I posted the below in another sub that discusses topics related to Christianity. However, the conversation quickly moved towards libertarianism. I'm curious what the libertarian community thinks about my thoughts related to welfare? The reason I've been thinking a lot about this is because James Talarico has been using Christianity to argue for a welfare state, but I personally think he's misusing the Bible, at least from my understanding of it.

Here's my thoughts:

What's the point of charity, giving, and helping the poor? I would argue it is what happens in the heart that matters. God loves a cheerful giver. He invites us to give cheerfully. Not because of this grand impact it will have externally, but because of the impact it has on our hearts internally.

• Note that Jesus was willing to have a huge amount of value "wasted" by pouring expensive perfume on his feet, rather than selling and giving to the poor. He cared more about people loving and worshipping him than maximizing money funding charity to help the poor.
• Jesus explicitly told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor because he knew that was the idol in his life, the stumbling block that prevented him from following Christ, not because he saw that as the solution to society's ills around poverty.
• The early church also gave voluntarily. They gave out of the abundance in their hearts, freely! This is clear when Peter told Ananias, "Didn’t [the money] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?"
• Additionally, Paul encouraged believers to each "give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

God invites us to a life of giving and sacrifice, but it matters only when it's freely given, not because it is mandated and coerced under threat of force or violence.

Government welfare operates differently. It does not ask us to "give with a cheerful heart, freely, as much as we decide." Instead, it takes money through compulsory taxation, and redistributes it, based on the will of majority, or based on lobbies, special-interest groups, or political games. If you refuse to pay, the government ultimately has the power to fine you, seize your property, or take away your freedom.

If I see a hungry person and voluntarily buy them a meal with a smile, that giving with a cheerful heart. If I threaten to take money from my neighbor and use it to buy that person a meal, I may have helped someone, but I haven't become charitable! Instead, I've used my own power and threats of violence to force someone else to fund my preferred act of compassion.

As Christians, I agree we should be concerned about the state of the poor, sick, and financially struggling. But we should also care about where the money is coming from, and ask ourselves, “Do the ends justify using coercion to take the product of one person's labor and give it to another?”

Coerced redistribution might help some people in the end. But it isn't the kind of charity that Christ invites us to. It isn't virtue on the part of the person whose money was taken either. Ultimately, virtue requires a choice. You can't compel generosity any more than you can compel belief in Christ.

Believe it or not, a community can care for its poor without appealing to the state's monopoly on legalized force and violence to accomplish this care. Noble, virtuous, and non-violent options include voluntary giving, mutual aid, church communities, and voluntary taxes for welfare. Sure, it's a lot harder than just raising taxes, but it's much more consistent with how the New Testament describes generosity: freely given, not forcefully extracted.

Am I the only one who really hates the fact that the government can just take your home away if you miss property taxes by 2+ years?

Also I know the community needs revenue but I have a strong belief that the entire state can be funded with state taxes, sales taxes, toll taxes, and even federal if needed.

I would much rather pay a small fee like 20 bucks a month to live in my community instead of having it tief to the value of my home.

Most people favor ending federal cannabis prohibition and legalizing cannabis for recreational and medical use. What other drugs, if any, should be legalized? Psychedelics, MDMA, and Ketamine? Which ones should remain illegal? Fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine?

This is a flow chart explaining ethical dilemmas in a rothbardian or ancap social order.

Some additional context I would like to add is in an Ancap social order there is no universal demand of privacy so if someone takes a picture of you naked in your house then it is their's to share the only exception is if they like trespassed to obtain it. This contextually matters.

What are your thoughts on this libertarian proposal to dramatically reduce the cost of college by removing regulatory and accreditation barriers that prevent institutions from offering accredited degrees based on demonstrated competency rather than requiring the traditional campus-and-classroom model?

A $6,000 College Degree?

Why should students have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to earn college credit if they can demonstrate that they already know the material?

We should create an accredited college based on demonstrated competency, not classroom attendance. Students would self-study using textbooks and online resources, then take rigorous, virtually proctored exams. If they pass, they earn accredited college credit.

A $40 exam plus a $100 credit fee could make a three-credit course available for about $140. Forty courses could produce a 120-credit bachelor's degree for roughly $5,600, plus books and optional tutoring.

This wouldn't lower academic standards. Students would still have to prove mastery through secure, independently developed and reviewed examinations.

Not every degree would qualify, but many subjects could.

The question is simple: Should accreditation measure how students learn—or what they actually know?

Emergency powers are rarely surrendered once the crisis passes. The greater danger is not whether government survives an emergency, but whether constitutional limits survive the powers created to manage it.

What do you all think about law enforcement arresting a man for trying to pay for sex?

What about the fact that there was no prostitute involved, just law enforcement acting like one online?

