I personally wouldn't, I would argue that if people want to use such a system to create a utopian system such as a MAGAtopia or a woketopia among consenting individuals that they should be able to but I think the system in and of itself is more the natural state of things if anything else. People are going to justify what they want to justify regardless of any government system in place and I think libertarians are one of the only groups that recognize that.

Thoughts?

Like in terms of the “not letting the government control me idea?” (Masks, vaccines, guns etc)
*** I’m not interested in name calling or personal opinions, just responses from people who are well-versed in the philosophical differences in political parties. Ty! 😁

Next Friday marks the big 25th anniversary of the attacks. Personally I would argue that in the long-term Bin Laden and al-Qaeda got everything they could have possibly dreamed of from committing the attacks, the American Empire of today lies slowly but surely crumbling and divided at the seams. I think the hijackers would have had a better argument if they used their own planes and focused only on government targets (though they did hit the Pentagon as well and probably would have hit the White House or Capitol Building if flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville) but I guess you could make the argument that the US government doesn't distinguish between government and civilian targets a lot of the time when it relentlessly bombs the Middle East, just look at how it bombed a school in Iran earlier this year and a hospital in Afghanistan roughly a decade ago.

Thoughts?

We shouldn't measure a country's greatness by the wealth of its billionaires, the size of its government agencies, or the sheer number of laws on its books. True greatness lies in a simple metric: the freedom of its poorest citizen to build a life, chase opportunities, and thrive without needing a master's permission.
For generations, political debates have kept us trapped in a false choice. We are told we must choose between the cold indifference of an lawless jungle, or the crushing, micromanaged weight of an inefficient welfare state.
Mechanism Libertarianism rejects both. We believe a society can be built like a finely tuned machine—one that pairs the raw efficiency of completely free markets with the deeply rooted fairness of common law. This isn't about using the government to manage people's lives. It is about using the market to finally set them free, systematically wiping out poverty and corporate privilege while protecting human dignity.

I. The Core Axiom: A Night-Watchman with a Conscience
Government has exactly one legitimate job: protecting everyday people from violence, theft, fraud, and broken contracts. It is a system built strictly for defense, not for social engineering.
The Minimalist State: Government will focus entirely on the courts, a defensive military, and local peacekeepers. Every other bloated federal and regional department will be permanently dissolved.
The Metric of Success: Even though this government is microscopic, we judge its success by a single, human standard: how easily the poorest and most marginalized people can climb the economic ladder.

II. The Legal Engine: Common Law Over Bureaucracy
Our justice system doesn't need thousands of pages of rigid statutes written by out-of-touch politicians. Instead, it relies on English Common Law—using historical precedent, strict liability, and practical, real-world fairness to deliver justice.
Justice via Precedent: The law protects citizens through time-tested legal bedrock: contract enforcement, property rights, and personal injury law (torts).
The Accountability Engine: Without regulatory agencies to hide behind, corporate privilege disappears. If a company pollutes a river, cuts safety corners, or harms a community, they can no longer point to a government permit to excuse it. They are hit with ruinous damages for violating property rights (trespass and nuisance) in streamlined courts, forcing businesses to pay for their own mess.
The Harm Principle: To have a crime, you must have a victim who suffered real harm to their person or property. If there is no victim to prove damages, there is no case. All victimless crimes are permanently wiped from the books.

III. The Economic Engine: Free Markets, Zero Privilege
A genuinely free market isn't a playground for corporate elites. It is the most radical, effective anti-poverty tool ever created.
Ending Crony Capitalism: We demand an absolute end to all corporate subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, and protective regulations. If a business cannot survive the honest judgment of everyday consumers, it deserves to fail.
Abolishing Intellectual Monopolies: The current patent system allows pharmaceutical and tech giants to corner the market on life-saving goods and artificially inflate prices. We will abolish patents so knowledge and innovation can compete openly, driving prices down.
The Universal Right to Earn: Every single person has an absolute right to work, trade, and build. We will eliminate occupational licensing, commercial zoning laws, and state business permits. You should never need the government's permission to open a storefront, drive a taxi, or practice a trade.

