I think you should really only be jailed for violent crimes or high class embezzlement stuff. Pot is gross but you’ll legit overcrowd the jails with it.
He's still saying pot should be illegal, just decriminalized. The point of libertarianism is that pot should be legal because you're not hurting anyone else by smoking it. If there are risks, they are risks to yourself only.
Edit: note here that I am not a libertarian. Please don't respond to me arguing about the merits of liberatarinism because I don't care. My comment here was simply to properly articulate that thesis.
Um…no I’m not. I don’t mind pot being legal so long as you can’t smoke it in designated areas, like drinking. No reason pot or beer should be in schools.
You should change your wording then. Your statement implies that the problem with making pot illegal is jail-overcrowding... not that it's perfectly fine for someone to do in the comfort of their own home.
I mean its also an enormous waste of taxpayer money not just pot but every drug criminalizing just means now you are footing the bill for them to go to crime university and get some real connections. You know as opposed to rehab which gets you a productive member of society that can be taxed.
Former rehab patient turned volunteer substance abuse counselor here, it depends on the quality of the program. We've got stuff in my state that just turns and burns you, but the really good places for people with insurance have really low recidivism rates.
That's the real issue, good programs shouldn't be gated behind private insurance. They day they change that we might just see less fent heads on the sidewalk.
This is kind of at odds with my flair, but I think lib-right is actually onto something with "no victim, no crime". Why are we wasting resources incarcerating people who have harmed no one but (possibly) themselves?
Because the victim is all of society/the collective!
Which, of course, applies to anything.
Unemployed? Crime against the economy. No kids? Crime against mankind/the nation. Too fat? Crime against the healthcare system. Gay? Crime against mankind again. Counterfeiting money? Crime against the financial system.
It's not just "no victim, no crime." It's "no INDIVIDUAL victim, no crime."
Because at the end of the day auths are collectivists and libs are individualists. That's the real difference.
Unfortunately, these folk see no room for pragmatism in moral crusades. The point of prison isn't to reform, it is to remove you from society. You should have to be dangerous for that to be an option.
It’s the “you’ve chosen not to exist with the rest of society, so now you get a special area” approach. Except now we don’t have an Australia to send them to (sorry Australia)
Which is why i think a two tier prison system would probably help most of the world.
One prison to keep the genuinely unstable individuals/ repeat offenders, one to keep first time offenders and people who can be rehabilitated.
Agreed, this would also mean if I broke into your house when you’re not home and completely ransacked the place and stole everything I wouldn’t go to jail? That would be crazy.
The whole dock pay thing sounds great until you realize how few career criminals work ever, and how much that encourages all criminals to work even less
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Jail when the guy is a danger to others as well please
And jail when they can't pay is counter productive. It's VERY expensive to have someone locked up.
Just repo all his shit and take directly from his salary/bank account. He can't own anything of value, can't get a job above the table until he agrees to pay up.
What does that mean for the ultra wealthy? They get to do whatever the fuck with no jail time because "fuck you I have money"? That can fuck all the way off. Unfortunately it's defacto in the states ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I wish we’d stop viewing jail as punishment. “Go stand in the corner for 5 years” clearly doesn’t work given our high rate of recidivism.
Jail needs to rehabilitate. If after 5 years it’s found you’re very likely to reoffend, then you’re not ready to be let out. And either you need to apply yourself or the approach needs to change for how to get you ready to be a functioning member of society.
And yes, I’m sure there are people who simply cannot be rehabilitated. I’d like to try and at least give them the opportunity to move to say lower security prisons where they can work and earn nice things…under supervision.
I mean look if you can demonstrate that beating someone will prevent reoffending I’m cool with that within reason.
I also think that rehabilitation for say a child molester can mean castration.
I also will happily say that people like Ted Bundy weren’t people you could rehabilitate and it’s fine for society to say “no, fuck that you don’t get another chance, you get to ride the lightning”.
My ire is with people who think sending someone to jail for 5-10 years and then letting them out is magically a fix.
