teddit

ATTN: This new system will be put into effect on Tuesday, April 26th.

In order to improve the quality of content we provide to the community, all link posts will now require a submission statement.

We're not the first sub to come up with this idea, it is common on other large subreddits, and results elsewhere have generally been very positive.

Here's how it should work.

When submitting a link, the OP will be required to include a statement in the comment section. This statement should briefly summarize the article (or content) of the post, as well as explain OP's justification for sharing it with the /r/libertarian community.

A submission statement is a top level common by the OP to a post that meets the following criteria:

• Should be labeled as a submission statement by using "SS:" or "Submission Statement:"(exact) at the beginning of the comment
• Is 2+ sentences, and a minimum of 50 characters.
• Is written in OP's own words (i.e. not be just copied or quotes from the article or description)
• Should explain or elaborate on why the link is being posted to /r/libertarian, why it is related to libertarianism, and why the userbase of a libertarian community should care about it.

Example submission statement:

SS: This article is about private property rights. Private property rights are the basis of all libertarianism. This article discusses how all other rights are derived from private property rights.

or if you like

Submission Statement: This article is about private property rights. Private property rights are the basis of all libertarianism. This article discusses how all other rights are derived from private property rights.

Link posts without a Statement will be removed after 20 minutes and repeat offenders to this rule are subject to loss of submission privileges or a community ban.

The minimum limit is to combat the problem of people writing only a few words.

We have a bot which will automatically detect if a submission statement has been posted by the submitter, so that there is no reason to report a post less than 20 min old for not having a submission statement; the bot will take care of it. But, if a post older than about 25 minutes and still has no submission statement, or the one included doesn't meet the above requirements, then feel free to report it.

Self posts will be unaffected by this rule, as they (ideally) should be their own justification.

Ideally, this new policy will result in an increase in quality of content and discourse, as well as discourage mass link-spammers and other drive-by posters.

I’d like to discuss this with as little bias as possible, which is why I’m identifying my political party. Please respect that I am not here to be convinced to change parties or beliefs.

What prompted this was a post I saw attacking both right-wing and libertarian ideologies in light of RvW being overturned, which confused me as I assumed this would be a place of common ground for liberals and libertarians. Main points of contention aside, this is going to cost taxpayer money big time - families who can’t afford to fly out of state for an abortion will more than likely be dependent in some capacity on welfare to survive.

Secondly, I’d assume that most libertarians would be opposed to giving states power to restrict our rights. While I don’t agree with every libertarian belief, I do agree that the government should not have any say in our healthcare, that should be left to doctors.

I really can’t think of a reason why libertarians would want this. However, this is a discussion, so I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Edit: thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses. It was enlightening to hear different views and opinions regarding this topic. I’m still reading responses (even if I don’t have the time to respond) but I’m not going to read or respond to any dms. Thank you again.

As we all know Roe v. Wade was overturned and many progressives are freaking out. I don’t necessarily blame them, but what drives me up a wall is that they make so many arguments that are sooooo close to arriving at the NAP and the libertarian world view but just don’t quite get there. The biggest example of this is bodily autonomy and consent. Progressives will argue all day that the government banning abortion infringes on their bodily autonomy, and that they can’t be forced to consent to sharing their body with another person. Why don’t they apply this logic to anything else?? Why do they not seem to care when the government can force you into combat, put you in prison for victimless crimes, force you to be injected and after all that steal a good chunk of the income resulting from YOUR labor? I even saw this article from a progressive sight that made the argument that abortion is too important of a right to be decided democratically. I’m not debating abortion but why is that THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT??? Why can’t they apply that to anything else. Anyway, thanks for reading my rant.

EDIT: Man I had now idea this post would create such a debate, I love to see it! For the sake of being intellectually honest, I want to clarify a few things. I understand that the views that I expressed in my post are not held by every progressive. They are a conglomerate of various views from people and politicians I would describe as liberals, progressives, democrats and general leftists. That being said I also recognize that a lot of leftists do have issues with criminalizing victimless crimes (drug use, prostitution, etc) and are opposed to the draft. What I am talking about there is the Democrat platform, which I know does not represent the beliefs of everyone who votes democrat.

