Libertarian Discussion

247 readers

1 users here now

Place for discussion from a Libertarian perspective, meaning less top-down control and more individual liberty. In general, the intent is discussion about issues and not a discussion on libertarianism itself or any of its branches.

Be sure to respect the instance rules, and please keep discussion civil and backed by high quality sources where possible.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works

What does the Libertarian candidate really believe? | Chase Oliver | Just Asking Questions, Ep. 25 (m.youtube.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works to c/libertarian@sh.itjust.works

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This interview mostly goes over social policy, so I hope there's a follow-up with fiscal policy as well.

Here's an AI-generated transcript, which has some mistakes but hopefully is helpful. I tried copying it here, but it was too long.

Some interesting tidbits I liked:

Liz challenged Chase on gender affirming care - his response was "no to surgery before 18, yes to medication if parents and doctors agree"
open borders - wants an "Ellis Island"-style system where you register and then get to work, while still maintaining a strong police presence to keep out criminals
courting those on the right of the LP - wants to work together on common causes, but will disagree on social issues
vaccine mandates - no mandates from the government, but private businesses absolutely can; he thinks businesses requiring masks/vaccines is stupid because it limits customers

The whole discussion was pretty interesting, and I think it's interesting that Liz Wolfe came out as more conservative than Zach (apparently, Zach rarely discusses personal opinions).

So far I'm pretty happy with Chase as the candidate because:

he's pretty well-spoken - reminds me a bit of Gary Johnson with less "aloof"-ness
he appears confident and seems to do a good job justifying his positions on core libertarian principles
very different from both Trump and Biden, so he should contrast well
going after young voters - he's young, and he's highlighting issues that young people seem to care about, so I'm hopeful that'll resonate with young voters

I certainly disagree with him on some issues, but I think he'll be a good voice for the party. I would like to see more discussion on economic policy though.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Are you excited for a Chase Oliver campaign, or do you think the Libertarian Party should have made a different choice?

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just want to add, if Chase seems reasonable to you and you don't have another preferred candidate, please actually support him. The Ron Paul paleoconservative wing of the Libertarian Party is criticizing him pretty hard. If he doesn't end up with support and votes, it will be harder to get a nominee that appeals to the left in the future.

I like Chase. I think he's a great speaker, and he's good at making great little one liners. I like most of his policies. I'm not fully on board with the Gaza is a genocide or puberty blockers are reversible stances, but his intentions are good even with those issues.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Yup, agreed. I like both Ron Paul and Chase Oliver, and I'm somewhere in the middle between them. Maybe I just like people with two first names ;)

But yeah, I'll probably pick up some merch. I rarely openly support politicians, but we need libeetarianism to get more recognition. Apparently both Trump and Biden have pulled out of the debate commission, so there's a better chance than ever for third parties to debate the major parties.

Yeah, Oliver has his faults, but I don't see anyone better stepping up.

[–] VeryImportantUser@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

no to surgery before 18

Big yikes!

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

? It's "no gender-affirming surgery," medically necessary surgery is absolutely on the table. He's also against any cosmetic surgery before 18, such as circumcision, breast augmentation, etc. The idea is that it's not reversible, so it shouldn't be the parents' choice.

I think that's a "small yikes" at best. It's a pretty reasonable middleground policy. It should get some of those on the left interested without scaring too many on the right. I actually agree with him, though I'm not confident that chemical treatments are fully reversible.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Hello, am on the left. Can confirm it's a reasonable policy thatakes him a pretty reasonable candidate to me.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

If it's the arbitrary age that has you hung up, the best solution I've seen is to appeal to the courts to emancipate from your parents and be granted age of majority rights.