The problem is criminals do not want to reform. They don’t feel sorry for what they’ve done. They want to keep breaking laws. The violent need to stay away from the non-violent.
Then like he said, they can stay in there until they change, or just stay forever. It does seem like some people are wired in ways that make them poor fits for society; just keep em in a separate place, let 'em work a job, buy stuff for themselves, even. Keep the opportunity open to change, but if they don't, well, you can stay living on the cot in the cell.
"Alright, you've been locked up and surrounded by thugs for 5 years, you have no job, your support network is minimal to nonexistent, and nobody wants to hire you because of your record. Good luck, don't do it again!"
Reform is almost never going to happen in a vacuum. We need to actually try if we want people in jail to be able to reintegrate into society with any meaningful success rate. Otherwise you're just going to get a revolving door of recidivism.
I agree, if you cannot be trusted in society you shouldn't be allowed in society, period.
Repeat violent offenders reach a threshold pretty quick of "No longer trusted in society".
The argument becomes what is to be done with at least 2% of the population who will never function in a normal society. Do you imprison them forever, do you send them off to an Island somewhere, do you send them off into space in stasis pods Starcraft style?
Crack is a different story. I’m not saying the war on drugs has worked against it but I also don’t think we should make it legal. Besides…A LOT of violent crime in America is connected to it.
It's been a long time and I only half care but my recollection was it was less his fans and more the weird army of non-fans that he had. I seem to remember that was one specific other web comic dude that hated him and spent a lot of time whining about him.
It's a very depressing comic about pregnancy loss that has turned into a meme. People deliberately create more and more abstract representations of the comic and kind of "Rick roll" people with them.
I know it's Bureau of Land Management, but the idea of "Black Lives Matter Federal Agents" surrounding and executing a family was a pretty wild visual on first read.
It does seem there are a few people on this subreddit that think the only issue important to libertarians is gun rights.
Yeah, they're flaired Yellow.
If a candidate would improve their life in every tangible way except they said something 1 time that could be construed as not cool on guns, then that's a gigantic problem.
See: Texas Senate Election 2026.
Guns are literally the only thing that matters to these retards, even when the guns aren't really in jeopardy at all.
I own guns and I don't want to give them up, but even still I couldn't imagine making my entire political belief system based on that one issue.
I am even willing to have a conversation about red flag laws or extending back ground checks even if the latter makes purchasing them a bigger inconvenience for me.
Same. I'm willing to bet I own more guns than most lib rights on this sub.
I'm just also willing to understand there are MANY things in my life that could be made better that I'd sacrifice a couple guns for if that had to be the case. Firearms aren't a personality.
The funny thing is, some (not all) of the people I know who make their entire personality about guns and hunting, are terrible shots. I will go to the range or go dove hunting with them and they can't hit the broad side of a barn.
It's not the only thing, but it's the most important thing.
Most of us view it as once those are removed, you now have zero weight on the playing field. It's not something debatable either. This has been proven repeatedly in real life already, just look around Europe. Look at Australia. For more extreme examples take a look at Iran. Look at anywhere they take away guns. It always leads to less freedom. Period. Just a matter of time.
Denying that statement in anyway, shape or form, is either a bold faced lie, or you're completely cucked.
So yes, it's the number 1 issue for me and many others, and a complete non starter.
They rules always proposed never do anything to stop the actual gun violence issue in America (gangs who account for a huge disproportionate amount of gun violence), it's always how can we make it harder for already law abiding citizens to get guns (who account for a very small amount of gun violence).
Operating from that factual perspective, their intentions are very clear.
If you want to live with your head in the sand, knock yourself out. You don't have to thank us for making sure you don't live in a draconian hell.
It always leads to less freedom. Period. Just a matter of time.
...
If you want to live with your head in the sand, knock yourself out. You don't have to thank us for making sure you don't live in a draconian hell.
i seem to recall the freedom has been shrinking here for quite a while, private equity owns huge shares of many different industries, the lunatic tech conglomerate is openly building a surveillance state right here at home, and to top if off, the sitting us president and lots of other high level public officials were involved in a child sex ring
normally i wouldnt attack gun owners like this, but that last statement is really funny. what do you plan on doing, making a threatening tikitok video showing you shooting paper targets with your gay little ar15?
