Except that as a designer if I don’t have the construction materials or resources to buy the materials a building isn’t going to be built.
I think the better definition would be benefiting from taxes. Very wealthy individuals can and do live separate from society but collective spending on things like defense, infrastructure and emergency services make things much easier to have a functioning society.
I don't think politicains hate libertarians. Libertarians are no threat to them. I mean, libertarians are anti-state, so to that extent they can be considered bad guys by those who get their wealth and power from the state. But there is no libertarian movement or anything that poses any real threat to those politicians' wealth and power. So, yeah, no reason for politicians to hate libertarians.
I wouldn't call libertarians anti-state. They are more self sovereign. Like an atheist who begs to God on their deathbed, the libertarians begs the state for assistance when they are about to lose it all. Libertarians are no threat because they tend to be more anti-social/avoidant types of people and refuse to work together for a cause that doesn't support their selfish need.
That’s a better term to use. “Living off taxes from others” is just my attempt to use the same language as some posters here.
Libertarians seem to have a wide range of views. That’s certainly one of them. At its core, it’s about self-determination and self-sustainability. At least, that’s how I see them. And that’s pretty attractive; we all should have some of that. However, extreme libertarians are, well, extreme and kind of crazy, sometimes literally.
I'll say that self-sovereign is a better way of thinking about how libertarians appear in the real world. That is true. So maybe it is a better way to describe them. But.... I'll stick with anti-state. I think given that we all live under various states, and that isn't changing, that it's more reasonable, from a day-to-day perspective, to live in a self-sovereign(ish) way. But really, any libertarian should value the non-aggression axiom, which any and every state violates by its very being. So any libertarian should therefore be anti-state. "Anti-state, anti-war, pro-market," as the Rothbard slogan goes. In any case, yeah, libertarians are no threat, and they won't ever be. I don't know much about Argentina's President but I don't see this as a growing trend.
Obviously the American Republican Party likes Libertarians. I mean the most powerful caucus in the House of Representatives claims to be Libertarian. So obviously "Politicians" do not "Hate" libertarians. ..... There are no ruling "Libertarian" parties that lead countries around the world because a true Ayan Rand fever dream simply cannot succeed as a country economically at a fundamental level. It's a pipe dream. As early as mankind has existed in a tribal fashion, there has always been system of the group/tribe taking care of itself as a whole in some way. Sometimes it as a dictatorship/dynasty/Patriarchy, and sometimes it is with a democratic system, and sometimes it is with a blend of the two. But a tribe/community where every man is for themselves is not a tribe/community. It is chaos, and dog eat dog where the few prey on the many. It's just human nature, and the way we operate in communities, and as larger civilizations. People or "politicians" do not "Hate Libertarians."... they just understand that the theory is full of crap, and we have our entire history as a species as evidence.
Actually, we have a lot of evidence that more communism and more government lead to greater human suffering.
Because there literally has never been a sustained libertarian government that Ayan Rand and her followers on the right point to as the blueprint. Yes Switzerland and the Netherlands have had more libertarian versions of European’s democratic socialist structure but culturally they are way too liberal to be accepted by the true libertarian die hards. Communism and Socialism have been relatively widespread in recent history so of course there are negative examples. It’s also not communism or socialism in a vacuum that has led to suffering… it’s the brutal dictatorship at the heart of those countries centralized government head that led to that. When Eisenhower/Nixon started spreading paranoia about Communism spreading they were not concerned about the government structure spreading, they were concerned with untrustworthy Soviets with a beef with the US putting nukes closer and closer to our borders. It was a people/behavioral problem, not a problem with how a country runs its tax policy. Again you are trying to conflate government structural components with behavioral and social traits in order to try and demonize a political party/s. It’s ridiculous and nobody should take your arguments seriously.
communism also is usually a product of a society about to collapse and its laborers revolting violently and forming a system from chaos and foreign capitalist powers making sure that it never has a chance.
I would say if the labor market through a cartel of capital owners determining that you either dedicate 40-60 hours a week to their profit motives or you don't have a source of income at all can't get complete free healthcare coverage, and has to dedicate 70% of their monthly income to another capital land owner with rent, you'll get some reasonable unrest. Because the capital owners are demanding 50 hours of your life dedicated to their profit motive while those 50 hours are still not giving the basic necessities for a stable lifestyle. I'm not talking about luxury items like a new Toyota Camry or a PlayStation 5 or a gaming PC with with a 4090rtx... we are referring to rent and healthcare. If 50 hours dedicated to someone else's profit motive can't get you that in a stable way were one bad emergency derails a month of basic bills like rent, then it's a failed system.
