r/inthenews • u/Advanced_Drink_8536 • May 27 '24

Donald Trump rejected by Libertarians, gets less than 1% of vote article

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rejected-libertarians-less-one-percent-vote-presidential-election-1904870
29.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

129

u/Uncle-Cake May 27 '24

What he didn't realize is that Libertarians don't actually care about winning.

117

u/electron-envy May 27 '24

Got to hand it to them. Their ideology is fuckin weird, but they stand by it.

83

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Libertarian is just anti-authoritarian by definition. It's why he was rejected. 

Then there is the libertarian platform, which is where you have to draw a line. Libertarians can't agree on this and there is a lot of "no true Scotsman" fallacy going on. So the result is often leaning to the strange far end spectrum. 

 It's one of the reasons they can't win.

Edit: If you wants to see what I meant by "No True Scotsman" (No True Libertarian could believe....) just look at some of the comments arguing below me here, and how widely they vary.

19

u/bearsheperd May 27 '24

Yep, that’s it exactly. There’s a quite a few pro life libertarians which I think is incongruous with the rest of the platform. Party of maximum freedom yet don’t agree on bodily autonomy?

But it’s just like democrats and republicans, they don’t have a consistent platform or agree on everything either. AOC & Bernie are very different from Biden & Hilary. Romnie is very different from trump.

Difference is they are members of the two party system. If libertarians became big enough they would overcome the one true Scotsman arguments because it’s either them or a “wasted vote on a third party”

2

u/MohatmoGandy May 27 '24 edited May 28 '24

In fairness, they manage to overcome the NTS fallacy every 4 years and nominate a candidate. And if we didn’t have a First Past The Post system, that candidate would get most of their votes and wind up with at least 5-10% of the overall vote.

1

u/happyfather May 27 '24

There's no incongruity. If you believe a fetus is a person then the fetus itself has a right to 'bodily autonomy'.

7

u/moak0 May 27 '24

Still fails the Non-Aggression Principle. Even if a fetus were a person, that person doesn't have a right to deny a woman her bodily autonomy. Anti-abortion doesn't fit the Libertarian platform.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

8

u/Remarkable-Bug-8069 May 27 '24

She doesn't. The fetus retains its autonomy. The problem is the fetus has no autonomy.

4

u/CykoTom1 May 27 '24

Yeah, that's the real problem. If a person was dying in front of you and needed a blood transfusion from specifically you in order to live, it would not be murder to say no. Even though i would agree, it's immoral to say no for no reason. Your autonomy demands it remain legal to do so. Even if their autonomy is no longer truly independent of yours.

0

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

A newborn doesn't have much more, yet we recognize that there is indeed a level of parental responsibility here. You just can't abondon them in the forrest and walk away.

2

u/Remarkable-Bug-8069 May 27 '24

Of course, but that's a different discussion.

1

u/Proof-Cardiologist16 May 27 '24

It's almost like the idea of infinite personal freedom with no moral responsibility is a dumb idea.

1

u/MVRKHNTR May 27 '24

We do allow people to give up custody of children though.

7

u/commonemitter May 27 '24

No it doesnt, another human being doesnt have a right to your body. Should the state force you to give up a kidney to save a life?

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

4

u/commonemitter May 27 '24

Kidney is no different, by refusing you are terminating their life

2

u/0OOOOOOOOO0 May 27 '24

If someone is inside your body, you have the right to remove them by any means necessary.

2

u/CaptGeechNTheSSS May 27 '24

Well in my religion if two people have sex but don’t have a baby then God must want them to be put to death along with the doctor who clearly failed as well.

There’s no point in arguing. This is why religious beliefs should not be used to form law and policy.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

3

u/CaptGeechNTheSSS May 27 '24

If you’re pretending the pro birth movement hasn’t been brought on and pushed by religious organizations then you’re not just playing devils advocate you are an actual advocate.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/UDarkLord May 27 '24

It’s not the woman’s problem that the fetus can’t survive on its own, as much as it isn’t my problem some random who’d live with a piece of my liver can’t survive without it. Nobody’s denying the fetus rights other than nature. The fact the procedure involved is more active - and for the record, abortions terminate pregnancies, they are not about killing anything, and the later an abortion is the more it directly resembles a delivery, because a delivery is also an abortion - doesn’t change the fundamentals.

2

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

the woman isnt denying the baby their own bodily autonomy, they're denying it access to THEIR OWN. someones body autonomy cant be dependent on someone elses body.

1

u/Aggressive-Name-1783 May 27 '24

Because a fetus has no autonomy by default. It requires a human host to survive, it quite literally cannot survive on its own.

If I take a 3 month old fetus and set it in a bed on its own, it dies. Simply because it cannot survive on its own without support. This is the whole concept behind “bodily autonomy” with pregnancy, a fetus cannot survive outside of the host body and therefore is requiring someone else to keep it alive

1

u/kaplanfx May 27 '24

The fetus literally can’t be autonomous because… it’s a fetus.