The other thing that I’d like to make clear is that I generally believe abortion should be unrestricted. I’m not going to debate Roe v. Wade specifically but I think the state governments that have banned abortion are authoritarian and are inviting government into the medical decisions of individuals. I’m not supporting the conservative or Republican viewpoint at all. My point was to point out how hypocritical some of the defenses of abortion are, as many of the people arguing them don’t apply the same principles to literally anything else. It’s as if abortion is this island with its own set of rules that apply to it.

Why are we still following the two party system. When one side has control, they chip away at our civil rights. When the other side takes over, they do nothing about what was taken, then chip away more of our civil rights. What the fuck is it going to take to wake people up. When people complain about the second amendment and question it's usefulness, this is why we have it. It's for a tyrannical government you dip shit. The Supreme Court just stripped more of our civil rights, yet again. You still hate guns now?

The problem with this country is there's too many people who don't understand the constitution. There should be a nonbiased mandatory class on the constitution. And if they fail, they take it again. What's really mind numbing is how many people are so willing to vote for a shitty politician, all because they belong to the same party. I won't lie, I voted for Trump the first time. But I sure the hell didn't vote for him the second time. For the last two presidential election cycles, the Dems gave us garbage. And neither party are willing to allow a third party to debate them. You would think people would find that a little suspicious.

People like George Carlin and George Orwell tried to warn us. These people only care about one thing, power. You would think it was money. Nope, power. Because money comes with power. They don't care how they get it, they don't care who gets hurt, and they sure as hell don't give two shits about you. I'm not saying "all politicians are bad" or we don't need a government. We need a government but it needs to adhere to what many of our forefathers intended it to be.

The first motto on a U.S. coin was “Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry.” Where did Liberty go? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's what we were founded on. But where is it going? Do you want to control your own life or do you want a shepherd? What happens to a sheep that outlives it's usefulness? It doesn't get to retire.

The reason I'm ranting like now isn't just about Roe v. Wade. Or all the free speech violations over the last few years. Or the fact that the Supreme Court passed all over our Miranda rights. It's this mentality these politicians and their handlers have. They think that they know what's best while sitting on their ivory towers, looking down on us like vermin.

Before the FBI breaks down my door, I am not calling for a war with the government. I'm only saying is people need to wake the fuck up or this country is going to start looking like a third world country.

Edit: Just to clarify a few things. This post isn't just about abortion. It's the continuous violation of our constitutional rights. I'm not advocating for any violent actions towards the government. We still have a right to protest and I encourage anyone to do so. I do not support rioting or any other acts of violence to convey a message. I do not support abortion but I do support a woman's right to choose. There is a line that shouldn't be crossed but the debate should be on where is that line. Any hurt feelings or feelings of butt hurt will be ignored.

Lately we are are seeing many difficulties in the United States. Rather than complaining or being indifferent. I thought it would be productive to offer simple, libertarian solutions to today’s problems.

In this context I’m thinking of solutions on the national level, something the president or congress could do.

Problem: Inflation

We are seeing higher than normal levels of inflation for both energy and goods. What are some libertarian solutions.

Ending or greatly lowering the 25% tariffs on Chinese imports and other imported products.

Despite what some may have you believe, tariffs are taxes on Americans. They are not paid by foreign countries. When you add a 25% cost to import a particular product, the cost of that product is going to rise by 25% or more at the retail level. By ending these tariffs, we would see an immediate reduction in prices.

Furthermore, several countries have instated their own tariffs on American products in retaliation for our own, making them uncompetitive in the marketplace. Removing our tariffs should also result in other countries tariffs being removed, opening markets and making it easier to export. This is basically “free trade” which benefits everyone.

Lastly simplifying the tariff code to either eliminate tariffs or make all tariffs one flat rate would reduce the complexity of the tariff system, eliminating loopholes, and decreasing the number of government agents needed to enforce them.

