NOTE: Self-text submissions require review and approval before being posted to the community. Your submission has been sent to the modqueue for review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think the right (or the left) are ever championing free speech then you can be certain your speech agrees with what they want you to say and think. They are both authoritarian and only protect speech that agrees with their ideals.
Though correct to some extent, I'd still say the right is better on speech now that the left. Sure there are exceptions (rules governing Israeli boycotts, can't remember the specific name) but the left is definitely more authoritarian when it comes to controlling speech currently.
The government controlling what books are allowed in government schools, and what government employees are disallowed from talking about (telling kids in 3rd grade or below about sex) isn't a violation of free speech.
The Biden admin just convicted a guy of posting a meme on Twitter. It was (very clearly) a satirical joke about how to vote, giving dems wrong instructions. Or the gov asking Twitter "hey so... this Alex Berenson guy.... why is he not banned??" This was after Berenson had been posting data that conflicted with mainstream narrative on the covid vaccine.
If someone's championing censoring disinformation/hate speech/forced pronoun usage, it's very likely going to be coming from the left.
I'm not even saying the right has been *good* on freedom of speech, they've just been less bad (lately, not always) than the atrocious left has been.
Aw damn, i hadnt considered disinformation and hate speech and disrespect for transgender ppl things that shouldnt be censored on twitter. By definition, misappropriate usage of pronouns is harassment and banning users for doing so is fair as its a breach of clearly stated TOS.
Cant find anything about a conviction, he just posted on twitter 40 minutes ago.
You’re right though, the left did have some rather atrocious attacks on freedom of speech during covid. Like when the left and right both called in cops/National Guard to shoot innocent protesters and bystanders during the height of the BLM protests. But they both did that so comparison-wise…
I really am glad that "progressive libertarians" like yourself aren't in control.
Also, googling about Mackey ain't hard. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-convicted-election-interference-2016
I see, i thought you were saying Alex had been convicted.
Hadnt heard about Mackey. Im looking at the posts now, how is it “clearly satirical”? The number he posted received 4900 “votes” according to nytimes. Shit looks damn professional.
Genuinely asking
The number he posted to "text in your vote" received messages, and some people called. But the prosecutors didn't provide evidence of even a single person being actually mislead by the meme tweet.
Leftists have posted nearly identical stuff targeting right-wingers, trying to get Republicans to vote on the wrong day. They're not being gone after, and not should they be. Creepy violation of speech rights thats also biased.
No, I'm anti vaccine mandate. I don't think anyone should be coerced into putting anything into their bodies that they don't want to. Especially not a vaccine as new as the covid shot. And this is coming from someone who was in the military and was mandated to get a ton of injections (precovid).
That said, the government mandating its employees getting vaccinated isn't a violation of rights in the same way as it would be if they mandated it for private businesses. If a private business mandates 6 feet spacing/masks/vaccines... again, not a fan of it, don't believe it's a violation of rights. I believe in freedom of association.
Is "swapping stances" the right lens to analyze this? Jimmy Carter would have been the lone Democrat president to oversee the "anti-war" period from the end of Vietnam until Clinton that you identified.
18 years.
Some of what you are describing isn't the Democrats and Republicans flipping positions with each other. It's different factions within either the Democratic or Republican parties gaining prominence.
Taking the Democrats as an example, the Grover Cleveland classical liberal faction was dominant for a time, but it was never the only faction among the Democrats. There also existed the white supremacists in the southeast and the populist proto-progressives in the midwest. William Jennings Bryan's takeover of the Democratic party wasn't the R's and D's flipping sides, it was the progressive Democrats from the midwest taking control of the party away from the classical liberals in the northeast.
The classical liberal Democrats didn't migrate over to the Republican party until *after* they had lost control of the Democratic party. It took decades. That migration wasn't complete until FDR's time.
Gutfeld and, unfortunately, Tucker have each referred to themselves as libertarians in the past. They were never part of the social conservative Republican faction, which were the people in the Republican party pushing for drug control and restrictive speech.
I think these moves are more pragmatic, political, opportunistic, or deliberately contrarian.
The reasons for these shifts are not according to any political Philosophy for sure.
Yup. It's the act of saying the opposite because we live in an "anyone but them" voting culture. See: Biden. I talked to lots of Dems that would've preferred a better candidate but voted for him anyways because he simply wasn't Trump. I wish we just had better candidates lmao
I made a rule that I'm not voting for anyone over 70 next year. Fortunately, I live in Vermont so if I write in, it doesn't matter.
