed, send some back home and have more come to take more of it.

Point is, if you have a collective pot, it needs to be sealed so those that do not put still there can't also take from it. If you have taxes, it is better to have borders so at least then the wealth stays within those borders and you can get some of it back. It's not a take from rich and give to the poor thing.

B - You added a lot of things here that are not actually needed and do not come with having a border to make it sound worse. Some countries don't have big physical borders filled with guards. Sometimes a line on a map and a few red posts is enough.

As to who someone may hire. Again, in a no tax system hire anyone. The problem though is that if your own citizen has all those taxes they have to pay and someone from over the border can come on, pay nothing and the business owner has to spend less on them due to it, it's a problem. Abolish taxes and put them on an even playing field first .. but we don't have that. If the market is not free, you can't insist on free market rules for some but not others.

[u/Matt_Hiring_ATL]

Learn about the Non-aggression principle. If you think it's a good principle to base government on then you are a libertarian. What you described isn't Anti-libertarian, but it doesn't define you as one.

[u/Soft-Opposite8684]

There are no true scotsman... I mean Libertarian.

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

If you have to ask the answer is likely no. You sound like a pragmatist, someone who avoids principle on principle. You are not a libertarian.

[u/mrhymer]

Do you want free people or percentage slaves paying for entitlements? If the answer is redistributive percentage slaves you are not a libertarian.

[u/KayleeSinn → u/mrhymer]

Free person > option to be free if cards are played right > other

I basically don't care at all about lesser people that can't take care of themselves, are not willing to fight for their rights or those who choose to be enslaved.

[u/mrhymer → u/KayleeSinn]

Cards being played right has nothing to do with it. Free people have the freedom to fail. Free people also have the freedom to help those that truly need it without using force or government to do it.