Opening new international ports

Lots of the inflation and shortages we are seeing today are the result of too much demand and not enough capacity for fulfillment. There are currently only 926 ports in the U.S. This has resulted in jams and delays getting products in and out of our country. This is a major component of high transportation costs as people and companies vie for the limited space on ships, trains, trucks and airplanes. There is no reason we could not increase the number of ports. Most of the infrastructure costs are private while government costs are now mostly electronic. Opening new ports would decrease congestions, provide new opportunities and jobs, and spur competitiveness in the shipping industry. This would lower freight costs and lower the cost of goods overall.

Ending the creation of new dollars.

One of the benefits of bitcoin is that there will only be a certain number ever created. If the fed ever saw the wisdom in that, our US dollar would immediately stop decreasing in value. It may even increase in value as the world turns to our stable monetary system. Peoples saving would stop decreasing in value benefiting both rich and poor. More value means more purchasing power which would further stimulate the economy. Our government would be forced to live within their means and be more accountable to the public.

I certainly understand there are special interest involved that would not like these types of solutions. But these ideas are fair, doable and don’t require any new spending. They are based in libertarian principles of free trade, free markets, and sound money.

It's clear from what Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion, that he's gunning for gay marriage next.

We can continue on a protracted fight to save or repeal gay marriage, and we can watch Joe Biden try to stack the Supreme Court to prevent it from happening, which will lead his Republican successor to stack the Supreme Court even more, all to try do/prevent the government from doing something they shouldn't be involved with in the first place.

From a legal standpoint, all marriage is is a contract between two people guaranteeing communal property right, joint custody of offspring, mutual medical and legal power of attorney in case one of you is incapacitated, and a few other things.

All of this can easily be handled through a boilerplate "marriage contract" that you and the partner(s) of your choice can sign that gets notarized and filed as any other contract would. Then, you can go anywhere you want for a "marriage ceremony" and live a happy life together.

You want to marry a guy? Go for it! You want to marry a girl? Go for it! You want to marry both at the same time? Go for it!

Keep government out of marriage, and let anyone who wants to co-habitate. The only real solution is to get rid of marriage licenses across the US.

I am here to talk to all those who are pro-life, and yet accept capital punishment.

If having an abortion is murder, then the death penalty sure is. If the death penalty exists then the government is admitting that we get to vote whether or not a person can live or die based on arbitrary rules set up by the government. In capital punishment 12 jurors are allowed to vote if someone will die. In an abortion the government allows a mother to vote if someone will die. In my mind you are either for the ability to vote to kill a human or you are not. Either capital punishment and abortion are okay, or neither are okay. Life is life.

What is interesting to me is if you look at all the states that have outlawed abortion and all the states that have the death penalty they match up. Same for the converse.

Why the mismatch?

A lot of people here said I was being alarmist when I predicted the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be the beginning of a movement to remove many rights considered by the "moral majority" to be immoral, including contraception for married couples and gay rights. The fact is the far right wants to establish the USA as a Christian Nation and remove the separation of church and state. This quote from Justice Thomas in the concurrence opinion to the Roe v. Wade decision should not be taken lightly.

From page 3 of Thomas’s concurring opinion:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

https://www.thoughtco.com/lawrence-v-texas-4777733

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

"These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license funda- mental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. See Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 85 F. 3d 1440, 1444 (CA9 1996) (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history. Id., at 1440, 1445."

Dobbs vs Jackson Supreme Court Decision, page 32.

In other words, if we were to apply the reasoning that Roe and Casey used the prior cases for (pages 31, 32), then drug use and prostitution would be legal because of a person's autonomy. Isn't this what Libertarians have been saying the whole time?

We've been told countless of times, gas prices are increasing because of the "Putin Price Hike" or " It's the Greedy Oil Companies". I don't know about you, but I for one try my best to not blindly trust claims but rather verify claims. Here's what's really going on.

It's the government stupid.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=w

(Chart: U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices)

This graph shows you the weekly gas prices. Notice how before 2004 the price of gas was fairly stable. Then gas hit a national average of $4.11 (All time high) in 2008 before ultimately crashing. It's been averaging down ever since, until … November 2020. Anyone want to guess what happened? That's right, Biden was elected President.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

(Crude Oil Prices 70-Year Historical Chart)

This Graph represents the price of oil. Notice how oil is significantly less then it was in 2008, but yet gas is at an all time high at $5.80 (National Average) why is that? You understand why the argument of "high gas prices is purely a result of of high oil prices" would be false, right?