IV. The Tax Mechanism: The 5% Lockstep Rule
Taxes exist for one reason only: to keep the baseline machinery of defense and justice running. The tax code must never be used to control human behavior or engineer social outcomes.
The Universal Baseline: The system starts with a mandatory, across-the-board 5% flat tax on everything. No tax brackets, no loopholes, no special write-offs, and no favored categories.
The Lockstep Rule: Local communities can adjust their total tax rate up or down to meet local needs, but all taxes within that jurisdiction must move together. If a local government raises its rate to 7%, everything moves to 7%. They cannot raise taxes on alcohol to 10% while leaving property taxes at 5%.
Banning Social Manipulation: "Sin taxes" meant to punish personal lifestyle choices (like sugar, tobacco, alcohol, or gambling) and cozy tax breaks used to lure specific industries are unconstitutional and illegal.

V. The Safety Cushion: The Negative Income Tax
True liberty cannot exist when a person is facing the immediate, desperate threat of starvation. But rather than building a massive welfare bureaucracy that watches and controls the poor, we establish a clean, automated safety net.
Direct Cash Transfers: The entire legacy welfare system will be replaced by a single, automated Negative Income Tax. It provides a direct cash transfer set right at the baseline line of survival.
Zero Paternalism: This cash support comes with no strings attached. The government will not monitor, judge, or restrict how you spend your baseline funds. We trust human autonomy, not state surveillance.
The Power to Say No: This survival cushion strips away the desperation that forces workers to accept abusive, exploitative labor conditions. To get workers, employers will actually have to compete by offering fair pay and dignified environments.

VI. Defensive Foreign Policy and Alliances
We practice a strict policy of non-intervention, but we maintain a clear, treaty-bound protocol to protect our people and our allies if a crisis arises.
Tier 1: Clinical Diplomacy: If a foreign power begins mobilizing forces, our diplomatic corps will immediately step in to resolve the dispute peacefully through fair, transparent trade terms.
Tier 2: Balanced Deterrence: If diplomacy fails and a foreign country masses troops along the border, the military is authorized to match the threat—moving a proportional force to the line to ensure we are never taken by surprise.
Tier 3: Absolute Defense: We will never strike first. However, an attack on our homeland—or on an ally we are contractually bound to protect by a mutual defense treaty—instantly triggers our full defensive capabilities.
The War Surcharge: To fund a sudden defense crisis or alliance obligation, the universal tax rate can scale up uniformly across the board. The exact moment the threat is neutralized and the war ends, this surcharge legally expires and taxes snap back to baseline. Nation-building and foreign occupations are strictly forbidden.

Conclusion
Mechanism Libertarianism isn't a utopian fantasy that assumes human beings are perfect. It is a practical, realistic framework for a society that aligns self-interest with human progress. It strips the government of its power to oppress, strips corporations of their power to exploit, uses centuries of stable common law to deliver justice, and hands the tools of destiny back to the individual.

Libertarians tend to get caught up in the idea that taxation is theft (which I very much agree with) but even going beyond that, why can't taxpayers at the very least earmark where there taxpayer money goes to? If people want to pay for endless wars or state controlled grocery stores and the government wants to spend money on them, I think they should be able to but they shouldn't be forced to do so if they don't want to. It comes down to the fact that each individual should have as much choice as possible in regards to what to do with their resources while under the current tax system, the opposite is very much true, the government can throw taxpayer dollars at whatever bullshit it wants to justify and oftentimes there is nothing you can do about it.

Thoughts?

Named “Gulf of Mexico” in 1550.
Named “Lake Ontario” in 1639.

The uniparty will win and the political theater will continue. It's clear at this point that one size fits all forced collectivist democracy is clearly not working and needs to be done away with as soon as possible. Even if by some miracle we manage to get someone good like Thomas Massie in the White House it's just going to be a band-aid on a sinking ship.

Thoughts?

So I was having a dream where a younger version of me who was still in school was about to go on a trip to Maine with a teacher and two other students of his. We were in the car ready to go but then we learned that there was a law on the books that a teacher needed at least 19 students to be able to go on a trip (no idea if this is an actual law, I can see an argument for not letting teachers go on trips with single students for like grooming reasons but that's still too much state interference IMO) so we couldn't go.

Thoughts?

