Madlad posted this on the r/libertarian subreddit and they banned him

That doesn't cover the Republicans that want to be able to do drugs

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. If Joseph Dejacqe were still alive. So called right wing libertarians would be the ones he was railing against.

My ideals are left lib, and I hope that social structure becomes feasible beyond small populations in the future. That said, leftism is centralized economics. And if you centralize that, you wind up with authoritarianism.

I hope trustless and decentralized protocols make up for the inefficiencies in the long run, we're just starting to see technology catch up to make up for the inefficiencies of decentralized economics

It's just a smokescreen for selfish/embarrassed economic liberals. This was the man that coined and defined Libertarianism. Right wingers need not apply. The modern "libertarian" party is a necrophilic oxymoron.

I completely concur, I had personal experience with this. In my case, rural Georgia.

Libertarians are ultra-edgy conservatives who realized that typical conservative talking points are far too easy to refute and find contradictions in, and that being a conservative makes you look bad. They're people who are close to understanding the ways which authorities/the establishment work against the people, but are too brainwashed with conservative/anti-worker/bigoted propaganda to be able to adopt a more mature worldview – as long as they participate in/agree with culture war garbage like transphobia and anti-feminism/anti-SJW propoganda, they'll never be able to "agree" with any sort of leftist ideology. Plus they've never actually had taxable income so they really buy into all the false information & propoganda about taxes.

The conservative -> conservative libertarian -> ancap -> social/environmental libertarian -> socialist pipeline is VERY real, and it's usually 1:1 with middle school -> early high school -> high school -> new-fledged adult -> experienced adult, for suburban white kids growing up in a conservative area. The less you're shielded from reality, the more you start to agree with leftist ideas (even hardcore brainwashed conservatives completely agree with leftism in practice as long as they don't know it's leftism).

They already do the latter. They want to make it legal beyond child marriage.

Libertarianism (traditionally) is on the bottom of the vertical (authority) axis on a traditional political compass, if you want to use that. It is neither left nor right. It can be either. The people who have taken the name are on the right. They're anarchy-capitalists who don't want to be ruled by government but want to be ruled by capitalists. Anarchists, for example, are libertarian leftists, using the terms properly.

Those downvotes are people's way of telling you that your comment is so comically wrong it's not even worth a rebuttal. I agree with them.

Note that if doing a LFP battery, then you don't have the Cobalt issue. Also, as I could most recently find, prices on LFP are such that currently it could be about $7,000 for a pack that can get over 200 miles in a typical EV. CATL claims they'll have it under $4500 for that capacity battery pack by the end of this year. Analysts are suggesting that 2025 might see that battery pack go under $2800 or so. If that comes to pass, then it's a slam dunk that an EV will incur less cost over a decade than the ICE maintenance and repairs, even ignoring gas vs. electricity costs.

The price has been coming rapidly down, after the shortages have subsided. Of course, whether the supply chain and pricing of the big automakers reflect this... well we have to see. However, Ford at least proclaimed they "managed" to save $8,000 cost per unit of mach-e, and most of that is likely just the battery pack getting thousands of dollars cheaper (they also redid the rear motor and other touches, but the bulk of that number is probably just battery cost reduction).

Sadly, I think you're probably right. I used to tell them to go to Rwanda if they wanted to live in a tax-free utopia, but Rwanda has taxation now what with it having a more or less functional government now.

You seem to confuse us with leftists. No, it's not the patriarchy/white people keeping you down. We're the first to tell you that you are responsible for your own success

I think you just probed my point for me.

bikes don't need pavement, just good wheels

Hmm, a 40-80ft wide road that needs to support thousands of pounds of cars, or 8ft of bike path that only needs to support a few hundred pounds of pedestrians/bikers.

I wonder which needs more of a budget.

Subsidies and infrastructure are not the same thing though.

Right-wing "libertarians" only know how to steal actual libertarian thought and shit all over it.

I'm not sure how it's related to bikes, but I did get into conversations about age of consent on lemmy few times. And it seemed that people I talked to didn't grasp concept of different countries having different laws.

The libertarian-fascist pipeline is interesting to me. I can't decide if they start out fascist but dream of a world where the rules don't apply to them until they gradually get more honest or if they just have a very bad relationship with power so they can't imagine a situation where they aren't the one with the boot or the one being stomped on.

