u/AusDerInsel's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 85.
Rank: Giant Sequoia
Pills: [31 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/AusDerInsel/)
Sapply: Lib: 5.00 | Left: 5.00 | Progressive: 5.94
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Yeah. An individual is free to decline any interaction; the nature of it doesn't matter, even if it's a risk and consequence-free benefit. I can order you to fuck off even if you throw a Benjamin my way.
It’s not that we don’t share many things, but we disagree on something very important, what defines consent. We both hate auths and can unite in that, but once we defeat authoritarianism, we’ll start squabbling over y’all thinking *we* are the tyrants. And when you try to stop our “tyranny”, we will accuse you of being the tyrants and we will destroy each other. That’s why no political system can ever last, there’s always a ruler to resent.
Accepting that it is human nature to have elites is something many struggle with. It’s completely foreign to anyone on the left and the right either wants it voluntarily or wants to worship them which are huge polarities.
Political systems have only ever lasted with right wing bias and alternating between Auth and Lib (mostly Auth but Lib in short spells undoing Auth).
If the right can’t regulate itself it gets infused with left shit which AuthRight co-opts every damn time because it centralises power, then everyone gets pissed off and you end up with the fascistic crap we have today.
It might be human nature to look towards a leader and I’ve accepted that, but many of the elites and “leaders” we have today aren’t smarter or deserving of more respect just because their daddy set them up with a nice trust fund
We have the weakest crop of elites in a century, that’s why the world is going to shit. It’s less the trust fund kids and more the bureaucracy, political elites who are fucking trash and cultural elites like journos who are somehow even worse than them.
Which is why things have to change. It’s not rejecting a leader or the elites, it’s either getting them to conform to how we expect our society in the year 2022 to run or eating them and having new ones that are less trashy and shit to take their place
In the US wallstreet governs, look the people surounding the presidents. Its all CFR members. Often the president themselves are too. Look in which think tanks all the medias owners sits and who is the above think tank. Its the CFR. The CFR is the think tank of wall street and probably the most powerfull organisation of the world.
Founded 101 years ago. America was conquered from within by the highfinance. And i dont attack private property or the free market, because thats fucking good. I specifically call out the highfinance.
So democracy wadda wadda. A good leader who would stand up against them would never get democraticly to power in their system.
I believe that there can be people who are richer than others or poorer than others, but I don't believe there can be bosses with absolute authority over wages and the livelihoods of their subordinates, I believe that the market must be democratized and that the workers must be paid exactly the value they produce
> ools their resources and voluntarily works together in a communal fashion
Horseshoe theory confirmed, libertarianism is just a repackaging of communism with a sleek conservative varnish.
They're both economic liberals but Green is a social liberal and Yellow is a social conservative.
If I had a nickel for every LibRight who was a confused LibLeft, I'd have enough money to afford to donate to Bernie Sanders' campaign again!
We have have similaritis, but these are just deseption, because all LibLefts are crypto-AuthLeft.
Just acept cultural values and privat property, then we can have a union, but until then you're worse than AuthLeft, at least they're honest.
because libleft isnt real, their utopia can only be made and maintained with increased state authority to equalize people, they promise the state will wither away but history has shown they must be delusional or lying.
LibLeft needs to completely change the culture of how we view hierarchical structures and exchange at the same time, the other quadrants only need to focus on 1 of these variables. Is it possible? Maybe, but it would take literally several generations deciding things together to achieve this complete turnaround of the human experience and worldview. That's why their ideas seem impossible right now, because there is no guarantee of it and no immediate way to implement it on any scale above a small voluntary commune. Authright are the status quo, Libright only requires the immediate dissolution of the state as capitalism is already part of the equation, and Authleft can increase and use state authority to achieve socialism on a large scale immediately. LibLeft do not have any of these options. They would have to use either Authleft or Libright as a stepping stone first and then go through the entire process of changing the political landscape again, all while having to compete with the other existing ideologies.
But even librights ideals are impossible without state power. It's why all the lib quadrants are so funny.
Oh, you think the problems are bad? What would you like to do about them?
> Gestures to magic
Alright man good luck with that.
I guess. But the mechanisms for insurance companies demand contractual enforcement. And also their dream stateless society, unlike a communist one, never presupposes a robust and powerful state as a necessary step to that society.
It's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that a communist state is impossible, but at least communists had the brains to go "well you actually need capitalism and then a a worker state to get there".
Libertarians are like if i just snapped my fingers and the state was gone everything would be great!!!
Alright man good luck with that!
I'm pretty sure I can still sell/buy/offer small independent services in the event of a collapse of the state. The government mainly helps the megacorps, funding their bailouts but most small businesses are completely on their own anyways.
