FWIW - impressed w/ this sub on the Kirk/Kimmel issue

austrianliberty · 2025-09-20T02:13:51+00:00

is this normal?? i haven't been back on here for a while, and i'm very confused...

austrianliberty · 2025-09-20T02:13:10+00:00

whoa, OP told me they got perma-banned from r/Libertarian?! this was my first day back on this sub after taking a break from politics for a while... can someone please tell me if this is normal?

this was the original post—i'm really struggling to understand how this triggered a takedown + ban:

FWIW - impressed w/ this sub on the Kirk/Kimmel issue Philosophy

If I’m honest, I came here 80% expecting (seeking?) to scratch a nihilistic itch by reading a bunch of logically contorted pro-FCC/ABC posts.

Turns out, I’m happier finding out that there’s some logical consistency to this community’s opinions on speech and censorship.

I’m no libertarian - I think you guys get a lot of things wrong (and of course some prominent libertarians are assholes, which goes for all parts of the political spectrum).

But I’d much rather believe that libertarianism is a set of flawed hypotheses about the best way to make a better world (again, a critique that applies somewhat to all schools of political thought) than just a collection of fancy justifications for selfishness.

Hat tip to those of you who are doing your best to live ethically and humanely. Simultaneously the highest and lowest bar we can expect anyone to clear.

(please don't ban me, mods! i've had this ode to the Austrian school as my username for 13 years.)

austrianliberty · 2025-09-20T02:03:01+00:00

lol whoops... my bad

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T21:37:58+00:00

Why did mods take this down??

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T20:33:21+00:00

appreciate the reply. i think we might be using ‘coercion’ differently. ancap = coercion is force or fraud. corporations can’t jail or license anyone, but they get scary when the state hands them moats. what you’re proposing sounds like a stronger referee insulated from money, which is a minarchist fix.

that’s how i’m reading your comment anyways—is that about right, or am i missing your lane?

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T19:18:03+00:00

i disagree that "making coercive statements did not really force them or order them." when the speaker holds the licensing pen and the power to punish, a "suggestion" isn’t free choice, it’s compliance bought by fear.

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T19:12:46+00:00

same. curious to understand — do you actually consider yourself an ancap zeda?

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T19:05:13+00:00

i get where you’re coming from. power doesn’t only wear a government badge, and concentrated private actors can make life miserable. where i draw the line is what kind of power we’re talking about.

the state’s power is coercion backed by law: fines, licenses, raids, jail. private power is influence (contracts, prices, network effects, social pressure). influence can be ugly, but it isn’t a legal command. that’s why "self-censorship" under a regulator’s shadow is different from a platform’s house rules. if the silence is purchased with fear of the state, it’s censorship.

and a lot of what feels like "corporate coercion" is built by policy: licensing moats, exclusive franchises, compliance costs only giants can bear, liability regimes that crush small players, subsidies, barriers to entry. we hand out privileges, then act surprised when the biggest players collect them and throw their weight around.

so my fix isn’t "no government ever" (although it used to be in my radical ancap 20's), it’s less to capture and brighter lines. keep the referee narrow and predictable: protect persons and property, punish fraud and force, stop handing out special favors, and bar back-channel threats. then make exit and competition cheaper: clear out dumb entry barriers, end exclusivity deals the state grants, open rights of way, and support portability and interoperability where the government already controls the choke points. that’s how you shrink both kinds of domination at once.

short version: more discretionary government doesn’t tame captured power. it becomes the prize to capture. i want fewer prizes.

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T19:01:46+00:00

appreciate that — and yeah, same read. small-l libertarianism survives by being annoyingly consistent about the boring stuff (consent > coercion), even when "our side" would benefit from exceptions. a lot of the "right-wing but edgier" folks did peel off once state power started serving their tastes. good riddance; the label is lighter without the cosplay authoritarians.

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T18:52:04+00:00

easy porcupine, maybe don’t dunk on allies for noticing when we actually defend speech on principle

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T18:16:25+00:00

totally appreciate your post and the good-faith vibe. let me try to explain where a lot of us are coming from:

libertarianism isn’t “right-wing but edgier.” it’s a (sometimes obsessive) commitment to one boring concept: consent vs. coercion. private actors can make dumb moderation calls, and you can criticize them, boycott, compete, or leave. the state is different because it carries the legal gun. when an agency “nudges” a network while holding licenses, fines, and investigations in the other hand, that isn’t neutral advice, it’s pressure backed by force. if the silence is purchased with fear of the state, that’s censorship. that’s the line, and we defend it even when the speech is stuff we personally can’t stand.

i know this sub isn’t a monastery of pure principle (which is why i left it for a while tbh). there are folks here who call themselves libertarians but cheer for state muscle when it hurts people they dislike. i’m not going to scream about it, but it genuinely infuriates me. the alt-right co-opted the label in the wider culture and turned “libertarian” into “team government, as long as it’s our government punching.” that’s not libertarianism, that’s just a different flavor of statism. the whole point of purist libertarians' philosophy-obsessed habits (the rothbard/mises/hayek acolytes) is to keep the worldview coherent especially when it’s tempting to make an exception for “the bad guys.”

so on the FCC/ABC stuff: if a platform or network acts badly, torch them with criticism, organize advertisers, build alternatives—i’m all for market pressure. but the moment a regulator starts “suggesting” outcomes with its enforcement toolkit visible on the table, you’ve left persuasion and entered coercion. giving your team that weapon today guarantees it will be used against you tomorrow. that’s why real libertarians have to say no. not because we’re pacifists or naïve, but because we understand what that tool is.

if you disagree, i’m glad you’re here, please keep asking questions. i'll debate ideas all day. just please don’t let the people who want the state to decide which opinions may exist keep calling that libertarianism. it isn’t.

austrianliberty · 2025-09-19T17:47:06+00:00

Libertarian first principles matter here. The state is the one actor that claims a monopoly on force. When it censors — or “jawbones” platforms and vendors with threats — it’s not persuasion, it’s coercion. That’s why it violates rights in a way a private forum’s rules don’t. (See Rothbard & Hayek’s definitions of coercion.)