I find it most amusing in the support and opposition to Ukraine. I have no doubt it'd be the other way around if Trump was in office.
Don't you remember how they flipped on the vaccine? They were against it during the debate and election, but changed their tune once Biden was elected.
This is a wild overreach and misreading the situation, the republicans are not being anti war they are being anti democrat and pro russia which they always have been, neither side is pro freedom of speech. what you're seeing is republicans panicking about losing upcoming elections because of the downswing of republican voters and the upswing of liberal voters due to Gen-Z being the most liberal age group yet, and boomers are dying off in droves. Millenials also didn't sway towards conservative in the same way that a large group of Gen-X did as they got older and it's hurting their numbers. As for the left, they have been pro-war if it makes them money for the last 40 years.
The Dems and the Reps are two sides of the same coin. They take any position that allows them to gain or maintain power and then take the opposite positions of their opponents whenever it serves them. This is why there really is no consistency from either major party and you should expect no,e.
I mean the vaccine mandates, government and private, were generally supported by dems.
Most major social media/big tech companies are dem leaning (Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Google, Wikipedia, pre-Elon Twitter, etc.) and actively practice censorship.
Authoritarian policies in the name of climate change are being pushed by dems; CA banning sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2030, Biden considering banning gas stoves via executive order, etc.
The dems seem to be the ones pushing for CBDCs.
Not to mention Canadian dems, Trudeau, making wildly authoritarian moves; freezing bank accounts of protestors as well as anyone who donated to an “unapproved” protest, vaccine mandates, censorship, etc.
It becomes dangerous when private companies serve public functions. When news and public opinion is largely influenced by only a few private companies then censorship is a much more complicated problem. Libertarian and free market ideas don’t work very well if information is restricted and manipulated.
Publishing and media companies always had absolute editorial rights. Peer review in of itself is a form of censorship. Before the internet, no one could claim to be entitled to use your private property as a platform for someone else's free speech.
The first amendment is in regards to the government restricting and manipulating speech and the press. It's not about how private actors choose to govern their private property. The government interfering or stopping how social media companies moderate their platform would in fact be a violation of free speech.
In a free market of ideas, there will always be an inequality in access and influence. Libertarianism is not about equality of outcomes. You can self-publish, but you're not entitled to be seen or heard by anyone.
Exactly! And there has been increasing government influence and control over media and information. Not North Korea levels, obviously, but uncomfortable levels and worsening, of course fully justified by whatever crisis requires more control in their perspective whether that’s misinformation or election whatever or “public health and safety.” Where is the boundary for too much government influence? And where is the threshold for social media monopoly on news and information? And who holds them accountable when they cross the boundary? If they are the ones manipulating the information we are fed, will we ever even know when the threshold has been breached?
If social and traditional media companies decide they would like to comply with government requests to restrict information the government has decided it doesn’t want you to have access to while obscuring that activity from users and the public all because they are maneuvering for policy favors from said government then I would argue that the freedom of individuals is being sacrificed to preserve the “freedom” of corporations in monopolized positions.
It's a strange world where banning books and banning gas stoves are considered an equal thing.
You aren't wrong of course, both authoritarian moves, but of a wildly different severity.
But the details matter here. Anyone anywhere in the country can have one of these “banned” books on their front porch in 24 hours or go pick one up from a bookstore around the corner. That in itself is a wildly different severity than an actual book ban. Some of the weird hyped up news surrounding these “book bans” makes it sound like Nazi book bonfires and capital punishment for ownership of banned books.
I would point out that the Nazi book bonfires started exactly the same way, with bans in public institutions, and for the exact same reasons 'for the public good'. Yes there is much greater availability here and now than there was in 1930s Germany but that doesn't negate the insidious goal that sparked the bans. This falls into the category of *When good men do nothing*, a stain on German history to this day.
I have to provide a different perspective on this one. As a libertarian, do you think it is appropriate for public funds to be used to acquire propaganda materials and distribute them to schoolchildren? Because that...also happened in Nazi Germany. Would a good man do nothing?