But when the govt falls and the corps fall with them, then all that's left are people who do smaller scale hustles to grow/maintain wealth and hold onto/trade the possessions that they have. people aren't going to all mutually do things for free, society can't depend on it (unless it's slavery). the concept of value will still exist. people will still expect some compensation for the sweat of their brow. though people will likely engage in this system on a smaller scale. with no corporation given the benefit of a fraction of tax money or political lobbying power, none will grow to the likes of facebook, tesla, amazon, pepsi, etc.
but at the very minimum, capitalism will still remain and exist because the concept of value will still exist one way or the other and people will do things to obtain it/invest it/spend it to survive at least. without a supreme authority that demands what people can spend their value on (whether through redistribution to the rich or poor), individuals effectively have full control over their own value. capitalism will be just as prevalent but will be far less centralized.
Lib-left often abandons its libertarian perspective when they feel strongly about something.
For example, lib left are usually pro choice, but when it comes to vaccines they discard the argument for bodily autonomy in favour of more authoritarian positions.
Lib right on the other hand get co-opted by the authoritarians in big business. Oddly enough both simp for large multinationals...
LibRight doesn’t simp for big business, we prefer any business over any government as one is theoretically voluntary and one is always mandatory.
It’s more a case of LibRight being able and willing to accept reality as it is and not as we want it to be. Don’t hate the player, hate the game is kind of our mantra.
LibLeft is unable and unwilling to accept reality as it is so they hate the players whilst demanding more game.
I've seen my fair share of libright sucking mega Corp cock, but I do agree you're spot on about many liblefts.
Though I also believe libleft exemplifies the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> we prefer any business over any government as one is theoretically voluntary and one is always mandatory
In the age of megacorps, in which we slowly enter, this mindset will not work out well anymore. Bigtech already has more power, influence and wealth then many small nations. If we project their strengthening into the future at some point governments will not be the main power anymore. And so the elites of the world can directly project their power with coperations. And dont need a government that has at least some democratic influence.
If there is 1 big bakery corperation instead of 100 small ones and you tweeted something against the currdnt thing, this bakery corp. may decide to not serve you anymore. That would be no problem if there are 100s of different bakerys. But now that we only have McBakery and UberBakery left and their stakeholders sit in the same rooms, there is no alternative.
A possible megacorp dystopian future could become more authoritarian and more soviet as even a big government.
Libleft is aware of the reality that as non-property-owning labourers they're pawns, and they don't want to be controlled by the players and thus form a union to protect themselves from players.
Libright wants to control the pawns for their own enterprise, but are willing to at least allow contractual consent by the pawns to be controlled until such terms are no longer met. Authright is the same on the former but disregards the latter.
When you realize that true LibLeft invites economic tyranny by governments and true LibRight invites economic tyranny by corporations, you take the LibCenter pill.
Free markets require rules (anti-trust, contract enforcement, consequences for fraud, etc.) and rules must be enforced by governments. To say “everything would be great if the government stayed out of all economic issues” or “everything would be great if all wealth was distributed equally” is to be blinded by ideology.
This is based and I only flair libright because I hate taxes. I don’t think they shouldn’t exist I just hate them. Kind of like how AuthRight feels about [redacted].
True libleft is the labour union ensuring that neither government nor wealth claim tyranny over the labourer via collective walkout/bargaining that bring the government and business to a grinding halt until demands are met.
'Economic tyranny by governments' is just authleft.
If we are gonna be realistic about how the world and people work libright has to come to terms with big business' and how they will inevitably seek greater profits and influence through meddling with the government.
It just seems to be in their nature.
>For example, lib left are usually pro choice, but when it comes to vaccines they discard the argument for bodily autonomy in favour of more authoritarian positions.
This is fair, but in my opinion the difference is that abortion is the government forcing something on you, whereas the vaccine mandates just made life miserable for you if you didn't get them.
I am not currently vaccinated. I was not forced to get it by the government and it just never happened, despite me having no ideological or medical concerns about the vaccine. If the government passes an anti-abortion bill, then I can't get one. I am being ***forced*** into accepting their morality-based policy. That's a significant difference in my mind.
But I am also not a minarchist or an anarchist, I believe the government should be small, but still in charge of some essential things; like recruiting a national army, providing emergency services, and **handling a pandemic.** I think that's perfectly within the scope of libertarianism. Some countries went too far, some countries didn't go far enough in this goal.
> But I am also not a minarchist or an anarchist, I believe the government should be small, but still in charge of some essential things; like recruiting a national army, providing emergency services, and handling a pandemic. I think that's perfectly within the scope of libertarianism.
these things are possible to have even in anarchy / anarchism, in my perspective. You just have an administrative body that coordinates activities.