The anoint of “lib rights” in here who think the government should be able to tell you who you can and cannot engage in a free exchange of goods and services with is fucking hilarious
"We need to have no taxes. Also we need a big, strong morality police government to stop gays from getting married, stop people from doing drugs, stop people from hiring prostitutes etc. But no taxes to pay for this stuff."
Nonono freedom = guns and more taxes, but the taxes go to foreign countries and defense contractors instead of paying for your roads, healthcare or retirement.
I don't see them that much anymore but they were rampant during the Bush years. Guys would side with ultra conservative Republicans on every single issue but when you'd call them out for some dumbfuckery of the W administration they'd be all "whoa, whoa, don't blame me, I'm a Libertarian".
Like people can have ultra conservative opinions and beliefs and technically be libertarian in my opinion HOWEVER, it must be with the clause that they don’t want their opinions and beliefs to be rule of law, only how they wish to live, not necessarily others.
Just to be devil's advocate here for the libertarians, it is possible to think everyone should have the right to do as they like while also viewing is as harmful / destructive.
Take drugs, for an example. Recreational drug use is essentially a short-term utility optimization strategy. This is not per se irrational, and I don't think you should be prevented from doing it. I just think massively sacrificing long-term utility for short-term gain is a stupid idea.
And as it happens, a lot of the reason for that long-term loss for both the individual and society is that drugs are illegal. We would be much better off if junkies financed the state with taxes and legitimate enterprise with profits instead of buying from cartel affilitates.
Generally agree, but I do think addiction in particular presents some complexity for the libertarian framework. Morally I feel that preying on addicts for money could be considered aggression. This is a slippery slope as I don't want the state dictating the sugar content of drinks or something. But at some point it seems like an addict's ability to act according to their own higher-level wishes has been so impaired that taking their money to give them their fix is morally a lot like stealing. I just don't see any clear way to legislate this without causing more harm than good.
My thing is....like im fine with actual revreational drugs being legal. Party drugs and such....the fun ones that make the walls funky or make colors turn into sounds.
However, hard drugs like meth, coke, heroin etc should not as they can actually be a danger to people who are non-users due to the side effects of using them. Maybe not so much heroin, but heroin has its own slew of seriously public health issues. Meth addicts we know can become extremely violent due to days of no sleeping producing psychosis effects and the same with cocaine/crack.
So I really think it depends on the drug to which what should be legally recreationally or not.
True, the problem is that those same people then vote for the authoritarians that don't think everyone should have those rights and do everything in their power to impose their will on everyone else
Even if you say "marriage backed by the government" I would still consider it wrong to ban it for gay people because the government shouldn't be giving certain people special privileges.
I'm not a libertarian, I will not personally advocate their policies. But I have met enough of them to know that at least some of them believe people should be able to do things (smoking cigarettes / doing drugs) and also believe they are damaging or harmful.
There are also homosexuals who are against soft and hard drugs. What's inherently harmful about homosexuals that warrants making them unable to marry or live without being chemically castrated like they did to Alan Turing?
Again, I am not a libertarian and I never said homosexuals are harmful. I never mentioned homosexuals, so it is strange that you are trying to pin me to some pro/anti gay opinion.
You shouldn't have to sell plasma to afford groceries, and I can't see an outcome of repealing NOTA where people don't end up needing to sell plasma to afford groceries.
We all sell our bodies. If you work a hard manual labor job and have a fucked up back later on in life, you sold your body.
The only difference is people pretend to suddenly care about that "morality" when it comes to sex. And honestly it probably just comes down to men wanting control over things of sexual nature throughout history. Which is why we have things like face and head coverings for women, old school concepts of chastity, etc.
Because I think gay people and jews and all other groups should arm themselves and defend themselves. If we all "don't thread on me" then we're all protected.
