FUTO
futo.org

Apparently in the past day, they’ve removed all the logos from the Microgrants projects and clarified that the grants are unsolicited

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    8 hours ago

    As a visible minority, I know libertarians are not my friends

    I keep seeing this and don’t understand it. Do people lump all the right wing crazies in with libertarians or something?

    I get that libertarianism is a big tent, but it’s not a tent that covers intolerance. The foundation of libertarianism is simple:

    The non-aggression principle[a] (NAP) is a concept in which “aggression” – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited.

    If someone thinks it’s okay to hurt or disparage someone based on their skin color or country of origin, that’s a violation of the NAP and definitionally they’re not libertarian. A lot of people hide behind the libertarian label because they’ve been thoroughly rejected by the major parties, but that doesn’t make them libertarian.

    Libertarians disagree on a lot of things, like the role of government, whether property rights exist, and what is “aggression,” but they are very consistent in rejecting hate. Libertarians were supporting LGBT folks before it was cool, and the 2024 candidate for the Libertarian Party was a gay man in complete defiance of the candidate chosen by the Mises caucus, the far right caucus that took over the party. Libertarians are about as extreme left as you’ll get on social issues, and about as extreme right as you’ll get on fiscal issues, generally speaking.

    I guess I genuinely don’t understand what people see as libertarian. I consider myself libertarian, but I take my roots from Penn Jillette, and add in stuff like UBI. Here’s a great snippet from him, and my (poor) summary:

    How can we solve problems with more freedom instead of less?

    …

    The government should should only use violence for things I am willing to use violence for. I would use violence to stop a murder or stop a rape. I wouldn’t use violence to build a library.

    I think a social safety net crosses that threshold. I would use violence to feed my family, and I would defend someone else who does so as well, so I think it’s fair for force everyone to pay into a social safety net that ensures everyone has enough to survive using the excess of others.

    My SO is a visible minority as well, and they have no issues being with me. So I guess I’m missing something about the public perception of libertarianism.

    • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      21 minutes ago

      Because libertarians are the first to remove legal protections in the name of small government. This isnt a blanket rule, more anecdotal than anything. But the ones I’ve managed to find and interact with all want to remove all sorts of legal protections.

      The party doesn’t seem to represent those that I’ve interacted with. I get what your saying, but that just doesn’t match with who I’ve interacted with.

      Okay so here’s where I interject more opnion than above.

      libritarians miss the forest for the trees. From your opinion above you say fiscal responsibility. But you deney the help that social programs provide, and actually benift the economy. Poor people spend stimuls checks locally more than higher income brackets for example. Government serves people, not commerce.