Libertarianism is really really really stupid because in the real world no one pays for high quality roads, light rail network etc, safety nets for folks too ill to work or recently sacked through “reorganisation” etc etc etc unless they’re forced to. Privatised healthcare sucks for most people except the very wealthy, same for education. Libertarianism puts no governmental checks whatsoever on the power of corporations, it’s basically the rule of the jungle where the wealthy get freedom and the poor get slavery back. What stops corporations poisoning you for profits? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not competition. If you don’t regulate, people die. Just because American governments are crap, doesn’t mean governments are unnecessary. Individual liberty is a great concept, yes, but if nobody forces children to share and be considerate, they never learn it. For example, Elon Musk, Donald Trump.
Your points about weak safety nets, underfunded infrastructure, healthcare and education that often leave most people worse off, and corporate harm when oversight is weak are not wrong. The leap is blaming libertarianism as such for harm capitalism can create through its incentives.
Libertarianism is not automatically “no regulation” or “no government checks.” A lot of the harm you describe comes from limitations or additions to the idea as it is practiced, plus how parties structure markets, enforcement, and accountability. If the real target is that those arrangements let corporate power outrun protections, then arguing for better safeguards fits without concluding that the underlying commitment to liberty is stupid.
And you can treat limitationism as a mutually beneficial modification to libertarianism. The idea is to keep individual liberty and market freedom while explicitly adding credible constraints for externalities, power imbalances, and baseline protections so people are not left exposed.
Also, “libertarianism plus minimal governance” is not a uniform package worldwide. Some countries and real parties implement more constraints, different enforcement, and different welfare baselines, so you can’t read one especially dysfunctional American pattern as proof that libertarianism in general is destined to produce these outcomes.
These are things I’ve personally criticized libertarian parties for and have thought a lot about. That’s why I’m not libertarian, only libertarian adjacent.
No true Scotsman allows public infrastructure to decay, corporations to trample people’s lives, capitalism to run unchecked, “states rights” to overturn Roe v Wade.
Airway, back to the original point: conservatives are stupid because they think that seeing gay men kissing turns children and teenagers gay.
No true Scotsman allows public infrastructure to decay, corporations to trample people’s lives, capitalism to run unchecked, “states rights” to overturn Roe v Wade.
And that’s why I’m best described as Limitarian Constitutional Liberalism (LCL) : a rights-first, small-state constitutional approach that strongly enforces individual liberties and rule of law while limiting extreme wealth and power concentration through limitarian constraints.
As overturning Roe v Wade is strictly against the core values.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is against the core values in at least these specific ways:
Due process / legal certainty
It removed a long-established constitutional framework for the right to abortion, replacing it with a patchwork of state rules.
That undermines predictability and procedural fairness about a fundamental, time-sensitive liberty interest.
Privacy / bodily autonomy as an enforceable constraint
The decision narrowed or rejected the Court’s previous constitutional protection for privacy in making intimate decisions.
For people seeking abortion, that means the state (and private actors via enforcement mechanisms) can intervene more directly in deeply personal medical choices.
Protection from coercion
When abortion access is restricted or criminalized, people face legal risk in order to control their own reproductive choices.
That is coercion by threat of prosecution and related penalties, especially in situations where time and access constraints are already severe.
Rights-first limits on powerful institutions
Roe had acted as a judicial constraint on state action regarding abortion.
Overturning it shifts the balance away from courts enforcing a strong constitutional floor and toward legislatures/regulators setting variable and often punitive rules.
Third-party and “outsourced harm” effects
State-level bans often operate through enforcement against providers and/or via mechanisms that create chilling effects.
This can outsource coercive power to institutions and individuals (clinics, clinicians, insurers, employers), rather than keeping the issue within a rights-and-procedure framework.
Non-domination / vulnerability
If the practical ability to exercise the right depends on geography, money, transportation, and time, then restricting abortion tends to dominate the most vulnerable groups most severely.
That conflicts with an anti-domination approach that aims to secure baseline liberties for everyone, not just the privileged.
More on LCL
Limitarian Constitutional Liberalism (LCL)
1) Strong rights enforcement is central
Courts and independent oversight matter a lot.
Due process, privacy, free speech, and protection from coercion get treated as enforceable constraints on both individuals and powerful institutions.
2) Limits on wealth and power become constitutional
Extreme accumulation is capped or bounded by law (directly through taxes/limits, or indirectly through enforceable anti-concentration rules).
“Power” is not only economic. It likely includes political influence and control over essential infrastructure.