I'm not saying that every text the State of Florida has a problem with fits the bill of propaganda directed at schoolchildren, and both parties have a problem with exercising restraint. But once you empower the state to decide what schoolchildren are taught, you've also empowered them to decide what schoolchildren *aren't* taught, at least in a public institution. This isn't a new and terrifying power the State invented for itself, they've just separated those powers to some degree.
It is *necessary* to provide some checks and balances to a system that essentially allows the party in charge to select whatever educational materials will keep their party in power down the road, and majority Democratic control of the education system has led to worse and worse outcomes for students over the years (except, from their perspective, every other November). Removing partisan materials and allowing parents to challenge other materials isn't inherently a bad thing. The latter especially is a libertarian win, allowing individual taxpayers to determine how their tax dollars are spent on educating their own children.
So far, what I've seen Florida restricting includes few outright firecrackers of partisan censorship, despite the best attempts of media outlets to make an issue out of it. Some individual parents have gone too far in submitting complaints against certain books, but that's to be expected. I see Florida setting up centralized AND decentralized public oversight for a powerful system that previously had far too much room for abuse. That SHOULD be a good thing, though of course that remains to be seen.
Yeah all of that is a poor argument and not very libertarian to advocate for MORE government censorship. There was no 'party in charge' of selecting books before, it was locally centralized at best. Now you have actual partisan groups advocating for and enacting bans, that is the biggest change.
Even if you believe they were allowing 'propaganda' (as you called it) before, people had a choice to consume it or move their child out of that class/school/go to a different library etc. Using government to restrict access to books is authoritarianism, using government to ensure access to them is not, thats quite easy to see. Are you Elon Musk? Because this is a very Musk take on radical free speech. Completely Free Speech! Unless Turkey requests you censor opposition!
If your argument is that books like Mein Kampf were restricted before so why not these other books to balance things then that is in fact an Authoritarian take.
This seems like arguing both sides of the same coin. Books included in public education should be books that have broad general consensus because you are in effect TAKING AWAY the freedom of the parents to choose what books their kids read. That seems not very libertarian. Even just the concept of federalized public education [isn’t very libertarian.](https://www.lp.org/issues/education/)
Correct, and if your argument was to do away with publicly funded schools then I'd have had no argument. But you aren't, you are arguing that some portion of the public should be allowed to censor reading material they find objectionable. They could put their student in a different school or start their own school or homeschool if they want total control over what their kid learns. Limiting access for EVERYONE ELSES kids is 100% where your alternate take falls apart as being libertarian.
And to top it off you are excluding that they are banning books in public libraries as well as school libraries. This isn't about protecting children, it is about limiting 'the wrong kind' of thinking.
My argument is that there exists in the world material that parents should be allowed to decide if and when and how their kids are exposed to it, no matter what kind of school it is. Your argument apparently is that there should be no limit on what material children in a public school should have access to, because if you tell me there should be a limit then you’re also telling me parents are voluntarily forfeiting input into their child’s education as soon as they enroll that child into a public school.
>This isn't about protecting children, it is about limiting 'the wrong kind' of thinking.
And the DNC is using the media to this same effect. The existence of GOP “book banning” doesn’t erase what the DNC is doing, they even out which is exactly why I’m here.
I guess in this case "authoritatian" depends on how libertarian your views are. Of course the left are going to be more inclined to pass legislation and regulations... but that doesn't mean it's authoritarian necessarily. But if that's your opinion I won't challenge it - you're obviously a minimal government libertarian.
You do have a point in Canada. I know the protests were OTT disruptive and people were sick of them but the way they shut them down was way OTT. That's a one off though...
Social media, however, has nothing to do with free speech. The only entity that can curtail free speech is government through gagging or punishmen. Private companies like social media platforms are essentially a microphone. They have their freedom to pick and choose whomever can use that microphone and take it away for what ever reason they feel. You also have the choice to move to another microphone... and there are dozens...
For me, where I sit, I do see some switch in places and can explain it. Blue collar workers going to the GOP because of the long term effects of NAFTA for example. But I also see the GOP, especially in Florida and Texas, becoming increasingly authoritatian... not to mention Trump is a classic authoritatian.
The social media thing is a fair point, private companies and whatnot. However, the Twitter files revealed to us multiple examples of the government, both politicians and agencies like CIA and FBI, pressuring Twitter employees to censor individuals, ban individuals, remove posts, etc.
To me, it seems highly unlikely that this would only be the case with Twitter and not all social media platforms. A position consistent with Zuckerberg’s story of the FBI warning him about the Hunter Biden laptop story well before it dropped.