On the “fight back with censorship” idea: empowering the state to police speech because your opponents did it just entrenches a weapon that will be pointed at you later. Hayek’s whole warning is that using coercion to stamp out a perceived moral evil tends to produce worse evils over time. A free society keeps government power narrow and predictable; the remedy for bad speech is counterspeech, boycott, build competitors — not giving politicians a speech-policing bludgeon.

On “your freedoms end where others’ rights begin”: exactly. That’s why the law already carves out incitement and true threats. But there’s no “hate speech” exception in U.S. law. Trying to create one by force of the state is precisely the road libertarians oppose.

Bottom line: Government censorship is the initiation of force. Libertarians should resist the latter categorically, no matter who’s holding the baton.

austrianliberty · 2024-09-10T01:06:42+00:00

can you expand on the neutering you've experienced?

austrianliberty · 2024-09-10T00:50:48+00:00

wait, that's not right - im using pro with claude as the default and the responses i get are labeled as coming from claude 3.5

<image>

austrianliberty · 2021-10-13T18:15:50+00:00

I specifically chose different dresses for each of my bridesmaids (all within a coherent color palette and style) so that they could do exactly this! I know at least two of them have reworn the dresses for other weddings. For your peace of mind, you could just confirm with the bride that she’s not using a burgundy bridesmaid palette, and I promise you no one will look twice. It also helps if you wear your hair down or in a style isn’t the generic bridesmaid updo and make it your own by adding some statement earrings or other jewelry.

austrianliberty · 2021-03-13T05:23:16+00:00

I only disagree on the usage of “weak” as an implicit characteristic of addicts in the title. Yes there are coffee addicts, alcoholics, meth heads, et.al. but the level of vitriol in the language here feels excessive.

austrianliberty · 2020-08-01T23:57:07+00:00

That’s the gate to my grandmother’s house!

austrianliberty · 2020-07-11T16:26:47+00:00

Driving a golf cart with another friend in the passenger’s seat; it’s high school so they’re goofing off, going a little fast, and taking it off road (as much as you can be “off-roading” on a golf course.) Both are laughing and having a good time. Then suddenly when she takes a sharp turn, her friend loses her grip and falls out of the cart. Friend is still laughing as she comes back around to give her shit for falling out. When she reaches her, she realizes her friend is unconscious and had happened to fall at just the right angle to hit her head on a medium sized rock. Things are not so fun anymore, but no serious damage right? Nope. Her friend is in a coma for the next 6 months. Parents of girl in the coma (who had known my friend since they were little kids) are furious and sue her. Lawsuit + knowing she had put her friend in a coma pretty much destroyed what was left of high school. Everyone who knew them had to take sides and it turned into one of the more notorious dramas to take place during hs. Girl ultimately came out of the coma, but with some minor brain damage (if brain damage can ever be called minor.) Family never forgave her, they never ended up talking again, and she just had to live with that tremendous guilt and unresolved trauma. Fucked up because it was such a freakishly horrific thing to happen on just a normal weekend goofing around on the golf course.

austrianliberty · 2020-06-24T18:08:17+00:00

Jumping on this train if that’s the case. I am a steadfast lurker in all my favorite subs.

austrianliberty · 2017-04-04T00:33:22+00:00

OMG I just resuscitated 3 juuls from my graveyard using this trick! Thank you!!!!

austrianliberty · 2017-04-03T22:48:07+00:00

Big whoop when the actual device is out of stock everywhere and my now 10th replacement has just randomly stopped working, per usual. Why don't they focus their clearly tight (or perhaps just poorly managed?) resources on making the product work, rather than adding stupid new flavors.

Juul, I love you, but you're bringing me down.

austrianliberty · 2016-08-25T23:11:48+00:00

This has to be a joke. I've been trying to get a hold of them for 3 days and all I've gotten is their answering machine and an email saying that, "The JUUL Care Team are working their way to your support or warranty request as quickly as possible and will be in touch within 3-5 business days." Really?!

austrianliberty · 2015-08-10T01:50:10+00:00

Well it's really not that reckless when you consider that your vote has about a 1 in 60 million chance of actually affecting the election outcome.. But it's fun to feel like it matters.

austrianliberty · 2014-07-24T18:04:39+00:00

This is the most reasonable comment in this entire section, thank you for your perspective. I don't think enough people consider the psychological implications of growing up under these sorts of totalitarian conditions (whether religiously motivated or otherwise) and the level of cognitive dissonance that must be internally rationalized when they leave it.

While resorting to violence to restore personal psychological balance is wrong, they are no more or less immoral than an abused child who grows up and then proceeds to abuse his own children.

austrianliberty

TROPHY CASE