3) Small state, but not a weak state
The state is lean in what it provides.
It is “strong” where it must be: enforcement, adjudication, regulator independence, and anti-abuse rules.
4) Competition is protected, but not worshipped
Market freedom is respected, but monopolistic capture and exploitation get blocked through antitrust, liability, licensing standards, and disclosure rules.
The goal is that freedom for individuals does not require freedom for predation.
5) “Markets + rights” replaces “markets only”
Private contracts are respected, but not when they function as coercion or impose rights-violating harms (for example, involuntary constraints, unsafe externalities, or de facto monopoly power).
Tort law and regulatory standards are used to prevent “outsourcing harm.”
6) A coherent stance on safety nets
Likely favors baseline protections (so people can meaningfully exercise rights), but tries to keep programs targeted and rule-based rather than sprawling.
The justification is rights and non-domination, not broad economic management.
7) Corporate actors are treated as constrained agents
Corporations are allowed to operate, but their ability to extract wealth without corresponding duties is limited.
Think: strong liability, transparency, enforcement against illegal harms, and limits on political capture.
8) Political legitimacy depends on reducing extreme influence
Because extreme wealth can buy disproportionate power, the limitarian component pushes toward guardrails for funding, lobbying, and ownership of essential platforms.
9) Policy tradeoffs are explicit
You accept the trade: less tolerance for extreme concentration in exchange for broader rights security and reduced domination.
Economic dynamism is preserved, but with “pressure valves” against runaway power.
conservatives are stupid because they think that seeing gay men kissing turns children and teenagers gay.
Yes. That wasn’t something I ever refuted… As I’ve repeatedly stated.
Libertarianism is really really really stupid because in the real world no one pays for high quality roads, light rail network etc, safety nets for folks too ill to work or recently sacked through “reorganisation” etc etc etc unless they’re forced to. Privatised healthcare sucks for most people except the very wealthy, same for education. Libertarianism puts no governmental checks whatsoever on the power of corporations, it’s basically the rule of the jungle where the wealthy get freedom and the poor get slavery back. What stops corporations poisoning you for profits? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not competition. If you don’t regulate, people die. Just because American governments are crap, doesn’t mean governments are unnecessary. Individual liberty is a great concept, yes, but if nobody forces children to share and be considerate, they never learn it. For example, Elon Musk, Donald Trump.
Your points about weak safety nets, underfunded infrastructure, healthcare and education that often leave most people worse off, and corporate harm when oversight is weak are not wrong. The leap is blaming libertarianism as such for harm capitalism can create through its incentives.
Libertarianism is not automatically “no regulation” or “no government checks.” A lot of the harm you describe comes from limitations or additions to the idea as it is practiced, plus how parties structure markets, enforcement, and accountability. If the real target is that those arrangements let corporate power outrun protections, then arguing for better safeguards fits without concluding that the underlying commitment to liberty is stupid.
And you can treat limitationism as a mutually beneficial modification to libertarianism. The idea is to keep individual liberty and market freedom while explicitly adding credible constraints for externalities, power imbalances, and baseline protections so people are not left exposed.
Also, “libertarianism plus minimal governance” is not a uniform package worldwide. Some countries and real parties implement more constraints, different enforcement, and different welfare baselines, so you can’t read one especially dysfunctional American pattern as proof that libertarianism in general is destined to produce these outcomes.
These are things I’ve personally criticized libertarian parties for and have thought a lot about. That’s why I’m not libertarian, only libertarian adjacent.
No true Scotsman allows public infrastructure to decay, corporations to trample people’s lives, capitalism to run unchecked, “states rights” to overturn Roe v Wade.
Airway, back to the original point: conservatives are stupid because they think that seeing gay men kissing turns children and teenagers gay.
And that’s why I’m best described as Limitarian Constitutional Liberalism (LCL) : a rights-first, small-state constitutional approach that strongly enforces individual liberties and rule of law while limiting extreme wealth and power concentration through limitarian constraints.
As overturning Roe v Wade is strictly against the core values.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is against the core values in at least these specific ways:
More on LCL
Limitarian Constitutional Liberalism (LCL)
1) Strong rights enforcement is central
2) Limits on wealth and power become constitutional
3) Small state, but not a weak state
4) Competition is protected, but not worshipped
5) “Markets + rights” replaces “markets only”
6) A coherent stance on safety nets
7) Corporate actors are treated as constrained agents
8) Political legitimacy depends on reducing extreme influence
9) Policy tradeoffs are explicit
Yes. That wasn’t something I ever refuted… As I’ve repeatedly stated.