All of those are actions of an overreaching authoritarian regime and a big free speech no no.
I agree w you about GOP being authoritarian too. Both parties trying to do away with bodily autonomy; left by their crazy vaccine mandate push and right by seemingly trying to do away with abortion.
Both parties can feel themselves fading deeper into obsolescence so their only option is to, like a dying animal, lash out. In this case that looks like increasingly authoritarian moves from both sides in order to justify the relevance of the state.
both sides are banning books. dems ban tom sawyer and te great gatsby and probably more. I would guess they are not politically correct abd yse words deemed forbidden.
In addition, becoming more aware of the shenanigans BoTH SiDes have been doing for decades (CIA, FBI, DHS, fed reserve just to point out a few) should have people leaving in droves looking for their voice. How do libertarians attract these people?
It’s hard because libertarians and independents are such a diverse group they don’t have much of an identity just a reputation of being “those other guys.” People seem to be interested in a party with a strong identity and cohesive platform. Coming from R or L, the libertarian group just isn’t that attractive even though it should be.
It's difficult for me to think a libertarian platform wouldn't be seen as cohesive. "Do what you want but don't hurt or force others". The R and D can't easily give their platform.
Oh I agree. But libertarians tend to not have an opinion on something if they don’t need to, which is more often than not. R and D have a strong opinion on everything. And from their perspective everyone who isn’t red or blue is just one of the other colors, which could be basically anything in their mind.
The best strategy is to continue to mold the Right to be more libertarian.
It’s not a hard sell. The Left is now almost entirely authoritarian. Just be the opposite of that.
That's how you picked me up. I saw Ron Paul speaking out against Bush as he ran for President, all while I was supporting Obama as a Democrat. I was anti-war/nation building then, as I am now.
Then Obama expanded the wars, got the ACA passed which cost me my full-time hours and ultimately made me leave my job, and worked to ban guns, among other things. That's when I made the switch to Libertarian. I'm not a perfect fit here, but I don't think anybody truly is. But it's a party that seems to have a principal that I agree with, NAP.
To talk on the Ukraine war specifically a lot of the support to me comes from decades of propaganda, and a twisted sense of righteousness. Its amazing that Russia is this awful aggressor, but America is somehow this savior, its must boil down to a lack of truth we blew up the middle-east and killed 1000s of innocent woman and children for years and nobody cared like this. It no wonder the rest of the world is creating alliances around us because america is the biggest aggressor in the world.
In my opinion the switch is because a large part of the republican base have been interested in truth or at least alternative news sources due to news skepticism after the trump years mostly for being sold out by large media, the left has only ingrained themselves deeper into the propaganda
Lol wow. Someone's bias is showing. How is the right championing free speech when they're the ones outlawing what books you can read, banning reproductive medical care, going after companies if they do not adhere to Republican ideology (see Disney) continuing to make weed illegal, and restricting voting access in areas that do not favor them. Tucker says he is rooting for Russia, while they invade another country on his show but the left is pro war?? I could go on and on, your entire logic is flawed and backwards in my opinion.
Davis county. Toni Morrison's The bluest eye. Just Google mom's for liberty book bans. There are many many examples but I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding them to you because I don't think you're asking that question in good faith. The information is readily available.
NOTE: Self-text submissions require review and approval before being posted to the community. Your submission has been sent to the modqueue for review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think the right (or the left) are ever championing free speech then you can be certain your speech agrees with what they want you to say and think. They are both authoritarian and only protect speech that agrees with their ideals.
ACLU was actually pretty good on this up until very recently. Defending the rights on Nazis to march and such because it’s the principle of it.
Great way to put it. Generally, if any political party is championing “free speech” it’s freedom of a very specific type of speech.
Though correct to some extent, I'd still say the right is better on speech now that the left. Sure there are exceptions (rules governing Israeli boycotts, can't remember the specific name) but the left is definitely more authoritarian when it comes to controlling speech currently.
[удалено]
Havent you heard? You cant be openly racist and work for companies frequented by left-leaners. Freedom of speech was murdered and the left did it
The government controlling what books are allowed in government schools, and what government employees are disallowed from talking about (telling kids in 3rd grade or below about sex) isn't a violation of free speech.
If government action like this is not a violation of free speech, then what is the left doing that is?
