It’s very sad to me that a major current of US politics is so anti-govt for anti-govt sake, rather than sound reason, that such behavior even occurs to people. What’s even worse is much of the libertarian/right wing anti-gov furor is pushed by lobbyists and “think tanks” both funded by major industries that want to avoid any kind of regulation.. yet it gets boiled down and refined into culture wars that people happily will absorb into their own psyche.

As much as freedom of speech and decentralization is important, constant attacks on this and that in isolation lead to the incorrect conclusion that everything must be thrown away. It’s a product of no one person, but many contribute to the entire macro problem, which means no one also will accept responsibility for the entire mess that were now in such that half the country doesn’t want to save their own and others lives despite a dangerous pandemic by using a safe and paid for vaccine alternative.

> libertarian ... want to avoid any kind of regulation

Much of what people know about libertarians comes from its opponents. Actual libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect peoples rights, while maximizing their freedom. Proper regulations would be aimed at preventing one group of people from hurting others.

"For their own good" regulations, though, are not libertarian. Adults should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices about themselves.

P.S. I got fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.

Most of what I know of libertarians I learned from people calling themselves libertarians on the Internet.

Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory.

Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.

Hang out with a bunch of libertarians and eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian.

There are various types (or degrees or flavors or something) of libertarianism. Minarchy [0] is one type, but doesn't seem to be the most vocal from what I've seen. There's even libertarian socialism [1]. The most vocal type seems to be anarcho capitalism [2] which is pretty much the no government whatsover group.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Libertarianism is a difficult philosophy for most people to accept, as it relies on order arising from chaos. (Even though all life on Earth is order arising from chaos.) Most people feel more comfortable with a law that forces their desired outcome.

> eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian

As will adherents to every political persuasion. Some even go so far as to violently purge their impure members.

Regardless of what people call themselves, when they say things like "libertarianism means no government" and "libertarianism allows people to sell themselves into slavery" and "libertarians allow people to sell baby food laced with poison" they are not a credible source.

I have seen people who call themselves libertarians openly arguing that it should be legal for companies to sell poison in food—I don't believe baby food came up specifically, but that's a purely emotional addition, and shouldn't change the overall argument—because the free market would work it out.

You may not think they are credible, or libertarians, but I'll ask you not to deny my lived experience just to support your personal idea of what a libertarian is or should be.

I've heard some Democrats argue for some pretty awful things. I dismiss them as not credible representatives of the DNC.

Nobody thinks it's good for poisoned food to be sold.

The libertarian argument that you're almost certainly mischaracterizing there is about the pandora's box that is opened by allowing the government to decide what is or is not "poison" (which is of course an absurdly emotionally charged word picked by their opponents). Consider that some governments want to restrict sugary food on health grounds. Sugar isn't a poison but once you accept the principle that governments can ban companies from selling "poisoned" food, the definition of poison immediately comes under attack and sooner or later means almost nothing like what you'd expect.

That is a good point, but I was specifically talking about putting unambiguously deadly poison in baby food.

There are always going to be grey areas, such as the line between "safe" and "unsafe", and Libertarianism doesn't provide any guidance on where that line should be. The government's role is to define that line, and the courts to interpret it as part of checks and balances.

Do 'actual libertarians' get to control who gets to call themselves a libertarian?

Michigan politicians that like to label themselves as libertarian supported socializing the cost of vehicle accidents. Of course repealing an insurance mandate is pro 'personal freedom' on the surface, but in context of reality, all it does is transfer costs from a user fee to Medicaid, which is not libertarian at all.

Free speech is a Libertarian principle, so people can claim they are whatever floats their boat.

It's a natural, predictable counter reaction. The government has lied to people so often on so many different topics that now some illogical people habitually distrust all government statements, even the ones that are completely correct. Once credibility is lost it can take generations to rebuild.

Is that actually illogical or is it just Bayesian reasoning? Normally Bayesian reasoning is seen as a logical way to handle probability.

My sisters husband actively tells his 7 year old daughter not to wear a belt. He’s so stupidly anti-rules he’s willing to sacrifice his young daughter to it.

My father, in the 1960s, would not accept delivery of new cars unless the dealer installed seat belts. He'd never move an inch until everybody in it was belted up. It was the only car I ever rode in that had seat belts in it, for most of my childhood.

Seat belts have saved my life, and that of other family members.

My father was a libertarian, too.

Robert McNamara speaks about this in the documentary "The fog of war" - they identified the problem (people were dying in crashes), implemented a solution (seatbelts + signs reminding people they were there), but couldn't get people to use them. Thus is the human condition, I suppose.

Wow, that is definitely taking it too far. And not only is he putting his daughter in immediate physical danger, he is also inviting an intervention from the gov't if they find out. Definitely goes beyond my risk tolerance even if I don't care much for being told what to do.