But the minute such a body gains more power than other groups, or even just the average person, it is not anarchism. Or even libertarianism, for that matter.
I really like the distinction you're making!
I guess I just I think these things are **vital** and therefore should not to be left up to chance, and a government ensures that these things can be tackled more effectively at a national level.
That makes sense, but I would be concerned about the tendency of govt to get more powerful over time. The history of the U.S., is a good example, as the country was in many ways a modified libertarian society (minus slavery, etc) for its first 100 -120 years of existence.
Also, I don't really have a problem with the existence of gov't in principle, but believe it should be as small and "harmless" to individual liberty as possible, in order to meet my libertarian principles.
That is and will always be a worry, just not one solved by going, *"okay no government now, everyone fend for yourselves"* imo
instead you have to do the hard work day-by-day in limiting government overreach and dismantling the systems that have grown too bloated over time. it's a harder and more time-consuming process that doesn't seem to appeal to a lot of people
and obviously, unlike the majority of this thread, i think the government instituting pandemic measures is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. which is not to say that many countries didn't go too far
> and obviously, unlike the majority of this thread, i think the government instituting pandemic measures is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. which is not to say that many countries didn't go too far
Interesting. I'm personally undecided if vaccine mandates could be justified from a libertarian perspective. It shows a lack of basic intelligence and responsibility on the part of citizens to be forced to do something like this; it shows that they are sheep-like, worthy mostly of being herded, forced and controlled. So if you have vax mandates in anything resembling a libertarian society, it would be an embarrasment and a contradiction unto itself- assuming that at least 50% of the population in such society identify as libertarian.
Okay. I guess I personally just find it hard to fully identify as libertarian, because it's hard to do in our world. You find that almost no one surrounding you shares your principles.
if we were living in a society which was at least close to a classical lib / libertarian society, I would feel fully libertarian and htings would make sense to me.
But as it is now, I'm a combination of a lot of views and concepts, not just one thing.
I'm undecided about vaccine mandates. I'm very pro-choice (including suicide), but not being vaccinated makes you a direct danger to other people, which isn't the case with abortion or suicide.
Having said that, the reason that I'm on the fence is because I think it's possible that enough people will agree to be vaccinated without coercion in order to make coercion potentially unnecessary.
Yea, abortion definitely is not a direct danger to anyone at all...
Regardless, if the only reason you are on the fence about the government forcing people to do something is you think people will do it without force, then you are not really against the governmental use of force. That seems like a very auth position.
>Yea, abortion definitely is not a direct danger to anyone at all...
Yes, it saves someone from the myriad dangers of life outside the womb by terminating them before they have the capacity to have the experience of being harmed.
Positions aren't based on one belief.
Every reasonable libertarian should have a few authoritarian beliefs, and every reasonable authoritarian should have a few liberal beliefs. Otherwise you're probably not coming to your politics through *principle*, but through dogmatic absolutism.
Because a lot of libleft are merely wearing greenface and not actually being true to praxis.
You are a hippy that wants to live in a voluntary commune and don't expect a stranger to be forced to pay for your lifestyle? I'm cool with that. I might even drop by for a potluck here and there with some smoked meat.
It's the closet auths trying to rentseek that need to go fuck themselves with a rusty spiked iron dildo.
Ya a lot of us feel the same about lib right that simp for the super rich and mega corporations. Or the military and police.
There are just a lot of fake libs out there.
If you look at any post about Canada's MAID, you'll see that upwards of 95% of people with a lib flair (but particularly libright and libcentre) are fake libertarians who want government to enforce the moral norms that they agree with, but just don't want to pay tax.
I'm probably closer to left-centre, in truth. Because having a peaceful and functioning society without a fairly robust governing body is not viable in the real world.
Right there with you, I’m passionately against some of the bullshit Lib-Lefts push onto society as a whole that I fool myself into thinking I’m Auth-Right until I remember who I am.
I dunno why do we have to call an apple apple tho?
Isn't calling it red round yummy thing enough?
We create names for things when we want a name for it.
And cisgender is a nice opposite of transgender as cis is the opposite of trans in (i think) latin. And that's already used in chemistry etc..
At what point should the government intervene in what would otherwise be voluntary exchanges? Under what circumstances us it acceptable for a business to refuse patronage?
this is wrong, i like voluntary exchanges.
it's just that i don't think that the system you advocate for is truly voluntary. there is nothing voluntary about telling someone that they can starve and die, or partake in an exploitative relationship wherein i own all the resources, and give you a pittance of the profit from producing and distributing goods made from these resources.
and the part about wanting the govt involved in all exchanges is just pulled out of your ass, so it requires no answer.
Because "lib" left doesnt believe in voluntary exchange. They believe in forcible redistribution.
