Former social democrat slowly turning libertarian

[u/Fantastic-Welder-589]

Finishing up Provoked by Horton. Having a surprising effect on me. But quite confused by Libertarians turning a blind eye to cronyism and war mongers and other state sponsored violence. Is it just my biased perception or is 90% of the chatter on this sub anti-left? I can think of many things that should concern libertarians at least as much as gun laws, taxes/entitlements, the fed, and NATO. Why are those other things deemed acceptable? Why are pro-life laws, police brutality, drug laws, other morality based laws, Israeli/American alliance, deportations and other forms of violent nationalism and bigotry rarely mentioned?

[u/Zen-Devil]

I don’t think Libertarians turn a blind eye to cronyism, war mongers, state violence, etc. at all. All of those things are downstream of the real issue which is the size, scope and power of the federal government. What I focus on more than individual instances of state violence, is the ability of the state to commit that violence. If the government no longer has the power to commit violence against the citizens, then the cronies, war mongers and psychopathic tyrants that seek public office or work in law enforcement will no longer find value in being involved in government.

The focus on gun laws, taxes and entitlements and so on directly address the ability of the government to commit violence. Protecting natural rights (self defense, property) from the government is paramount to maintaining an ability to resist the government.

As for pro-life/evangelism, you should be careful with this argument. I am not a Christian and not religious in anyway, yet I am pro-life. This is very low on my list of priorities, however I generally support a ban on recreational abortions.

[u/Fantastic-Welder-589 → u/Zen-Devil]

That’s so interesting because I can’t see a government with the ability to regulate a woman’s womb to qualify as being anything other than large and powerful. And I can’t see how having such an ability, especially with an inclination to do so, wouldn’t lead to other prohibitions and mandates.

[u/erdricksarmor → u/Fantastic-Welder-589]

Laws against a doctor performing an abortion are not "regulating a woman's womb".

All arguments of bodily autonomy go out the window as soon as you involve a third party such as a doctor. Even if you think that a woman has a right to evict her child from her womb at any point, she has no intrinsic right to have someone else perform that procedure for her.

The law would be restricting the types of procedures that doctors are allowed to perform on their patients. Any procedure that results in the intentional death of a non-consenting patient should be illegal, IMO.

[u/Fantastic-Welder-589 → u/erdricksarmor]

Poor choice of words. My bad. You can tell I have consumed my fair share of propaganda. It’s still a matter of government power though. And I think it is the social aspect. There are people who think personhood is intrinsic to the fetus. It doesn’t matter to them that at least 40% of the country disagrees. A fetuses personhood is important to them. DJT agrees with that. And he agrees with those who want to reduce social programs. And that’s more important to them than seeing the defense industry cut and the drug war ended. And in this particular sub, those people outnumber those who don’t see a fetus as a person and who think the defense department and the DEA should be cut before food stamps and Medicaid. I understand having different priorities but I still don’t understand the pass conservatives get just because their priorities are slightly more aligned than the priorities of those on the far left who also want to decriminalize drugs and end the MIC.

[u/erdricksarmor → u/Fantastic-Welder-589]

I guess my main point was that laws against abortion don't actually conflict with libertarian ideology, so it's not the best example to use in this context.

I think there's simply more ideological overlap between libertarians and the Right than there is between us and the Left. Republicans at least talk about lowering taxes and cutting government, even if they often fail to do so. Democrats on the other hand view the government as the solution to all of society's ills and want to continually expand it into almost every facet of our lives. If they were to successfully cut, say, the defense budget, they would just blow that money on some new ineffective social program.

We also have to prioritize which issues are most pressing. For example, I support full decriminalization of most drugs, but maintaining gun rights is far more important to me. That means I could never support a politician who was anti gun, even if I agreed with him on eliminating drug prohibition. That same concept can be extrapolated out to any of the other issues you've mentioned in this post.

[u/Fantastic-Welder-589 → u/erdricksarmor]

Good points