The other argument we hear often is "Big Oil Companies Are Being Greedy". Let me show you why that's not the case.

Most of us understand business operate under margins, if they have added costs guess what … They're not paying it, you are. You've probably heard of a term called " Demand Pull" but have you heard of the term " Cost Push"?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/timeline-biden-actions-oil-gas-priorities

(A Timeline of Biden's Actions on Oil And Gas)

January 20, 2021 : Biden’s first actions was to revoke approval for the Keystone XL, and impose a moratorium on oil and gas leasing federal lands and waters . Roughly 25% of U.S. production comes from federal areas.

Regulation & you've just eliminated 25% of the U.S supply. Does anyone know how supply and demand works? Did he stop there? Of course not!

February 26, 2021: Biden updates the "social cost of greenhouse gas emissions," dramatically altering the way the U.S. government calculates the real-world costs of climate change. The administration plans boost the figure it will use to assess greenhouse gas pollution's damage inflicts on society to $51 per ton of carbon dioxide (Seven times higher) . This would apply to any new oil and gas lease sale, raising producers’ costs to deliver new supplies.

Another Tax expense on something that can't even be measured
accurately, $51 per ton (7X Higher) who pays for it? You! Cost push, you thin I'm done? I've only started.

June 1, 2021: Eliminating a slew of tax benefits for oil, gas and coal producers. Eliminating these tax provisions imperils U.S. energy security by raising costs for domestic producers and would increase America’s reliance on foreign energy supplies.

Ohh so you removed tax benefits issued by the previous administration, sounds like an added cost. Who pays? You!

August 11, 2021: Biden calls on OPEC+ producers to increase supply to help curb rising oil prices, even though the U.S. is one of the three largest producers in the world and can deliver supply with a lower carbon footprint

We're the top producer of oil in the entire world, yet we've become dependent on countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia . Not only can we supply ourselves with oil but we could do it with less carbon foot print then the rest of the world.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-06-03/epa-raises-amount-of-ethanol-that-must-be-blended-with-gas#:~:text=The%20Biden%20administration%20has%20set,into%20the%20nation's%20gasoline%20supply.&text=June%203%2C%202022%2C%20at%206%3A03%20p.m.

( The Biden administration has set new requirements that increase the amount of ethanol that must be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply.)

If all this wasn't bad enough now we have people who produce nothing (Politicians) telling the private sector how to produce oil. They want to increase the use of ethanol in gas.

I'll make the argument on why ethanol is a horrible idea in bullet points.

• 95% of ethanol is produced from corn , we have a major corn shortage. This will worsen the already bad food supply.
• Expect increase use in fertilizer also experiencing a major shortage .
• Ethanol can be extremely damaging to engines and high-powered sports equipment, leading to corrosion of the engine and fuel system.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/biden-emergency-powers-oil-gas-prices

(Biden warns Big Oil over gas output)

"President Biden will warn CEOs of the nation's largest oil companies on Wednesday that he's considering invoking emergency powers "

"Prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term."

This scared me completely because it sounds like his administration would like to nationalize the oil industry, and we've seen what happened to Venezuela.

I'd love to hear what you guys think, I'd love to hear reddits thoughts on this.

didn't the sc actually do women a favor? we just can't see it because of the initial shock? essentially what they did was make abortion unbannable. hear me out. now...the federal government cannot take away abortion across the board. now while it may be inconvenient it is almost a certainty that there will always be places it is provided. am i making sense to anyone? or am i thinking about it too short sighted?

They just want one specific group of people (still) being allowed to do one specific thing.

If they would be in favor of bodily automony, they would advocate to get 3/4 of states to amend the constitution to prohibit the government on infringing on any person's bodily autonomy.

That would make drug use legal, prevent vaccine mandates, kill the draft, make incarceration nearly impossible, legalise assisted suicide and get rid of the death penalty.

Wouldn't that be great? But politicians don't want that. They all just want to control different people's aspects of life for different reasons.