I am a New Zealander who identifies as a Libertarian and wants to get into Libertarianism more. But the problem is there are not that many Libertarians in New Zealand and New Zealand is quite leftist and PC. I just want to see if there are any New Zealanders here who can give me some advice on how to find Libertarians here and where I can meet them etc.

Also what areas of New Zealand are more libertarian then others? I assume that The South Island is most likely more Libertarian then New Zealand because it is more conservative then rural but idk for sure so I wanna ask.

I am a university student so I don't think I'm in the best area for libertarians but maybe there better universities for Libertarians.

What do you guys think?

(This was orignally posted in r/Libertarian but I was unable to post it due to my account being new/unused).

So we maxed out freedom.

We maxed out economic efficiency, which I think is even more important than freedom. Like 95% of the time it's the same policies anyway. Let the market decide.

In the 5% where what max out economic efficiency deviates from libertarianism, I would move to a state that max out economic efficiency. Things like eminent domains don't bother me. So is criminalization of fentanyl (though MDMA should be legal).

But we actually win election. Majority of people are better off voting us. Also we can withstand some war and don't just lost like

This is important. As a businessman, if I just keep blaming others for bad outcome, I wouldn't get rich. Anyone can blame others. Blaming commies are like commies blaming greedy capitalists.

Just like commies should know humans are greedy and build a system around that, libertarians should know humans are envious and understand most would vote socialism. Also misaligned greed lead to problems.

One thing I can think of is joint stock version of society. Something like what I write here https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalPhilosophy/comments/1v3kb15/jointstock_democracy_aligning_political/

Can you think of anything else?

For those who are not familiar I give simple AI definition

What is the "Selfish Gene"?

Popularized by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976, the gene-centered view of evolution argues that natural selection acts primarily on genes, not on species or individual organisms.

The Core Idea: Organisms (including humans) act as "survival machines" or vehicles for their genes.

Why it Matters: Behaviors that look like self-sacrifice or altruism (e.g., protecting family or tribe members) are often strategies driven by genes to ensure their own replication across generations (kin selection and inclusive fitness).

I will give you an example.

Inheritance.

Standard libertarian approach is that I am free to bequeath my money to anyone. Many libertarians are probably aren't aware that most rich men bequeath their money to his own children, but would tolerate it.

Selfish gene approach is that father don't really bequeath money to his children. It's just the same genes passing on money to the same blood lines.

So a gene that says, love my own biological children, will notice that it's quite likely the similar genes will be on his own children anyway, and would mind control fathers to make his sons rich. Such genes will then have more success in the gene pool than genes that say abandon my children.

Of course, with welfare, genes that say abandon our children because suckers will pay for it anyway will flourish, which is what happened in many rich countries. We got cradle to grave welfare recipients.

It doesn't even have to be genes. Traits, memes, and religions also evolve and kind of selfish by themselves.

My approach is out of all government violation of libertarianism, the most serious ones are those that prevent economically productive people from having more children. Those are things like prohibition of transactional reproduction, and inheritance tax.

Normally a rich man can simply pay a lot of women to produce heirs for him. If governments get in the way, that's bigger deadweight loss than even tariffs.

Child support laws would count if it severely prevent rich men from having as many children as he can afford or preventing rich men from investing in his own children. For example, some judges may force father to pay mom money instead of investing in children's portfolio.

Every violation of libertarian principle sucks of course. But the one affecting demographic against economically productive people is the worst.

What do you think?

Will pretty women greatly reduce rape probability by staying close to rich men?

Not only rich men often pays or financially support, they tend to protect women.

Stats show that rich men rape women far less. Like 1/7th rate of poor men.

Also countries where prostitution is legal have lower rape rate.

But that's rate of conviction/reports. Many people, feminists, for example, say that rich men are as dangerous as poor men, they just get convicted less.

I disagree.

I think the actual rate is 1/40th or 1/100th

Why?

https://www.facebook.com/DavidJHarrisJr/posts/pfbid0YovpWwocp5FAxQ1dkHLPVLEuY2RLd266DevahjsLYhazVDUkC2NnR9yAuakF2udWl

Just look at this. A poor migrant can get away with murder. Cops cover up. Even when the perpetrators get caught they are free just let go because of insanity/too dumb.

Compared that to Duke Lacrose team case.

Also most rape are very difficult to know either way. Look at case of Donald Trump or Mike Tyson. A woman get into private enclosure and have history of having rape fantasy and/or falsely accuse other men of rape.

On the other hand, I've heard a case of migrants that have sex with a woman he doesn't know. At first the migrant says he doesn't have sex with the woman. After it's proven that his semen is in her vagina the migrant just say it's consensual. Jury aquit migrants.

It seems that poor people get away with rape a lot and rich people get falsely accuse a lot.

It's he said she said.

Transactional sex would have clear up consent. We would have known, oh the woman worth this much and hence she is unlikely to consent. People tend to agree on price before transactions.

But the laws seems to favor ambiguous situation. So rich men fear fucking women because the women can cry rape latter. Women end up getting close to the poor that are far more likely to rape or even murder them.

And societies vote for it because societies hate rich men.

Also many "rape" or sexual assault are less harmful than others. Yet government treat them the same way.

Look at this case

https://www.reddit.com/r/RapeCommentary/comments/77s1l5/i_was_accused_of_rape_because_i_kissed_a_guy/

A man invite a woman to his place. They are both asleep. The woman kiss the man. The man complained that she "rape" him. If the sex is reversed this could have blown up.

Why I think this is less serious than rape by strangers?

Say I bring a woman into my home. I "vet" her. She must be pretty enough to even qualify to be there. If she kiss me or blow me when I am asleep, she is someone I have "approved".

If ugly women put sleeping pill on my drink and have sex with me of course that's problematic.

The main reason we consent or don't consent to have sex with someone is his/her specs. High specs, we consent. Low specs we don't. Another is cost/pay.

Of course someone that have agreed before to have sex don't usually lost a lot even if sex latter is not strictly consensual. But government treat them the same way.

Both of you can have drugged or drunked sex with your sugar babies that you have sex a lot and cops can jail you both.

These again favor poor men. Having sex with someone we have approved have lower damage. Strong enforcement against date rape don't affect poor men too much because the woman can simply choose not to date the poor men in the first place.

But the enforcement may scare off rich men that fear false rape accusation. So women can't date rich men and end up getting close to poor men that are more likely to rape or even murder her.

That's just my guess.

Feminists framing that rape is about power than sex just like prostitution is about charity than money also bias against rich men that simply can get consensual sex easily by offering money.

If I were a pretty woman, I would choose jurisdiction that are more serious at stopping rape by poor men.

But what do you think?

What is your estimate of actual rape ratio per capita. Do rich men rape less, more, or way less than poor men?