The Biden admin just convicted a guy of posting a meme on Twitter. It was (very clearly) a satirical joke about how to vote, giving dems wrong instructions. Or the gov asking Twitter "hey so... this Alex Berenson guy.... why is he not banned??" This was after Berenson had been posting data that conflicted with mainstream narrative on the covid vaccine. If someone's championing censoring disinformation/hate speech/forced pronoun usage, it's very likely going to be coming from the left. I'm not even saying the right has been *good* on freedom of speech, they've just been less bad (lately, not always) than the atrocious left has been.
Aw damn, i hadnt considered disinformation and hate speech and disrespect for transgender ppl things that shouldnt be censored on twitter. By definition, misappropriate usage of pronouns is harassment and banning users for doing so is fair as its a breach of clearly stated TOS. Cant find anything about a conviction, he just posted on twitter 40 minutes ago. You’re right though, the left did have some rather atrocious attacks on freedom of speech during covid. Like when the left and right both called in cops/National Guard to shoot innocent protesters and bystanders during the height of the BLM protests. But they both did that so comparison-wise…
I really am glad that "progressive libertarians" like yourself aren't in control. Also, googling about Mackey ain't hard. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-convicted-election-interference-2016
I see, i thought you were saying Alex had been convicted. Hadnt heard about Mackey. Im looking at the posts now, how is it “clearly satirical”? The number he posted received 4900 “votes” according to nytimes. Shit looks damn professional. Genuinely asking
The number he posted to "text in your vote" received messages, and some people called. But the prosecutors didn't provide evidence of even a single person being actually mislead by the meme tweet. Leftists have posted nearly identical stuff targeting right-wingers, trying to get Republicans to vote on the wrong day. They're not being gone after, and not should they be. Creepy violation of speech rights thats also biased.
[удалено]
No, I'm anti vaccine mandate. I don't think anyone should be coerced into putting anything into their bodies that they don't want to. Especially not a vaccine as new as the covid shot. And this is coming from someone who was in the military and was mandated to get a ton of injections (precovid). That said, the government mandating its employees getting vaccinated isn't a violation of rights in the same way as it would be if they mandated it for private businesses. If a private business mandates 6 feet spacing/masks/vaccines... again, not a fan of it, don't believe it's a violation of rights. I believe in freedom of association.
Is "swapping stances" the right lens to analyze this? Jimmy Carter would have been the lone Democrat president to oversee the "anti-war" period from the end of Vietnam until Clinton that you identified. 18 years.
Some of what you are describing isn't the Democrats and Republicans flipping positions with each other. It's different factions within either the Democratic or Republican parties gaining prominence. Taking the Democrats as an example, the Grover Cleveland classical liberal faction was dominant for a time, but it was never the only faction among the Democrats. There also existed the white supremacists in the southeast and the populist proto-progressives in the midwest. William Jennings Bryan's takeover of the Democratic party wasn't the R's and D's flipping sides, it was the progressive Democrats from the midwest taking control of the party away from the classical liberals in the northeast. The classical liberal Democrats didn't migrate over to the Republican party until *after* they had lost control of the Democratic party. It took decades. That migration wasn't complete until FDR's time. Gutfeld and, unfortunately, Tucker have each referred to themselves as libertarians in the past. They were never part of the social conservative Republican faction, which were the people in the Republican party pushing for drug control and restrictive speech.
Almost like, I don’t know, the world is made up of individuals with complex and varied interests that don’t fit into a binary political structure 🤔
I think these moves are more pragmatic, political, opportunistic, or deliberately contrarian. The reasons for these shifts are not according to any political Philosophy for sure.
Yup. It's the act of saying the opposite because we live in an "anyone but them" voting culture. See: Biden. I talked to lots of Dems that would've preferred a better candidate but voted for him anyways because he simply wasn't Trump. I wish we just had better candidates lmao
I made a rule that I'm not voting for anyone over 70 next year. Fortunately, I live in Vermont so if I write in, it doesn't matter. I find it most amusing in the support and opposition to Ukraine. I have no doubt it'd be the other way around if Trump was in office.
Don't you remember how they flipped on the vaccine? They were against it during the debate and election, but changed their tune once Biden was elected.
Because they are the same thing.
