I’m not communist and my comment has nothing to do with communism.
I’m anti-authoritarian 🤣
I’m a privacy and FLOSS advocate, you think I’d side with organizations, partys or countrys that seek to build a surveillance state? Foolish.
You realize there’s more partys than liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans right? Newsflash I’m not either liberal nor conservative.
Always making assumptions…
You carefully avoided any mention of your actual politics, whilst telling me off for not knowing yours. I don’t know how you think in supposed to know.
I don’t hate liberals you clown
You have a funny way of showing it, and I’m no clown, thank you very much, I’m just pissed off that so many people BoTh SidEs stuff where there are real differences.
But if you don’t hate liberals, there’s even less need to dive in with your false equivalence between the two American parties over homosexuality, one of the few issues where they do differ substantially. If you have a brain, use it.
Apologies for not researching your whole post history, but I don’t see how that’s relevant anyway. If its no big deal, why the fuck are you spending so much time and effort defending it, arguing with people who pointed out your error?
Not actually spending that much time.
There’s no error, again, many are overthinking this whole damn thing.
It’s not about “equivalency”. Like I’ve already said, it’s not as deep as you think it is.
Just think of a party, insert it in the given place, and the statement most likely still works in one way or another. It’s that simple.
E.g. If socialists were capable of using logic, they wouldn’t be socialists. It’s just a versatile statement. It even works on libertarianism (which is closet to my own position); e.g., inconsistencies between ideals like individual rights and how some actors/coalitions actually behave, e.x. as in the context of libertarian partys unfortunate tendencies to perpetuate racism despite promoting human rights and individualism.
If you were capable of logic you wouldn’t be trying to argue you were right when it was pointed out to you that in this context, on this issue, you are wrong.
Also, libertarianism is really really really stupid, so there’s that.
The point has nothing to do with the context of the previous statement before it. It’s only about how the template applies. Digging too deep into it when the bedrock was surface lvl.
Also, libertarianism is really really really stupid, so there’s that.
How is libertarianism stupid? You’re literally using software made by people whose views closely overlap with libertarian ideology…
It’s fair to say real-world partys and their policies are stupid, sure. But beg to differ that the whole thing is.
Libertarianism isn’t automatically stupid; its emphasis on individual rights; right to privacy, ect. and freedom maps well onto values often found in FOSS : privacy, user control, and the ability to modify software.
What I find stupid is how some real-world groups/platforms apply those ideas (or betray them). That goes back to my original point about how the template applies to most American parties in one way or another.
If libertarian ideals (as practiced by coalitions/actors) were consistently reflected in coalition behavior, then we wouldn’t see X* behavior (e.g., tolerating/partnering with racism) and therefore libertarian-aligned parties in America wouldn’t produce those contradictions yet they do produce those contradictions; so, as the template implies to conclud, their not X* (libertarian).
Libertarianism is really really really stupid because in the real world no one pays for high quality roads, light rail network etc, safety nets for folks too ill to work or recently sacked through “reorganisation” etc etc etc unless they’re forced to. Privatised healthcare sucks for most people except the very wealthy, same for education. Libertarianism puts no governmental checks whatsoever on the power of corporations, it’s basically the rule of the jungle where the wealthy get freedom and the poor get slavery back. What stops corporations poisoning you for profits? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not competition. If you don’t regulate, people die. Just because American governments are crap, doesn’t mean governments are unnecessary. Individual liberty is a great concept, yes, but if nobody forces children to share and be considerate, they never learn it. For example, Elon Musk, Donald Trump.
Your points about weak safety nets, underfunded infrastructure, healthcare and education that often leave most people worse off, and corporate harm when oversight is weak are not wrong. The leap is blaming libertarianism as such for harm capitalism can create through its incentives.
Libertarianism is not automatically “no regulation” or “no government checks.” A lot of the harm you describe comes from limitations or additions to the idea as it is practiced, plus how parties structure markets, enforcement, and accountability. If the real target is that those arrangements let corporate power outrun protections, then arguing for better safeguards fits without concluding that the underlying commitment to liberty is stupid.
And you can treat limitarianism as a mutually beneficial modification to libertarianism. The idea is to keep individual liberty and market freedom while explicitly adding credible constraints for externalities, power imbalances, and baseline protections so people are not left exposed.
Also, “libertarianism plus minimal governance” is not a uniform package worldwide. Some countries and real parties implement more constraints, different enforcement, and different welfare baselines, so you can’t read one especially dysfunctional American pattern as proof that libertarianism in general is destined to produce these outcomes.