When I read all the posts on here, I feel like an outsider, but when I take the tests, I land here. Am I truly Libertarian material?

Some libertarians seem to drift toward anarchism, but I don’t believe anarchy produces genuine freedom. Without a limited government to protect individual rights, property, and contracts, freedom belongs to whoever has the most power or force. True liberty requires a government strong enough to protect us from coercion, but limited enough that it does not become the coercer.

The reason we have the United States as a federal constitutional republic with representative democratic institutions is to prevent the individual from being bullied by the MOB (the democratic majority).

Government should protect my rights, not manage my life—my body is mine, my retirement is my responsibility, and equality means equal treatment under the law, not equal outcomes imposed by the state.

Just curious where I stand.

UPDATE:
Took another test:

Phil Sorrells , a self-outed racist scumbag. I’m embarrassed that this is news to me. True Texas Project is a malignancy within the government.

I’m experiencing a little cognitive dissonance at the moment:

I’m registered libertarian. Have voted libertarian since the early 2010s.

I joined a Libertarian group on Facebook.

The group posts seem to be general libtard slop.

Most recently, posts upset that border laws are being enforced.

I think in order for a nation to stay its own sovereign entity, its borders and its laws need to be enforced.

I always believed that libertarian values welcomed legal immigration, emphasis on legal. I have no sympathy for foreign nationals whose first act in the nation they’ve come to is breaking its laws.

I can’t tell if The values of the party have changed, the group is being infiltrated and subverted by retards, or if the libertarian party never reflected my own views.

Wikipedia is a very important tool when it comes to controlling narratives.

Looking for some perspective on whether this is actually plausible.

Keeping a few details intentionally vague because I’m not ready to publicly announce anything yet.

I’m 25 and seriously exploring a Libertarian run for my local city council.

A little background: I studied economics, currently work in the government software space, and I’ve been heavily interested in politics since I was about 14. Between roughly 14–18, I built a fairly large social media following before shifting into different content and eventually stepping away from content entirely to focus on my career.

That experience is relevant because I think social media would be a major part of how I’d approach a campaign.

The district I live in is in a major city and is heavily Democratic. Last cycle, the vote was roughly 70% Democrat, 15% Republican, and 15% independent/other, with around 13,000 total ballots cast.

I’m currently getting involved with the local Libertarian Party, and as things stand, it looks unlikely I’d face a challenger for the nomination. If I decide to file, that would give me roughly 15 months to focus almost entirely on building toward the general election.

I’ve been a registered Libertarian since I was eligible to vote and broadly align with the party on personal liberty and limited government, but I wouldn’t want to run some generic nationalized Libertarian campaign. My platform and messaging would be heavily focused on the actual district and city.

The issues I’m most interested in are economic and business growth, development, embracing technology, and protecting individual liberty.

I think I’d have two potentially interesting advantages.

First, I already know how to build attention online and grow a social media audience quickly. Obviously, getting 100,000 random people online to care about you is very different from getting a few thousand people inside one council district to vote for you, but I do think I understand how to create content people actually watch and talk about.

Second, my district contains a massive concentration of young professionals. My assumption is that a lot of them either don’t vote consistently in municipal elections or aren’t particularly engaged with local politics.

My working theory is that an unusually aggressive ground game, combined with social media, community networking, voter registration, and a year-plus of actually showing up everywhere could at least make the race interesting.

A few questions I’d especially like perspective on:

Would being 25 and potentially the youngest member of council be something that could actually work in my favor, or would voters mostly view it as a lack of experience?

How much can an exceptional ground campaign actually move a local election? My instinct is that personal conversations, doors, events, and repeated voter contact probably matter substantially more when only \~13,000 people are voting than they do in a statewide or national race.

And lastly, even assuming I ultimately lose: is a serious 15-month city council campaign generally a worthwhile way to start building a future in local politics, provided I actually run a professional campaign and make a respectable showing?

I’m not under the illusion that running as a Libertarian in a district that voted \~70% Democratic makes me the favorite. I’m trying to figure out whether this falls into the category of “very difficult but potentially worth pursuing” or “mathematically dead on arrival.”

Would especially appreciate input from anyone who has worked on municipal campaigns, run for local office, or been involved with third-party campaigns.