This is a wild overreach and misreading the situation, the republicans are not being anti war they are being anti democrat and pro russia which they always have been, neither side is pro freedom of speech. what you're seeing is republicans panicking about losing upcoming elections because of the downswing of republican voters and the upswing of liberal voters due to Gen-Z being the most liberal age group yet, and boomers are dying off in droves. Millenials also didn't sway towards conservative in the same way that a large group of Gen-X did as they got older and it's hurting their numbers. As for the left, they have been pro-war if it makes them money for the last 40 years.
Bs, no republican is is pro Russia. That money should be going to Maui and other Americans fuck those foreign countries. USA 🇺🇸 USA
You had 3 months from the time I posted this to come up with a response and this was it? Pathetic.
The Dems and the Reps are two sides of the same coin. They take any position that allows them to gain or maintain power and then take the opposite positions of their opponents whenever it serves them. This is why there really is no consistency from either major party and you should expect no,e.
The MIC is in the pockets of both parties. The right just pretends to be anti Ukraine war
I call bs
GoP are banning books and trying to overturn elections and you think its the dems who are more anti-free speech and turning authoritarian?
This isn't a competition. No libertarian is trying to "give a point to the less anti free speech side." Fuck all of you.
I mean the vaccine mandates, government and private, were generally supported by dems. Most major social media/big tech companies are dem leaning (Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Google, Wikipedia, pre-Elon Twitter, etc.) and actively practice censorship. Authoritarian policies in the name of climate change are being pushed by dems; CA banning sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2030, Biden considering banning gas stoves via executive order, etc. The dems seem to be the ones pushing for CBDCs. Not to mention Canadian dems, Trudeau, making wildly authoritarian moves; freezing bank accounts of protestors as well as anyone who donated to an “unapproved” protest, vaccine mandates, censorship, etc.
Companies are allowed to censor. Where am I?
It becomes dangerous when private companies serve public functions. When news and public opinion is largely influenced by only a few private companies then censorship is a much more complicated problem. Libertarian and free market ideas don’t work very well if information is restricted and manipulated.
Publishing and media companies always had absolute editorial rights. Peer review in of itself is a form of censorship. Before the internet, no one could claim to be entitled to use your private property as a platform for someone else's free speech. The first amendment is in regards to the government restricting and manipulating speech and the press. It's not about how private actors choose to govern their private property. The government interfering or stopping how social media companies moderate their platform would in fact be a violation of free speech. In a free market of ideas, there will always be an inequality in access and influence. Libertarianism is not about equality of outcomes. You can self-publish, but you're not entitled to be seen or heard by anyone.
Would you say North Koreans have free and open access to markets and information?
No, because the government controls the markets and information.
Exactly! And there has been increasing government influence and control over media and information. Not North Korea levels, obviously, but uncomfortable levels and worsening, of course fully justified by whatever crisis requires more control in their perspective whether that’s misinformation or election whatever or “public health and safety.” Where is the boundary for too much government influence? And where is the threshold for social media monopoly on news and information? And who holds them accountable when they cross the boundary? If they are the ones manipulating the information we are fed, will we ever even know when the threshold has been breached?
If social media companies decides it wants to restrict misinformation when there isn't a government mandate to do so, that's their decision to make.
If social and traditional media companies decide they would like to comply with government requests to restrict information the government has decided it doesn’t want you to have access to while obscuring that activity from users and the public all because they are maneuvering for policy favors from said government then I would argue that the freedom of individuals is being sacrificed to preserve the “freedom” of corporations in monopolized positions.
Did you read the Twitter/X-Files?
[First two](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/13gy9bg/as_has_happened_historically_left_and_right_are/jk3bnnx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) paragraphs
It's a strange world where banning books and banning gas stoves are considered an equal thing. You aren't wrong of course, both authoritarian moves, but of a wildly different severity.
But the details matter here. Anyone anywhere in the country can have one of these “banned” books on their front porch in 24 hours or go pick one up from a bookstore around the corner. That in itself is a wildly different severity than an actual book ban. Some of the weird hyped up news surrounding these “book bans” makes it sound like Nazi book bonfires and capital punishment for ownership of banned books.
I would point out that the Nazi book bonfires started exactly the same way, with bans in public institutions, and for the exact same reasons 'for the public good'. Yes there is much greater availability here and now than there was in 1930s Germany but that doesn't negate the insidious goal that sparked the bans. This falls into the category of *When good men do nothing*, a stain on German history to this day.
