I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. This is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the "construction manual" is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

Hello fellow libertarians,

After receiving some good feedback in a thread yesterday I was encouraged to maintain the open and user driven character of this community. I have therefore made the community description including rules a little more precise. I don't want to leave them as they are now, but offer you, the users, the possibility to give feddback and suggestions for improvement. You can start giving feedback right in the comments.

I realize that this approach is subobtimal, because in the best case there is no need for a central power center like the mods. I would like to give this community fully in the hands of the users, but since this is not possible, I try to achieve this goal as much as possible with the current means. Make all mods is also not an option, because otherwise all would have the power to lock out others which would certainly quickly lead to a disaster. But we must not forget: Lemmy is an open platform. Maybe we as a community can set a good example and show that it also works best with self-regulation of the content.

Update 1

I added some text to describe the ideas of libertarianism a bit better. Please feel free to make adjustments by writing them down in the comments.

Hello fellow libertarians,

A few hours ago, a user here linked to an article about the protests in france. It suggests that the lack of armament of the public has led to an uncontrolled outbreak of violence on the part of criminal gangs. I found this perspective exciting, but unfortunately the post was quickly deleted after he received some downvotes, so I would like to share my thoughts here.

Even though I am not in favor of gun bans, I have serious doubts as to whether such relaxed gun ownership as in the us would have deescalated the situation in any way. In my view, owning weapons to protect oneself and one's fellow human beings is absolutely justifiable, but the uncontrolled acquisition and loose carrying regulations in public spaces are definitely not.

I would very much look forward to a discussion with you about this topic and maybe OP might say something about it?

The link for reference: https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/as-france-disintegrates-gun-control-leaves-citizens-defenseless-against-rioters/

Is this a real Libertarian environment?

Am I going to get banned for saying something that all Libertarians should stand for?

There exists certain sectors of the market that, by their very nature, end up becoming monopolies, and, therefore, anti-competitive. The most obvious example of this would be utilities (think power distribution (even the poles themselves), water mains, sewage, etc). Is there any way to combat these sorts of monopolies with the existing system, or would a new system have to be devised using decentralized alternatives?

Hash it out amongst yourselves.