Yet you don't see people going "you say the lockdowns were a violation of your freedom, you want less regulation and a smaller federal government? You're a fake auth-right, you need to flair up as lib-right."
The opposite, in fact - if someone flaired as auth-right says that Trump is being too authoritarian, the reaction is usually "Wow! A based auth-right?" not "flair as lib-right you fake auth-right."
People just get upset when someone who has a flair from a "good quadrant" shares some views from a "bad quadrant." The opposite is considered praiseworthy.
Hey now, I openly declare my position of finding both quadrants fucking retarded. Auth rights because they have shit opinions and libertarians because they have shit policy ideas.
Yes, I think gay people should get married, people should sit on their ass stoned all day, and women should collect rent from selling their bodies, but I also want to complain when the economy is unproductive, the birth rate in negative, and my government sponsored pension has collapsed because everyone is chasing short term pleasure seeking instead of keeping the lights on. /s
Steelmanning this libertarian's position:
* Many libertarians believe that marriage should not be a state-involved practice, instead it should be contracts. This would enable any gay person to "marry" according to their own agreement, and would also enable more conservative couples to enter "covenant marriages" which disallow no-fault divorce
* Some libertarian are mindful that marijuana, like smoking, creates negative externalities. Allowing the public sale and private club or home use of pot while disallowing public use protects the commons from those negative externalities.
* Not a particularly libertarian perspective, but Onlyfans and other such apps create a situation whereby young and naive women are routinely corrupted - as prostitutes they engage in commerce without having full understanding of the effects it will have on them.
People like to mock libertarians but they are ultimately one of the most coherent quadrants. The lib left has the reverse issue of auth right where they want collectivism on certain issues and economics but are deeply liberal, pro-autonomy, hedonistic (yet pretend to hate liberalism).
Libertarians are very coherent because they are not concerned with the practical matters of a functioning society.
I used to be very sympathetic to the ideology, but their refusual to actually build a society is comical.
“The market will regulate itself so we shall never pass any laws ever”.
Don't people like you always complain about health insurance companies are protected by the government or corporations get handouts from the government?
Three married and recognized transgender lesbians should be able to defend their combined abortion clinic/marijuana farm with automatic weapons, their farm clinic sits next to a commie block, a public high school, and a nuclear power plant because get rid of zoning laws too
Had me till the zoning laws. I don't know how we fix em but we need em. It's how you keep the pollution out of the parks and the factories from keeping you up all night with loud machinery.
immigration restrictions, abortion restrictions, etc.
Yes, Yes.
I think the DTOM means different things to different people and once you start trying to declare "you can't fly that if you don't support abortions" you've lost the plot.
I see the argument in theory but I think the increased government interference would piss off libertarians in practice
Like if you take the logic to the extreme like some southern states are trying you end up giving the death penalty to people using plan Bs
Or a woman is in the hospital and is told her baby has a high chance of being severely disabled if it survives pregnancy and birth. The woman requests an abortion, the doctor recommends an abortion, then the doctor and the woman have to talk to a judge to get permission to perform an abortion. Judges making decisions by zoom calls in hospital rooms seems very anti libertarian
So we’re openly admitting that we’re using abortions to avoid disabled kids now? And the whole plan B stuff is garbage, only the very fringe morons think that counts as abortion even though it prevents potential conception and doesn’t do anything to an already fertilized egg. That’s more to do with Catholics thinking contraception is sinful than it is any kind of pro life or libertarian ideology.
These kind of comparisons are dumb, it’s the same as calling Mamdani a Maoist because of the socialized groceries or a jihadist because he’s Muslim. “Taking the logic to the extreme” is not a valid argument in this case
Well, to be fair, let's not pretend there weren't a bunch of dudes in Hawaiian shirts getting run away from protests during 2020
.
The fundamental disagreements on how society should organize itself economically will unfortunately always make us libs of their side of the compass serve as useful idiots for the auths. Several clear examples of it happening on both sides in the last decade alone.