0

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

In most cases the woman invited the baby into her body though. It’s a natural product of having sex.

3

u/moak0 May 27 '24

That argument falls apart pretty quickly. What if she tried to use birth control but it failed?

0

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

Still a risk of having sex.

3

u/moak0 May 27 '24

But she didn't "invite a baby into her body".

1

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

That’s what having sex does. It’s the entire reason why sex is a thing

1

u/Flare-Crow May 27 '24

There are many aspects of human evolution that are no longer relevant to our current lives, like being a night owl, or wisdom teeth, or body hair. We seem to have no issues with discarding those aspects of ourselves, but when women say, "I don't want to have children," then they're suddenly denied sex?

If I get married and we don't want kids, what then?

1

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

Having kids is very must relevant because without having kids the human race will go extinct

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MVRKHNTR May 27 '24

Why should that mean a loss of bodily autonomy?

1

u/jbokwxguy May 27 '24

It would be like inviting someone over to your house and killing them because they ate the snacks laid out

1

u/MVRKHNTR May 27 '24

It would be like inviting someone into your house and then being told you're not allowed to make them leave when they tell you they want to live there for nineteen years.

1

u/chakfel May 27 '24

It would be like inviting someone over to your house and killing them because they ate the snacks laid out

No, you are purposely misconstruing it in an effort to prop up your religious conservative slut shaming.

It would be like inviting your friend over. And then that friend also brought along another "person" with them. You did not agree to that other "person" on your property and immediately told them to leave. They don't leave, and proceed to beat you, assault you, and cause pain for the next 9 months before leading up to the most painful beating you've ever taken in your life, likely leaving you with lifelong disabilities. Oh, and you have to pay for them to live there for the 9+ months, costing 10s of thousands of dollars and you're unable to work for some of that. And that's before even getting to the 18+ years of 24hour care and support you'd need to provide after that.

Any libertarian would justify actions including killing someone who invaded your property and causes you physical harm for that long and that violently. But you (not a libertarian) want to justify this because...you invited a friend over once.

No one has a right to your property.

No one has a right to your body.

And those rights aren't nullified because you invited a friend over.

You can't be pro life and libertarian.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Fun_Bad_4610 May 27 '24

Peoples inability to understand someone else's point of view is how we lead to all the shit you see. People who are pro-choice see it as controlling a woman's body or not controlling a woman's body and pro-life see it as killing a person and not killing a person.

11

u/[deleted] May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

[deleted]

-4

u/wolacouska May 27 '24

You can think this without believing that every pro-life person is secretly a lier or a grifter after their beliefs.

4

u/zen-things May 27 '24

I know exactly who the pro lifers are based on their desire to control others’ bodily autonomy.

Pro choice is not pro abortion, it’s pro freedom.

0

u/CornDoggyStyle May 27 '24

Maybe you're being sarcastic, but this is the exact point that this comment chain is making lol. I'm pro choice, but you have to see the bias in your statement.

Yes, the comment you provided appears biased. It presents a subjective view by associating the stance of "pro-lifers" with a desire for control over others' bodily autonomy, while framing "pro-choice" as being about freedom. It's important to note that discussions around abortion are complex and multifaceted, and reducing either side to a single motivation may oversimplify the issue and dismiss legitimate concerns or values held by individuals on both sides of the debate.

2

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

sure but that doesnt make anything they said less true. the view is accurate.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Whatcanyado420 May 27 '24

Freedom...for the mother.

0

u/Internal_Prompt_ May 27 '24

Stop pussy footing, let’s be pro abortion. Abortion > pregnancy

4

u/projektZedex May 27 '24

It's the argument they'd like to shout about but rarely do they deliver in practice.

2

u/Chemical_Chemist_461 May 27 '24

I think you’re close but not quite there, because it’s much more nuanced than that. Pro-choice has many camps, from women controlling their own body, to medical reasons, to personal freedom of choice, even some who just selfishly don’t want children, and that’s all ok. Pro-life is generally a religious viewpoint, but not always, some think it’s about consequence of personal choice and avoiding responsibility, and some think they are harvesting babies for diabolical uses. There’s a wide spectrum between both on both sides, but each side thinks they’re right via their own justification. It should ultimately be left up to women and experts.

6

u/TimeTravelingTiddy May 27 '24

It should ultimately be left up to women and experts.

Two things republicans cant stand

2

u/wolacouska May 27 '24

Well that’s what happens when all your positions are detrimental to women and are considered incorrect by experts lol.

1

u/Evil_Mini_Cake May 27 '24

Surely this is the root of the problem. To be able to understand someone's differing point of view, have a civilized discussion about it, and still be able to get along. But that's not really baked into american society nor is it taught in school so how are people expected to end up this way?