I haven't seen

That's fair enough I guess, I suppose I was defining functional as protecting various rights that technically aren't necessary for an extant society. On the other hand, I very extremely doubt any of the self proclaimed libertarian anarcho-capitalists believe the actual end results of such a system are what would happen, nor would they want such a system to be the one they live under.

Wonderful. Instead of a monopoly, I have the illusion of choice.

You're most definitely forced to buy from private businesses, even if not generally from a specific one, because you're born in a World were all Land has an owner (and "they ain't making any more of it" ) and unless you're gifted Land by your parents, you will have to pay somebody for Food since you can't even grow your own food or build your own place to live without paying for somebody else's Land.

Further, since Free Market Theory only works for Markets with low barriers to entry and hence high competition (so mainly for unimportant stuff like soap or teddy bears) for many if not for most things you will most definitely be constrained to buy from a single business or a handful of businesses operating as a cartel, especially in anything directly or indirectly affected by Land ownership, such as Food Retail.

Not all forms of coercion involve direct and hence obvious use of force - most of coercion in the Modern World is based on rules which indirectly limit your choices and if anybody tries to step out of those rules (which can be you trying to grow your own food in land you do not own or somebody else trying to sell you cheaper music whose copyright they do not have) THEN the use of force happens - you're not directly forced to buy from a private business or one of a small group of private businesses, you're indirectly forced to by rules making sure that in practice you don't really have other viable choices.

Whilst I mostly mentioned Land because amongst the rules limiting individual and trade freedom Land Ownership is one of the oldest (all the way back to when Monarchs confiscated all the Land which before had common ownership) and with the widest impact (everything which requires something physical to be somewhere or to move, is dependent on access to Land), there are other rules such as Copyright or those rules regulating access to limited resources such as the radio spectrum (for example, mobile phone operator licenses) that similarly put access control in the hands of a few private entities and thus in practice force everybody else to go pay those private entities to get or access those things or anything that indirectly needs to have or access those things (this is how Food Retail market concentration relates to Land Ownership)

In practice there are a lot of what I call "taxes paid directly to the private sector", caused by how the rules that limit access to scarce resources (or, even worse, resources made artificially scarce by certain rules, such as done by Copyright) place the access control or limited the access to only specific private entities, so most people's "freedom" when it comes to those and related things is entirely "you can have if by paying these guys or you can not have it" which when it comes to life's essentials (food, water, shelter, health) is not actually a choice.

There are a few privately run dmvs in some states. But also a fun as it is to gripe about, I don't want a profit motive at the DMV. I don't want a profit motive just about everywhere.

Only if you want to use the ones who "don't care for politics" as a yardstick. I cared too much about them and then emigrated to a country whose politics often confuse me. Go figure.

Biden famously takes the train.

Dubya likes mountain-biking (but that's recreation, not transportation, and thus doesn't count).

Pretty much the only notable thing about south Belgium is the massive number of US military personnel due to the NATO presence. So yeah, you can probably make an argument about it being an unofficial American territory.

Honestly that sounds very doable when considering distance alone. With an e-bike you could cut that travel time down considerably. Personally, I think I safe time by cycling to work even if it takes a bit longer on paper because I don't need to spent time doing any additional workout. I hope the bike infrastructure improves where you live. Commuting by bike is usually much more enjoyable than driving.

I feel the same way. Where I live, we don’t even have bike lanes. We don’t even have sidewalks. It would take about 15 miles of bike riding on narrow, rural roads, with broken asphalt, and no sidewalks just to reach an actual grocery store. The weather is also a factor. The high for next week is about 108F. Oh, and when I did try riding my bicycle, five years ago, for about 30 miles to a major city, I was chased by dogs.

If I lived in some place like Salt Lake City, or San Francisco, where I could combine a bike ride with major public transportation routes, I’d be fine, but that isn’t the case where I live.

Or "just" move closer to work. I wanted to move to within 500 meters of the front gate of my old job, but roommate considerations moved the ideal location out of biking distance. Problem is that housing is artificially limited, so it's harder to find the ideal home location.

Sorry I might be confused but, are you calling an 17.5 mile commute modest? Or just modest in comparison to 40 miles?

Not sure if this is obvious to the two of you but a huge part of urbanism is ensuring people can be housed near their jobs. Nobody advocating for bike infrastructure wants people to have to bike more than ~5 miles to work.