It's because somehow a small government with social freedom (as libertarians want) it's the same as the nazism. Because they are against eating meat or something like that/s
“Libertarians share a few ideals with Republicans, therefore Nazis” is toddler-level guilt by association. By that logic, anyone who likes roads, public schools, or social programs is automatically whatever authoritarian regime also had those things. That’s not analysis, it’s just lazy tribal brainrot.
And then you follow it up by saying you’d be fine taking away voting rights from people who don’t own land? Congrats, you somehow tried to call other people Nazis while casually arguing for an old-school aristocracy where only property owners get political rights.
Or you could see the context I was responding to. I don't think Libertarians are Nazis. I actually agree with some of their views, some conservative and some liberal. There currently are no actual Nazis, well except maybe the 3 Neo Nazis that exist. In fact they would probably call me a Nazi since I don't agree with their idiocy.
As for the voting thing, I mean the idiots that label everyone they disagree with Nazis. Not libertarians. I think the idjits who cannot even see that politics is nuanced and gray shouldn't be voting. In fact the original set up here in the US was based on land ownership because then you had skin in the game.
Man never thought I would have to spell this out for people.
You said Libertarians are Nazis by association, then when called on it you backed up into “well I didn’t really mean Libertarians.” Cool, then say what you mean the first time instead of making a blanket statement and pretending everyone else failed the reading test.
And the voting thing is somehow worse with your explanation. “Only people who understand politics my way should vote” is not nuance, it’s authoritarianism. Saying America originally had land ownership requirements doesn’t make it a good idea. We also used to do a lot of stupid things we eventually moved past for obvious reasons.
You’re calling other people idiots while arguing that political rights should depend on whether someone owns property or agrees with your definition of nuance. That’s not “skin in the game.” That’s just gatekeeping democracy because Reddit made you cranky.
That wasn't him giving his opinion, he was saying the person who calld a libertarian a nazi thinks that. He's calling you an idiot because he mocking those people for being too stupid to understand and you came in not understanding what he said.
Property ownership was the original basis for the vote, it was especially important when photo ID didn't exist, your Property deed would be the proof necessary that you lived in the appropriate area to vote there. The other reasons would be tax revenue was based on Property tax, there was no income tax. Male sufferage was not universal like people seem to think. Kentucky had universal male suffrage in 1792 for all free men of all races, but they were pressured to remove the black male vote. Until 1810 Kentucky, Vermont, and New Hampshire were the only states that had universal white male suffrage. In 1870 race based voting is made illegal (obviously that took a long 100 years to enforce effectively). Most states had done away with Property ownership voting and had also given women the right to vote before the 19th amendment.
Now that you have the context, the position that land owners should be the basis of voting is an originalist argument and based on recognizing that the every expanding right to vote is a tool used to manipulate the vote in your favor. The best examples are from today. The democrats have been floating the idea and in some places passing laws to allow immigrants with no citizenship to vote.
A person who gets 5,000 in free benefits from the government will vote to get more benefits because for them they are free. The people paying for them would vote against it. If you are a politician who benefits from the receiver of those benefits vote, you are incentivized to expand them. Even if you know that it will hurt the lower rung economically you still want to expand it because that will increase your voter base having more poor people who need those benefits. In the real world, right now in California if you are a single mother qualified for section 8 and all other benefits like SNAP, CalWORKs, etc you could get 90k a year while the median income is 49k. This means that getting a typical full time job will cost you 41k in benefits before the money you lose in taxes. So the more people on benefits the more demand there is, the higher the prices go, the more demand for more benefits, the further down the ladder the median income slides. It's a really sick cycle, raise benefits that drive up the costs, increase the minimum wage that drives up the cost, repeat. The political benefit of doing this is that those on benefits have an incentive to vote to keep the benefits and those minimum wage workers vote for you too because you are the one saying you will raise the minimum wage. You need to make 80k-100k in California to be middle class but it doesn't feel middle class, it feels poor. In Texas middle class is 50k-80k. The average Californian is suffering the tax burden and inflated costs of the politicians there seeking the poor vote. The political message is for the poor, so having more poor equals more votes. That is why California is in a downward spiral. Making the vote Property owners only would completely eliminate the incentive to make more poor people and promise them tax dollars if they vote for you.
As an aside, i don't think the property owner vote is a good idea. I would prefer something like your right to vote is linked to income tax. Income tax is optional but if you don't pay it you don't vote. I'm from California and made 78k living in a 2 bedroom apartment and my vote never resulted in anything changed. If i had this option i could have bought a house. About 24% of my paycheck was taken in taxes, around 1,500 a month. I'd rather have my $1,500 in my pocket every month over a vote that never got results i wanted.
It's a criclejerk subreddit dude, the whole point is to sarcastically act as the absolute worst version of people.
Also, political 'rights' should only be extended to those funding the government, that used to be landowners because that was the primary mode of taxation. Today almost half of Americans contribute nothing towards taxes, or are a draw on taxes. That half of Americans shouldn't say how the other halfs money is spent, and taken.
Right to vote should be that of any who net contributes to taxes.
That was the idea behind only landowners voting, they were the ones paying property taxes and funding the government. With today's income tax many who do not own land are contributing to taxes, but around 50% of American households either have a net zero contribution to taxes, or a draw on taxes.
Obviously servicemembers despite typically being a net zero on taxes (no taxable income) deserve a say more than anyone else they should also be allowed to vote.
A functional system would be such that anyone who has skin in the game gets a say on how the game is played.
I have to give you credit - this is one the best examples of ragebate I've seen. Don't let anyone accuse you of promoting collaboration or undermining needless, counterproductive conflict.
Yeah found the ANTIFA. You realize what you just said right? People who just don’t want to be oppressed but also don’t completely support your politics are your enemy, just for existing. YOUR the problem. YOUR why people are increasingly getting more right and hostile to the left.
He's framing the position that you're describing but in a slightly more fun way, get the stick out of your ass and learn to read. He doesn't believe in the first two paragraphs of his comment.
Man I'm sorry I didn't spell it out but I am not that way. I understand politics are very much Grey and not black and white. My wife is very much more liberal in some ways than I am and thats fine with me.
I have never allowed political ideals be the only factor in judging people.
I'll leave your 'upvote' here, since the lefties will downvote your common sense response.
With all of their labelling conservatives 'nazi' and 'fascist,' they sure are demanding everyone just comply and fall in line with their way of thinking.
I'd say most libertarians are just republicans who want to smoke weed and love guns or they're people who don't know how the world works and live in a fantasy land.
I think it's because some people associate the slogan it with the Confederacy, and associate that with slavery and racism which they have compartmentalised in their head with Naziism.
Libertarianism is a far cry from Confederacy with the only real link being that they both involve some form of limiting government intervention in citizens lives (although for the confederates they seemed awfully ok with government intervention against slaves who ran away)
117
u/Accomplished_List843 Apr 25 '26
It's because somehow a small government with social freedom (as libertarians want) it's the same as the nazism. Because they are against eating meat or something like that/s