• Sibshops@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I wish this were true, but what you are describing is more akin to the Democratic party’s platform. Laws by the Democratic party are passed so people and companies don’t violate the principle of non-aggression. For example, besides climate change, regulation on banking is to prevent banking from taking people’s money and just going out of business.

    The Libertarian party doesn’t support the principle of non-aggression in practice. By this definition, the Democratic party would be the true libertarians or liberals.

    For example:

    Australia: https://www.libertarians.org.au/wa_platform

    Ending Climate Alarmism Policies: Repeal state laws and subsidies tied to net-zero targets. Let the free market decide the energy mix.

    And like you said, the US one too: https://lp.org/environment-energy-resources/

    When governments try to tackle environmental issues (which is hypocritical, as governments are the largest polluters), they use a punishing approach that rarely, if ever, solves the problem

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      I think you misunderstood my point. What you’re referring to as “libertarianism” and “the Libertarian party” is what I referred to as “American libertarianism.”

      I don’t believe true libertarianism exists in the USA. I agree with your point that the Democratic party most closely aligns with the theory of libertarianism. It sounds like you agree with the point I was trying to make, but maybe misinterpreted it.

      Edit: I want to add that the Libertarian party in America doesn’t follow the principal of non-aggression as I understand it.

      • Sibshops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Oh yeah, I think I was confusing in my response. I should have said:

        All libertarian parties both in and outside of the United States don’t ascribe to your interpretation of the theory of libertarianism.

        I included Australia as an example, but here is Canada’s platform as well.

        https://libertarian.on.ca/platform/2011/environment Agreements among neighbours would be another factor that would replace top-down regulations.

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          That’s disappointing. Maybe “modern libertarianism” would have been more accurate than “American libertarianism.” According to Wikipedia, in the 1950’s libertarianism was synonymous with liberalism, which seems to align much better with my interpretation.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology

          I wonder if Penn’s (old) interpretation of libertarianism was the same as mine.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 days ago

      Progressive policies tend to line up with classic Libertarianism.

      Also, modern Libertarians tend to be literally just the dissolution of the federal government and their own personal rights at the expense of other’s rights, none of which is Libertarianism.

      • Sibshops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 days ago

        You said this much better than I did. One of the reasons why Democrats are called liberals.

    • frostysauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      I love how they just drop the statement that governments are the largest polluters with no sources, supporting evidence, or even explanation. Just saying something obviously does not make it true.