I've repeatedly told Marxist-Leninist tankies that being a Holodomor-denying commie is morally equivalent to being a Holocaust denier, and that they should be treated the same by society.

The reverse is also true, of course, meaning that Hoppeans should be treated like the commies they are.

Ideological reservations is an idea that I've floated before in the past that I think would massively help solve the political polarization that we see today. It would kind of be like the partition of India where they realized that the differences between Muslims and Hindus were too great so they set about creating an Islamic majority country in Pakistan and a Hindu majority country in India and people moved around as such. In many ways I think we already have ideological reservations online with many people preferring to just circlejerk their own ideology among other like-minded individuals in echo chambers rather than engage with anything that challenges their world view at all, it's basically taking that mentality from the online world to the physical one.

Thoughts?

40 trillion dollars in debt is insane and I feel like this is our single strongest issue against the Uniparty right now, especially re inflation and affordability. Also, I'm done with "fiscal responsibility" and "balancing the budget", we are way past that at this point and should start arguing to take control of money away from the state entirely.

The National Youth Rights Association Interviews Libertarian Party Candidate for US Senate in Texas, Ted Brown. Listen as they discuss Violations of Student rights in Texas from a Libertarian Perspective.

I personally would put sanctions in the same camp as tariffs and embargoes. However justified they may be, I think that they go against free trade and that the government should not be imposing them. This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that trading with a country like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is necessarily good but it shouldn't be the government's business who you are trading with. It's a lot like how I personally don't care for AI ads but I don't think the state should be forcing them to disclose that they are AI either.

Thoughts?

Whoever is moderating that subreddit is doing a gross disservice to real classical liberals who are definitely not right wing. The moderator also seems to have an unhealthy admiration for the odious Nick Fuentes.

Can anything be done about this? Classical liberals are a significant subset of libertarians. Labeling us as right wing harms the larger coalition.

First, let me say this:

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗷𝗮𝘄𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴?

In a broad conversational sense, it can be any attempt from someone in a position of authority and power to influence through persuasion.

But in the legal sense (NRA vs Vullo,) such a request becomes unconstitutional jawboning when it crosses the line from persuasion to coercion, using (or threatening to use) government power to punish or suppress disfavored speech.

If, for example, a government official requests a social media company to examine an account they believe is violating TOS, that's not by itself unconstitutional jawboning.

If the official specifically requests that the account violating TOS be suspended, that's still not by itself unconstitutional jawboning.

If, however, the communication from the official could be reasonably viewed in context as threatening government action in order to apply pressure on the company to suppress speech, that can become a First Amendment violation.

What does this look like? Here are some examples:

New York regulator Maria Vullo using her office to pressure insurance and financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA or face increased enforcement focus, while relaxing enforcement on those who complied.

Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari objecting to anti-gay religious billboards and contacting the billboard company about the messages, implicitly threatening economic retaliation.

Biden administration officials pressuring social media platforms to remove or limit content, including posts about COVID-19 and elections.

Rhode Island sending letters to book publishers, asking them to stop distributing a list of prohibited books, reminding them that the state could recommend prosecution, and sending police to visit them.

FCC commissioner Brendan Carr threatening government action against broadcasters, such as fines or license revocation, if they did not remove a program he found objectionable.

Without evidence that criminal investigations or other state powers were being threatened as leverage to compel X's decision, this does not appear to be unconstitutional jawboning. The explicit request for suspension makes it more forceful than a neutral referral, but it does not by itself cross the constitutional line.

An official can openly urge a platform to suspend an account without necessarily violating the First Amendment. The critical question is whether the official uses government power to coerce the platform, rather than simply making a forceful request.

It would have been better if the letter did not call on Twitter to take a specific action.

***

Second, let me say this:

LOL. LMAO. ROFLMAO. FAFO.