These are things I’ve personally criticized libertarian parties for and have thought a lot about. That’s why I’m not libertarian, only libertarian adjacent.
You carefully avoided any mention of your actual politics, whilst telling me off for not knowing yours. I don’t know how you think in supposed to know.
You have a funny way of showing it, and I’m no clown, thank you very much, I’m just pissed off that so many people BoTh SidEs stuff where there are real differences.
But if you don’t hate liberals, there’s even less need to dive in with your false equivalence between the two American parties over homosexuality, one of the few issues where they do differ substantially. If you have a brain, use it.
Bruh
Apologies for not researching your whole post history, but I don’t see how that’s relevant anyway. If its no big deal, why the fuck are you spending so much time and effort defending it, arguing with people who pointed out your error?
Not actually spending that much time.
There’s no error, again, many are overthinking this whole damn thing.
It’s not about “equivalency”. Like I’ve already said, it’s not as deep as you think it is. Just think of a party, insert it in the given place, and the statement most likely still works in one way or another. It’s that simple. E.g. If socialists were capable of using logic, they wouldn’t be socialists. It’s just a versatile statement. It even works on libertarianism (which is closet to my own position); e.g., inconsistencies between ideals like individual rights and how some actors/coalitions actually behave, e.x. as in the context of libertarian partys unfortunate tendencies to perpetuate racism despite promoting human rights and individualism.
If you were capable of logic you wouldn’t be trying to argue you were right when it was pointed out to you that in this context, on this issue, you are wrong.
Also, libertarianism is really really really stupid, so there’s that.
The point has nothing to do with the context of the previous statement before it. It’s only about how the template applies. Digging too deep into it when the bedrock was surface lvl.
How is libertarianism stupid? You’re literally using software made by people whose views closely overlap with libertarian ideology…
It’s fair to say real-world partys and their policies are stupid, sure. But beg to differ that the whole thing is.
Libertarianism isn’t automatically stupid; its emphasis on individual rights; right to privacy, ect. and freedom maps well onto values often found in FOSS : privacy, user control, and the ability to modify software.
What I find stupid is how some real-world groups/platforms apply those ideas (or betray them). That goes back to my original point about how the template applies to most American parties in one way or another.
If libertarian ideals (as practiced by coalitions/actors) were consistently reflected in coalition behavior, then we wouldn’t see X* behavior (e.g., tolerating/partnering with racism) and therefore libertarian-aligned parties in America wouldn’t produce those contradictions yet they do produce those contradictions; so, as the template implies to conclud, their not X* (libertarian).
Is that clear enough?
Libertarianism is really really really stupid because in the real world no one pays for high quality roads, light rail network etc, safety nets for folks too ill to work or recently sacked through “reorganisation” etc etc etc unless they’re forced to. Privatised healthcare sucks for most people except the very wealthy, same for education. Libertarianism puts no governmental checks whatsoever on the power of corporations, it’s basically the rule of the jungle where the wealthy get freedom and the poor get slavery back. What stops corporations poisoning you for profits? I’ll give you a clue, it’s not competition. If you don’t regulate, people die. Just because American governments are crap, doesn’t mean governments are unnecessary. Individual liberty is a great concept, yes, but if nobody forces children to share and be considerate, they never learn it. For example, Elon Musk, Donald Trump.
Your points about weak safety nets, underfunded infrastructure, healthcare and education that often leave most people worse off, and corporate harm when oversight is weak are not wrong. The leap is blaming libertarianism as such for harm capitalism can create through its incentives.
Libertarianism is not automatically “no regulation” or “no government checks.” A lot of the harm you describe comes from limitations or additions to the idea as it is practiced, plus how parties structure markets, enforcement, and accountability. If the real target is that those arrangements let corporate power outrun protections, then arguing for better safeguards fits without concluding that the underlying commitment to liberty is stupid.
And you can treat limitarianism as a mutually beneficial modification to libertarianism. The idea is to keep individual liberty and market freedom while explicitly adding credible constraints for externalities, power imbalances, and baseline protections so people are not left exposed.
Also, “libertarianism plus minimal governance” is not a uniform package worldwide. Some countries and real parties implement more constraints, different enforcement, and different welfare baselines, so you can’t read one especially dysfunctional American pattern as proof that libertarianism in general is destined to produce these outcomes.
These are things I’ve personally criticized libertarian parties for and have thought a lot about. That’s why I’m not libertarian, only libertarian adjacent.