2

u/No_Kaleidoscope_843 May 27 '24

it has nothing to do with being civilized and understanding. at the end of the day, an understanding isnt going to stop one side from trying to put unwanted restrictions on the other side. thats not the education systems fault.

1

u/gachagaming May 27 '24

Most people who are pro-life dont see it as killing a person not matter how much they say they do.

How many pro-life people will hold a funeral for a miscarriage? If hunders of thousands of born children were killed, would pro-life people just settle for protesting clinics?

Pro-life actions and words don't match up.

0

u/TetraThiaFulvalene May 27 '24

I see it as a property dispute issue. The woman should be able to evict the fetus, except for in states with squatters rights.

2

u/KyleForged May 27 '24

Thats weird seeing how once its born that fetus is considered a child and republicans stop caring about its rights and bodily autonomy and moreso how quickly can that fetus turn 10 and start working in the butchers shop if its a boy. If its a girl they can stay a kid till theyre 12 then we need to start shopping for the coolest 35 year old they know so they can start the child marriage before the child is old enough to have their own opinions. Sources: https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/5/3/23702464/child-labor-laws-youth-migrants-work-shortage

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/child-marriage-ban-struck-down-west-virginia-republicans-1234693670/

1

u/Cuchullion May 27 '24

But a major tenant of Libertarianism is that people shouldn't be reliant on the labor and profit of others.

Akin to demanding a landlord allow someone to stay on their property free of charge, so an abortion could be seen as a medically assisted eviction.

Not Libertarian, but I've chatted with a few (too many...)

1

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

An airplane or sea captain is allowed to bar any passenger from boarding, but they aren't allowed to evict passengers (even stowaways that boarded without permision) mid-journey except at safe ports.

If the eviction could be done safely.. say by c-section or transfer to an artificial womb the the argument would make more sense.

1

u/Deft_one May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

There are several incongruities: (1) these pro-life Libertarians want a strong governmental force to enforce their personal opinion, which is contradictory, and (2) the woman also has her right to bodily autonomy

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

[deleted]

1

u/WorBlux May 27 '24

We assign parents quite a few responsibilites towards thier children, that we agree would be unreasonable to assign to mere aquaintances, much less strangers.

Also in the above scenario, nobody would really feel sorry for you if you were charged with manslaughter or second/third degree murder. If you have O- or othewise known compatible blood, and are a prepper that carries around a tranfusion kit, then you have good reason to attempt the transfusion even if it is quite risky.

And of course human fetuses are human, what else could they possibly be?

1

u/Ditovontease May 27 '24

They don’t though. They just don’t care about women having bodily autonomy. Libertarians are about consent and if a person does not CONSENT to donating their bodies to someone else, that’s that. Libertarians are against government mandated organ donations, why are they anti abortion??

Women aren’t full people with rights to them

0

u/happyfather May 27 '24

Perhaps it's relevant that, except in the case of rape, a woman has consented to an activity which may possibly result in the creation of a fetus. Libertarians are often in favor of the government enforcing contracts, and you could view the act of having sex as implying a contract with any human persons that result from your free choice to (perhaps) bring them into existence.

Note: I am pro life, but I am not a libertarian.

2

u/chakfel May 27 '24

a woman has consented to an activity which may possibly result in the creation of a fetus.

This is a statement which is logically bankrupt because you're attempting to borrow authority from the word consent by misdefining it. It's also just slut shaming dressed up (She was asking for it!!).

In reality, consent is an activity with boundaries and limits, including time. And consent can be withdrawn.

I can consent to you coming over to my house, but that doesn't mean your friends can crash my house, or stay for 9 months. And even if I agree to that, I can withdraw that consent when it turns out you're causing me physical harm.

This is a common tactic of pro life. Instead of focusing on your only true statement [That every single fertilized egg is full person who has full rights], you try and distract and avoid it.

I get why you do it and empathize. If anyone actually sat down for more than 10 seconds and considered the horrible dystopian place that would have to exist if "Every single fertilized egg is full person who has full rights" was true, then they wouldn't be pro life.

It's much easier to just call women sluts and tell them they deserve it as punishment.

1

u/UDarkLord May 27 '24

Except they’re against the government telling people what to do, sometimes period, which is why it’s incongruous. How can a state that can’t and shouldn’t be able to order you to give blood to save a life, or pay taxes to build a road to save lives (ambulances use roads), be able to order women specifically to use their bodies as incubators? Even granting personhood to a clump of cells, the basic position is that your body can’t be used for another person’s benefit against your will.

1

u/Other_Anxiety2571 May 27 '24

Having an abortion is giving bodily autonomy for a fetus. It's just that baby humans have a skill issue with surviving outside the womb.

0

u/Reimiro May 27 '24

They are just edgy republicans.