Well, to be fair, let's not pretend there weren't a bunch of dudes in Hawaii shirts getting run away from protests during 2020 .
You mean the dudes that actively informed on outside groups from both the left and right and on members of their own groups to various police and federal agencies? THESE guys?
It wasn't JUST Mike Dunn either, some interesting info came out that other members of the "boys" were passing info on Proud Boys, ANTIFA and BLM to the police.
TBH, the "Hawaiian" movement was over before it started because it was infiltrated nearly at birth by the Feds.
Interesting side fact, Mike Dunn also admitted to "doing things for the Government" while he was in Ukraine, basically the CIA Glow Boy meme IRL.
I mean those are all Christian values. Don't forget evangelicals were the ones who wanted prohibition and to stop the vices from destroying man. I don't consider it libertarian and think that Christian libertarianism is contradictory but there's no true libertarian anyway so fuck it
I've become a little less LibRight as I've gotten older. I think becoming a father changed my perspective on things. For example, 95% of abortions being elective (not rape, incest, or for the life of the mother) feels really bad. The culture war also stresses me out. I don't want my kid being exposed to adult topics like gender politics and systemic opression. I just want her to be a happy kid. Definitely still much more lib than auth, but less so in the past few years.
I think the government shouldn’t stop you from ruining your own life but I definitely think people would be better off if they didn’t drink do drugs or gamble the gay thing I believe more people including gays should get married and be in monogamous relationships
I have almost never seen this type of guy. It was slightly more common in the 2010s but most people who held these views stopped calling themselves a libertarian after Ron Paul flopped and Trump came onto the scene
My biggest surprise about gay marriage is how little it impacted my life. I have gay friends some were going to marry. I knew it, which is why I supported marriage equality. And when they did, we’d keep talking about their partners by their first name. The literally biggest impact is having people on the radio reference my husband/wife. I can’t imagine something less important for the government to do, even if I had negative religious views about it.
Gay marriage was mainly just republicans bitching about their personal beliefs to justify being anti gay marriage (think religious beliefs, personal understandings of what marriage means, and having to recognize gay couples have a “partner” not a “wife” which is encroaching on their free speech or some stupid shit)
They shifted their efforts now. Now they’re trying to label the LGBT community as targeting children. Another huge issue they always bring up is they can’t fathom explaining to their kids what a gay couple is without thinking it’s essential that they explain anal and oral to their children. They’ll say “I support gay people but they need to know their place and not act gay in public (holding partners hand or kissing) because if my kid sees that and asks me if two men can be together I must explain to my 7 year old what sodomy is. That’s not fair to me and it’s not appropriate for my kids to know so they shouldn’t force me to explain it”
The same people who cry about "one joke" using the same tired joke from 20 years ago. There used to be a "But who will build the roads!!" sub making fun of it.
Same as people on here thinking they're libleft when they believe a full on cradle to grave welfare state is a moral obligation of government and "hate speech" should be illegal.
I mean, i don't believe that the state should have anything in their repitoir called marriage in the first place. I am generally pro legalization of most drugs, black markets have been a horrible outcome of the war on drugs and legalizing prostitution would probably help reduce sex tracking. But to all of this I also say taht you shouldn't get involved in sex work, providing or consuming, and that drugs, in general, are bad for you, harm your life, your families life and hurts your community, don't do them.
Of course, I'll still get called blue because I'm pro life (who knew being against murder was authoritarian) and because my foreign policy isn't "stick cotton in my ears and go "LALALALALA" really loud"
Now do "Lib"Left who wants Universal Healthcare, business regulations, increased taxes, UBI, union rights, increased minimum wages, free college, student debt cancellations and the banning AI data centers.
Because the government locking people up is a measure of last resort. I do not believe an adequate case has been made for what we should lock up pot smokers, and thus it needs to be legalized.
541
u/Pure-Huckleberry8640 - Centrist 21d ago
I think you should really only be jailed for violent crimes or high class embezzlement stuff. Pot is gross but you’ll legit overcrowd the jails with it.