Does the fact that the suspect is a rich and famous NFL team owner make any difference?

The End Kidney Deaths Act (H.R. 2687) is a bipartisan federal bill designed to eliminate the severe shortage of transplantable organs by offering a substantial financial incentive to living kidney donors. Core MechanicsThe Financial Incentive: The bill establishes a federal refundable tax credit of $10,000 per year for five years, providing a total of $50,000 to eligible donors. The donated kidneys are legally mandated to go to the individuals who have been waiting the longest on the national kidney transplant list. The act creates a massive net benefit for both public health and government spending. The incentive will successfully encourage enough altruistic donors to save up to 100,000 American lives over a decade. Taxpayer Savings- by successfully transitioning patients from dialysis to working transplants, the bill is estimated to save taxpayers between $10 billion and $37 billion. The bill does not alter the strict medical or psychological screening processes already in place; it only targets the financial barriers that often prevent healthy people from donating.

There’s a lot of whistleblowers, forecasters, analysts, etc saying that AI differently from any other tech revolution before is going to kill every job, every business it’s going to get concentrated on the major ones that can invest and only the big governments are going to succeed . This till AI becomes Terminator/Matrix.

Im still reading and getting documented on Austrian School of Economics , Milton and Sowell mostly. Obviously on my understanding it’s a laissez fare approach on this occasion as well, because it will come out on the other end with purged and better off options.

Anyhow the fact that only a few will be accumulating power and there’s not going to be jobs for most its difficult to ignore. Moreover how can we not intervene when there are scientists and engineers developing something smarter than humans?

If these scenarios are going to be true we really think we are going back 500+ years back and working the land, the little not bought from corporates, and try to reset on auto sustainability.

For whom has read more or has a better understanding of the Libertarian approach, how’s the reality check with this catalyst in case it’s really achieved AGI/ASI?

A sergeant from Eastern Europe said something that stuck with me. He said that in many ways besides politically, Russians have more freedom than people in the US do, because there is in general less red tape with everyday things such as camping, riding 4 wheelers, etc. while the exact statement could be questioned, the general spirit of statement I think is very true. The US prides itself for its “freedom” but that’s really only concerning a few (albeit important) civil freedoms and relative to European countries. The US is incredibly restrictive on many things. It restricts firearms substantially. Bans most drugs. Restricts exotic animal ownership substantially. Restricts biological research substantially. Prohibits polygamy. Restricts sleeping outside in many places. Restricts flying drones in many jurisdictions. Bans prostitution. It is inching towards banning some forms of speech (as we have seen with Shiloh Hendrix). Bans wearing masks to hide face from the surveillance state.

There has got to be countries out there that are less infested with red tape and short sighted politicans that like to say popular things like I believe in freedom and then continue to pile on laws that restrict what its citizens can do

do you think more people aren't libertarians because they don't know about it? or do you think it's something else?

Frank Herbert really was ahead of his time with this one. It's kind of crazy to me that this gem of a quote is buried in the third book of a sci-fi/fantasy series, but we know Herbert was libertarian/conservative leaning anyway.

In November 2023, Javier Milei of Argentina became the first ever president to have liberatarian political ideology (the third most popular political ideology of USA). After that, two and half years have passed. In this period, which libertarian policy of Argentina do you think has benefited the most for the country? And which libertarian policy can other countries take from Argentina?

Still routinely see people walking around South Florida Wearing masks and gloves. I can’t imagine how uncomfortable it must be to still follow COVID guidelines not to mention the heat and humidity, but they look totally stupid still wearing ppe’s in public.

I am from Argentina. I know that libertarianism was born in USA and still is strong there. Apart from the Libertarian Party, there are other strong organizations or movements or is more like individuals without link one with each other? Ron Paul, whom I believe was coherent, respectable and clever, was at first in the LP but then he was in the republican party. There are now intellectuals like Rothbard? Is the movement strong or weak? Any thoughts are welcome. Have a nice day!

Hello r/Libertarian

I lean left, both socially and economically. While I know we disagree on the economics side, I do believe we can find common ground in regards to the social side.

One of the things that concerns me is how a concer is how a concerning amount of people believe that onyl certain select groups should be allowed to get married and enjoy the benefits of marriage, namely, how same-sex couples should be barred from marriage. Of course I disagree with this, and would rather have everyone enjoy the benefits and the experience of marriage.

However, one argument I've seen from the Libertarian side is how marriage should be abolished altogether, that way everyone can do with their relationship status with whatever they wish, and the government no longer determines who gets married and who can't. I find this to be an interesting idea, and I would like to ask: what would you want to see take the place of marriage? Would it be more of a private "civil union" that the government has no part in? Or is it something different?

Thank you for your thoughts and time.