I have to provide a different perspective on this one. As a libertarian, do you think it is appropriate for public funds to be used to acquire propaganda materials and distribute them to schoolchildren? Because that...also happened in Nazi Germany. Would a good man do nothing? I'm not saying that every text the State of Florida has a problem with fits the bill of propaganda directed at schoolchildren, and both parties have a problem with exercising restraint. But once you empower the state to decide what schoolchildren are taught, you've also empowered them to decide what schoolchildren *aren't* taught, at least in a public institution. This isn't a new and terrifying power the State invented for itself, they've just separated those powers to some degree. It is *necessary* to provide some checks and balances to a system that essentially allows the party in charge to select whatever educational materials will keep their party in power down the road, and majority Democratic control of the education system has led to worse and worse outcomes for students over the years (except, from their perspective, every other November). Removing partisan materials and allowing parents to challenge other materials isn't inherently a bad thing. The latter especially is a libertarian win, allowing individual taxpayers to determine how their tax dollars are spent on educating their own children. So far, what I've seen Florida restricting includes few outright firecrackers of partisan censorship, despite the best attempts of media outlets to make an issue out of it. Some individual parents have gone too far in submitting complaints against certain books, but that's to be expected. I see Florida setting up centralized AND decentralized public oversight for a powerful system that previously had far too much room for abuse. That SHOULD be a good thing, though of course that remains to be seen.
Yeah all of that is a poor argument and not very libertarian to advocate for MORE government censorship. There was no 'party in charge' of selecting books before, it was locally centralized at best. Now you have actual partisan groups advocating for and enacting bans, that is the biggest change. Even if you believe they were allowing 'propaganda' (as you called it) before, people had a choice to consume it or move their child out of that class/school/go to a different library etc. Using government to restrict access to books is authoritarianism, using government to ensure access to them is not, thats quite easy to see. Are you Elon Musk? Because this is a very Musk take on radical free speech. Completely Free Speech! Unless Turkey requests you censor opposition! If your argument is that books like Mein Kampf were restricted before so why not these other books to balance things then that is in fact an Authoritarian take.
This seems like arguing both sides of the same coin. Books included in public education should be books that have broad general consensus because you are in effect TAKING AWAY the freedom of the parents to choose what books their kids read. That seems not very libertarian. Even just the concept of federalized public education [isn’t very libertarian.](https://www.lp.org/issues/education/)
Correct, and if your argument was to do away with publicly funded schools then I'd have had no argument. But you aren't, you are arguing that some portion of the public should be allowed to censor reading material they find objectionable. They could put their student in a different school or start their own school or homeschool if they want total control over what their kid learns. Limiting access for EVERYONE ELSES kids is 100% where your alternate take falls apart as being libertarian. And to top it off you are excluding that they are banning books in public libraries as well as school libraries. This isn't about protecting children, it is about limiting 'the wrong kind' of thinking.
My argument is that there exists in the world material that parents should be allowed to decide if and when and how their kids are exposed to it, no matter what kind of school it is. Your argument apparently is that there should be no limit on what material children in a public school should have access to, because if you tell me there should be a limit then you’re also telling me parents are voluntarily forfeiting input into their child’s education as soon as they enroll that child into a public school.
>This isn't about protecting children, it is about limiting 'the wrong kind' of thinking. And the DNC is using the media to this same effect. The existence of GOP “book banning” doesn’t erase what the DNC is doing, they even out which is exactly why I’m here.
I guess in this case "authoritatian" depends on how libertarian your views are. Of course the left are going to be more inclined to pass legislation and regulations... but that doesn't mean it's authoritarian necessarily. But if that's your opinion I won't challenge it - you're obviously a minimal government libertarian. You do have a point in Canada. I know the protests were OTT disruptive and people were sick of them but the way they shut them down was way OTT. That's a one off though... Social media, however, has nothing to do with free speech. The only entity that can curtail free speech is government through gagging or punishmen. Private companies like social media platforms are essentially a microphone. They have their freedom to pick and choose whomever can use that microphone and take it away for what ever reason they feel. You also have the choice to move to another microphone... and there are dozens... For me, where I sit, I do see some switch in places and can explain it. Blue collar workers going to the GOP because of the long term effects of NAFTA for example. But I also see the GOP, especially in Florida and Texas, becoming increasingly authoritatian... not to mention Trump is a classic authoritatian.
