The Libertarian Party compared slavery to affordable health care in an attack on former Ohio state Senator Nina Turner.
Libertarians in the modern US are republicans that figured out saying that gets them no favors. At least that’s what it seems like to me.
There are two flavors of Libertarian. The one that is too embarrassed to admit they are GOP, and the other that thinks the GOP are a bunch of left leaning hippies.
Based
There is no such thing as a right wing libertarian.
Not by definition, but the right wing turds have co-opted it like they have so many other things.
I don’t see why you should respect the claims to a term from people that don’t even meet their own false standards.
Precisely. Claims as theirs can be discounted out of hand
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English22•11 months ago
Libertarians, or as I prefer to call them, “stealth Republicans.”
Republicans who want to smoke weed and abolish the age of consent.
And legalize lynch mobs.
The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is cut fro the same cloth as the Westboro Baptist church. Their ideas are insane, and deep down I think they probably know they are, but instead of reflection they double down on the crazy and confuse outrage in others for validation. Mock, block, and roll is the way with these guys.
This is called “dog whistling”.
Conservative says something offensive.
Conservative Base has a chuckle.
Progressives (rightly) try to hold them accountable.
Conservative base thinks its hilarious that progressives are so upset.
Mate, thats not dog whistling.
Dog Whistling is when you say something that has a hidden meaning to a group that they recognise.
This is simply overt racism.
As another poster mentioned, this isn’t dog whistling. I think it’s close to the card says moops
Also there is the famous quote by Sartre:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Relevant link for anyone wondering what the libertarian party can do for them.
This deserves its own post. Thanks for sharing! This part killed me…" “Some people just “don’t get the responsibility side of being libertarians,”…which is certainly one way of framing the problem."
Thanks! Definitely adding that book to my list.
article
The Libertarian Party is arguing that calling for insulin—a life-sustaining medicine for millions of people—to be free is “equally offensive” as slavery. And who prompted them to make the comparison? Former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, who is Black.
On Tuesday, Turner tweeted, “Insulin should be free. Medicine should be free.” Certainly not a radical demand for lifesaving drugs, nor more broadly in the context of 73 other countries having free or universal health care. Nor when recalling that the average cost of insulin in the United States is nearly $100; the next closest is Chile, at a little over $20; the cost in the following 31 countries ranges from $2.64 to $16.48.
But instead of even remotely engaging with any of those facts, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire tried something different.
“Nina Turner picking crops should be free,” the state party tweeted.
This is racist and anti-Black. Period. In no way is advocating for free insulin comparable to chattel slavery. Shameful & uneducated. pic.twitter.com/ad1jMJSdvw — Nina Turner (@ninaturner) July 19, 2023“‘Insulin should be free’ is equally offensive as calling for someone to be compelled to pick crops,” the party later added, after facing an initial wave of backlash. “They are the same moral statement, and we should react to them with identical moral abhorrence,” it continued, displaying the same intellectual rigor as a 15-year-old who just found a thesaurus and Jordan Peterson’s YouTube channel for the first time.
But it wasn’t just a rogue social media employee pushing the line.
“None of the things you advocate for are ‘free’. They require labor and materials which need to be compensated for,” the national Libertarian Party added. “Otherwise you are advocating for slavery. Hope this helps.”
“Being black does not give you a free pass to advocate for modern slavery, just with more steps. You are not virtuous. You are covetous and evil under a veneer of respectability that would cause untold human dystopian misery,” tweeted Libertarian National Convention Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos. “Spare me your outrage.”
Was there any dredge of an actual claim to be recovered beneath it all? Harlos, in another tweet, seemed to distill some of the argument that “coercively taking a portion of nearly everyone’s labor is just more respectable slavery.”
Libertarianism tends toward a disbelief in the notion of a society, in the idea of individuals coming together to support each other in their shared, inexplicable journey on earth. But unless one proposes that everyone lives entirely separate lives, with no common bonds guaranteeing some solid standard of living—water or electricity access or transportation, for easy examples—a reasonable person ought to be able to engage in imagining what else might be part of a baseline standard of living. Like essential health care.
But with such disregard not only for the reality we are a part of but for the one that we could help create, libertarians have deluded themselves enough to make the ridiculous comparison between enslaved people being kidnapped, raped, whipped, compelled to work in the heat for hours on end and … a society that believes taxpayer dollars going toward lifesaving medicine is a good thing.
Kind of an aside, but didn’t the dudes who figured out insulin refuse to patent it because they thought it would be immoral to profit off something people need to survive?
Yes.
They can pretend all they want, but they would have used a different, less abhorrent response and metaphor if they were responding to an old white guy.
And this is exactly the type of people who argue “you can’t have diversity of thought any more.” I would be happy to discuss with someone the idea that taxes shouldn’t be used for healthcare. I don’t agree with it, but it isn’t the idea that pisses people off. It’s the hyperbolic, attention-grabbing way it was said.
Would be interesting to see if their attitudes changed after facing catastrophic, irreparable physical consequences for saying such things.
It always does.