Most of the people here are not Libertarians.
Who and who isn’t a Libertarian? What even is Libertarianism? These are two basic yet important questions to ask ourselves in what /r/Libertarian means, who is it for and what it represents.
For the first question of who and who isn’t a Libertarian, some people would accept the notion that self-identification is the only merit needed to validate being a Libertarian; but this is a false notion. Libertarianism for whatever it is, is not defined by people who identify as Libertarian, but the other way around. It is necessary to identify as a Libertarian and to understand and believe in Libertarianism, to sufficiently qualify as a Libertarian.
Well then what even is Libertarianism? Is it the ideology based on anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque? Libertarian socialist Benjamin Tucker? Or the anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard? I am not going to pretend anyone has a more legitimate claim over the term Libertarianism and it’s title Libertarian. However you will find in every Libertarian idol across the left-right political spectrum an acceptance of a core principle which is of course widely held among the Libertarians of today. Libertarianism is defined by the principle of the nonaggression axiom – otherwise known as the NAP or Non-Aggression Principle.
To quote from The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard.
The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.
Libertarians, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, communists, left or right, can all appeal to the rejection of force from social interaction. This is the defining value of Libertarianism.
This principle is held by all true Libertarians. This is not a no true scotsman fallacy. Because the argument is not made on the purity of generalization, but one that attempts to satisfy logic.
Identify as a Libertarian
Understand and believe in the nonaggression principle/axiom
Failure to strictly adhere to the core principle of Libertarianism – the rejection of force, often conceptualized as the NAP – disqualifies most people from being Libertarians.
You cannot support the anti-abortion position, the minimum wage, mandatory taxation, universal healthcare, social welfare, vaccine mandates and be a Libertarian; as all these positions one way or another requires the usage of force or compliance – the knowledge that the logical conclusion of resistance will lead to force.
In regards to regulations, the majority of regulations are anti-Libertarian. There are however legitimate forms of regulations. These legitimate forms of regulations are ones that set out to reasonably define the legal boundaries of what constitutes a threat, harm or force. Such as how loud your neighbor’s music can be before constituting a threat on and force on your ears and windows. Whether or not pollution falls under this and whether or not it’s limits can be reasonably defined to constitute a threat is a matter of debate. The illegitimate form of regulation is one that imposes itself onto people. The lack of a sprinkler system, proper lighting, windows, working plumbing, insulation and railings for stairs does not constitute a threat of aggression. The purpose of regulations should not be “safety”, but to punish those who break them, as the essence of regulations should be based upon the NAP. Regulations are the same rules, as they are the same with laws. The NAP is meant to define laws, and regulations are the same thing – they are laws. However just because there is a lack of regulations in the name of safety does not mean there is no punishment for negligence. If your building collapses you are still held liable for it’s consequences. You are still responsible for your property and it’s effects on how it harms others.
But anyways yeah, most people here are not Libertarians. Many people here hold views which simply contradict the nonaggression axiom. The nonaggression axiom is defining, if it weren’t you might as well think Conservatives are Libertarians and vice versa. “I’m for a small, limited government. I just advocate for public education, government roads, and low taxes.” A government which allows for mandatory taxation, government control of education and government control of major infrastructure is not “small” and flat out contradicts the NAP. If you were to reject the NAP as the defining value for Libertarianism, and yet held the idea of a small government as detailed here, you would be no different from a Conservative.
There are positions which belief in the NAP does not explicitly define by itself. Should there even be a State/Government is typically the most common.
Edit: meant anti-abortion not abortion.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society