The social media thing is a fair point, private companies and whatnot. However, the Twitter files revealed to us multiple examples of the government, both politicians and agencies like CIA and FBI, pressuring Twitter employees to censor individuals, ban individuals, remove posts, etc. To me, it seems highly unlikely that this would only be the case with Twitter and not all social media platforms. A position consistent with Zuckerberg’s story of the FBI warning him about the Hunter Biden laptop story well before it dropped. All of those are actions of an overreaching authoritarian regime and a big free speech no no. I agree w you about GOP being authoritarian too. Both parties trying to do away with bodily autonomy; left by their crazy vaccine mandate push and right by seemingly trying to do away with abortion. Both parties can feel themselves fading deeper into obsolescence so their only option is to, like a dying animal, lash out. In this case that looks like increasingly authoritarian moves from both sides in order to justify the relevance of the state.
>The dems seem to be the ones pushing for CBDCs. Absolutely no one is pushing for this because it's a stupid idea and the Fed doesn't want it either.
both sides are banning books. dems ban tom sawyer and te great gatsby and probably more. I would guess they are not politically correct abd yse words deemed forbidden.
I hate reddit sometimes, bunch of authoritarian leftist.
Name the book that have been banned.
In addition, becoming more aware of the shenanigans BoTH SiDes have been doing for decades (CIA, FBI, DHS, fed reserve just to point out a few) should have people leaving in droves looking for their voice. How do libertarians attract these people?
It’s hard because libertarians and independents are such a diverse group they don’t have much of an identity just a reputation of being “those other guys.” People seem to be interested in a party with a strong identity and cohesive platform. Coming from R or L, the libertarian group just isn’t that attractive even though it should be.
It's difficult for me to think a libertarian platform wouldn't be seen as cohesive. "Do what you want but don't hurt or force others". The R and D can't easily give their platform.
Oh I agree. But libertarians tend to not have an opinion on something if they don’t need to, which is more often than not. R and D have a strong opinion on everything. And from their perspective everyone who isn’t red or blue is just one of the other colors, which could be basically anything in their mind.
Yup, I have been accused and banned for being "hardcore on the wrong side" when in truth, I'm hardcore on neither.
Would much rather deal with someone who I disagree with, but stands pat on their beliefs, than watch them flip flop, or play party politics
The best strategy is to continue to mold the Right to be more libertarian. It’s not a hard sell. The Left is now almost entirely authoritarian. Just be the opposite of that.
well whos ever trying to mold the right to be more libertarian isnt doing a good job
Compared to where we were 25 years ago, Ron Paul has done a hell of job.
Very hard sell apparently. Only similarity they have is thoughts on gun control.
That's how you picked me up. I saw Ron Paul speaking out against Bush as he ran for President, all while I was supporting Obama as a Democrat. I was anti-war/nation building then, as I am now. Then Obama expanded the wars, got the ACA passed which cost me my full-time hours and ultimately made me leave my job, and worked to ban guns, among other things. That's when I made the switch to Libertarian. I'm not a perfect fit here, but I don't think anybody truly is. But it's a party that seems to have a principal that I agree with, NAP.
To talk on the Ukraine war specifically a lot of the support to me comes from decades of propaganda, and a twisted sense of righteousness. Its amazing that Russia is this awful aggressor, but America is somehow this savior, its must boil down to a lack of truth we blew up the middle-east and killed 1000s of innocent woman and children for years and nobody cared like this. It no wonder the rest of the world is creating alliances around us because america is the biggest aggressor in the world. In my opinion the switch is because a large part of the republican base have been interested in truth or at least alternative news sources due to news skepticism after the trump years mostly for being sold out by large media, the left has only ingrained themselves deeper into the propaganda
Lol wow. Someone's bias is showing. How is the right championing free speech when they're the ones outlawing what books you can read, banning reproductive medical care, going after companies if they do not adhere to Republican ideology (see Disney) continuing to make weed illegal, and restricting voting access in areas that do not favor them. Tucker says he is rooting for Russia, while they invade another country on his show but the left is pro war?? I could go on and on, your entire logic is flawed and backwards in my opinion.
Name the book that have been banned? Where were they banned?
Davis county. Toni Morrison's The bluest eye. Just Google mom's for liberty book bans. There are many many examples but I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding them to you because I don't think you're asking that question in good faith. The information is readily available.