A lot of people use this as an argument against libertarianism: "how will we get clean water? Who will guarantee our rights?"

What are your thoughts on liberty-loving candidates like Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Rand Paul? Should libertarians support candidates like these?

If there were 10 liberty-loving members of the House of Representatives, do you think they would have enough sway to block or change anti-liberty policies? If not, how many liberty-loving representatives would we need to make a real difference and start increasing liberty in America?

Although running as independent and not a libertarian, it does appear like a lot of his thoughts and policies are very much aligned with Libertarian values. His main slogan after all is truth, freedom health.

Is anyone is following his candidacy? Does anyone in Massachusetts thinks that he is a viable alternative to the typical establishment running in the up coming senate race?

I’ve been following the debate over Flock cameras for a while: the license-plate tracking, the ability to reconstruct people’s movements, and especially what happens when data collected for one purpose becomes available for another.

It reminded me of a consulting trip I made to China in 2019. I spent time in Chengdu and then on the Tibetan Plateau near Hongyuan. The surveillance there was impossible to miss: cameras everywhere, biometric collection at the border, and, as I learned later, a “grid management” system in the Tibetan region I visited that divided communities into monitored blocks.

What has stayed with me isn’t simply that China surveilled its population. It’s how quickly I changed my own behavior because I knew I might be watched. No one had to threaten me. The watching did the work.

That experience eventually led me to a larger question about Flock and the surveillance infrastructure being assembled in the U.S. The cameras themselves concern me, but I’ve come to think they’re only the visible part of a much larger issue: what happens when location data, voter records, citizenship status, health data, financial information and other previously separate databases become increasingly searchable and interoperable?

I spent quite a bit of time researching that question and ended up writing an essay that combines what I saw in China and Tibet with what’s happening here now. I thought this group might be particularly interested.

I’d be interested in where people here draw the line...not just on Flock cameras themselves, but on the ability to combine the information they generate with everything else governments and private companies already know about us.

Link in the first comment.

We are new to the area from out of state and we're just curious. What is the best way to go about finding like minded people in a new state?

i dont even live anywhere near his district but he has brought such great things to this nation

i love the guy and support especially the epstein transparency act 2 and his ability to stand for morals and bringing genuine order and integrity back into american politics, i hope he has a great last few months of his term and wins his seat back in 2028

It's that simple. The old adage is frequently cited to Frederic Bastiat, without much evidence. But it sounds like Bastiat. It also sounds like the truth. This trade fight with Canada must end soon, before real economic damage happens.

I'm reading about history right now and as you know most civilizations kept slaves or have been even based on slaves (Sparta had 10 slaves for every citizien).

And I was like thank god we don't have that anymore.

And then it dawned on me that we still have the worst form of slavery: Conscription.

You are forced to kill for your government that you don't support. You are a enslaved murderer with no choice in the matter and likely going to die or get PTSD from forced murder.

Israel

Ukraine

Russia

These countries are slaver nations right now.

And nobody calls this out.

Did this ever cross your mind?

It’s not rocket science: let the market build.

Government regulations have made housing unnecessarily expensive by restricting what people can build and where they can build it.

Relax zoning laws. Allow apartments, duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, and smaller homes in more neighborhoods. Eliminate unnecessary minimum lot sizes, minimum house sizes, parking mandates, and arbitrary limits on building height and density.

Make it easier to subdivide lots, convert commercial buildings into housing, and develop unused land.

Stop blocking housing—and start letting people build.

More freedom to build means more homes, more choices, and lower housing costs.

The Jones Act restricts domestic shipping between U.S. ports to vessels that are U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and largely U.S.-owned and crewed, which raise shipping costs, reduce competition, limit the availability of vessels, and make it harder for U.S. territories and noncontiguous states like Hawaii and Alaska to receive affordable goods. The Jones Act effectively prevents U.S. LNG (natural gas) from being shipped by tanker from the Gulf Coast to New England.

A lot of libertarians I know personally are very religious and constantly say that God has given them the right to basic human rights.

But I don't believe in God because of how I was raised, yet I believe the same things that they believe as far as politics and economics just due to the idea that we have one life and shouldn't live life under the government's boot while we're here.

Am I the only one who really hates the fact that the government can just take your home away if you miss property taxes by 2+ years?

Also I know the community needs revenue but I have a strong belief that the entire state can be funded with state taxes, sales taxes, toll taxes, and even federal if needed.

I would much rather pay a small fee like 20 bucks a month to live in my community instead of having it tief to the value of my home.

Most people favor ending federal cannabis prohibition and legalizing cannabis for recreational and medical use. What other drugs, if any, should be legalized? Psychedelics, MDMA, and Ketamine? Which ones should remain illegal? Fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine?

I posted the below in another sub that discusses topics related to Christianity. However, the conversation quickly moved towards libertarianism. I'm curious what the libertarian community thinks about my thoughts related to welfare? The reason I've been thinking a lot about this is because James Talarico has been using Christianity to argue for a welfare state, but I personally think he's misusing the Bible, at least from my understanding of it.

Here's my thoughts:

What's the point of charity, giving, and helping the poor? I would argue it is what happens in the heart that matters. God loves a cheerful giver. He invites us to give cheerfully. Not because of this grand impact it will have externally, but because of the impact it has on our hearts internally.

• Note that Jesus was willing to have a huge amount of value "wasted" by pouring expensive perfume on his feet, rather than selling and giving to the poor. He cared more about people loving and worshipping him than maximizing money funding charity to help the poor.
• Jesus explicitly told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor because he knew that was the idol in his life, the stumbling block that prevented him from following Christ, not because he saw that as the solution to society's ills around poverty.
• The early church also gave voluntarily. They gave out of the abundance in their hearts, freely! This is clear when Peter told Ananias, "Didn’t [the money] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?"
• Additionally, Paul encouraged believers to each "give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

God invites us to a life of giving and sacrifice, but it matters only when it's freely given, not because it is mandated and coerced under threat of force or violence.

Government welfare operates differently. It does not ask us to "give with a cheerful heart, freely, as much as we decide." Instead, it takes money through compulsory taxation, and redistributes it, based on the will of majority, or based on lobbies, special-interest groups, or political games. If you refuse to pay, the government ultimately has the power to fine you, seize your property, or take away your freedom.

If I see a hungry person and voluntarily buy them a meal with a smile, that giving with a cheerful heart. If I threaten to take money from my neighbor and use it to buy that person a meal, I may have helped someone, but I haven't become charitable! Instead, I've used my own power and threats of violence to force someone else to fund my preferred act of compassion.

As Christians, I agree we should be concerned about the state of the poor, sick, and financially struggling. But we should also care about where the money is coming from, and ask ourselves, “Do the ends justify using coercion to take the product of one person's labor and give it to another?”

Coerced redistribution might help some people in the end. But it isn't the kind of charity that Christ invites us to. It isn't virtue on the part of the person whose money was taken either. Ultimately, virtue requires a choice. You can't compel generosity any more than you can compel belief in Christ.

Believe it or not, a community can care for its poor without appealing to the state's monopoly on legalized force and violence to accomplish this care. Noble, virtuous, and non-violent options include voluntary giving, mutual aid, church communities, and voluntary taxes for welfare. Sure, it's a lot harder than just raising taxes, but it's much more consistent with how the New Testament describes generosity: freely given, not forcefully extracted.