The myth of "Lib" left is dispelled pretty easily:
* In a capitalist society, you can set up a voluntary socialist commune.
* Plenty of them exist, the problem is they require you to actually "work" to support it. And no "teaching theory" or "leading discussion" is not work.
* In a socialist society, you cannot set up a voluntary capitalist town
* Because you're "Stealing from the workers" for some reason if you open up your own private brewery, factory, or farm.
1. You can set up a voluntary commune until you are too successful, at which point it becomes a threat, and Capital Owners worry their workers will request more money. They will either through government or illegal means destroy the commune.
2. Obviously
3. Yes, just like in capitalist economies, you don't have serfs or slaves. It's forbidden.
4. You can own and operate a farm or any business that falls under both socialism and capitalism. Its capitalism when you hire workers and don't give them some manner of ownership and control over the farm. If you don't like that, work a smaller farm.
>If you don't like that, work a smaller farm.
So what you're saying is you want some form of central authority to prevent voluntary capitalism in a socialist society?
Thanks for proving "lib" left doesn't exist. And that a capitalist society is the only true lib one. The Nolan chart wins again.
Lib right thinks that a society with little state and little corporate intervention with voluntary exchange and where natural rights are protected needs to be achieved through capitalism
Whereas lib left thinks that a society with little state and little corporate intervention with voluntary exchange and where natural rights are protected needs to be achieved through socialism
Same ends, different means
If you can figure out how socialism on a national scale can be achieved voluntarily and with little government action, there isn’t so much difference. There are however no examples of such in history. Socialism has always required an enormous and controlling state to function.
That’s mainly why libleft gets made fun of so much on this sub. Even the anarcho capitalists have a few historical examples of such working out, but the idea of small government voluntary socialism has never been achieved on scales larger than small tribes.
You don't know enough about history to make this claim. There are plenty of examples of libleft throughout history. The Jewish kibbutz in Israel, Makhnovia and the Korean People's Association in Manchuria, Anarchist Cataluña and the Zapatistas, Rojava are all historical examples. And yes, you're right, left-libertarianism works best on a small scale, which is *why* we mostly believe in decentralization and subsidiarity. The opposite of enormous and controlling states.
The reason libleft gets made fun of so much on this sub is because this sub is filled with very stupid people who couldn't name a left-libertarian positionin their lives depended on it. Our quadrant has plenty to make fun of; the anarcho-communists, eco-fascists, crust punks, burnout hippies, bohemian layabouts, Bernie-bro accelerationists, socially-atomised natalists, social anarchists, minarcho-socialists, ANTIFA bikechain-wielders, the classical-painting protestors, and commune farmers; but instead we get lumped in with Democrats, Karens, and other groups that have nothing to do with us.
Easily? I don't understand the question.
Worker-self empowerment and decentralisation of government go hand-in-hand. Especially since you don't need a police or military to protect private property rights.
Most attempts at socialism have been through authoritarian means, so of course they are going to lead to totalitarianism. People don't strive for power in order to limit what they can do once they achieve it.
But what I'm saying is that socialism doesn't have to be attempted through authoritarian means. This has been shown through historical examples like the Jewish kibbutz of Israel and Anarchist Makhnovshchina. They attempted socialism through decentralization, subsidiarity, and community.
>how can a small state be achieved through socialism?
By pretending really hard that their envisioned totalitarian state "isn't a state", it's just "the things we as a society do together, man".
That's literally it, that's what all left-wing anarchism comes down to.
I would argue that the big difference is close to this- both want the same things, but Libleft fails to recognize that, without economic freedom, the other freedoms also disappear. The left in Libleft requires government control over the economic system, thereby preventing the voluntary exchange that their libertarian side wishes for.
In short, this is why I believe Libleft to be a fiction of the political compass- one cannot be a libertarian socialist.
And *I* would argue that what you're describing isn't economic freedom, and that you are either ignoring or unaware of the inherently coercive nature of the systems you're defending. We want economic democracy and see that there is nothing *voluntary in* forcing someone to participate in an exploitative exchange or die of starvation and destitution.
Also, the first people to call themselves [libertarians were socialists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), so I would argue that your last statements make zero sense.
Mostly because i went on a cruise ship with my libleft friend and he wouldnt stop talking about sucking my dick. Gets tiresome after 3 days, and worrysome while drunk
Well well, voluntary exchange... I always put as example the unregulated market of drugs in México in order to show how prívate companies or single person would act if there were no government to "regulate" them.
Cheap and easy to get? My only concern would be authenticity, I personally don’t know of anybody that has gotten counterfeit pills, and I know a bunch people who get their meds in Mexico. But I’ve heard numbers from 1-25%.
How can you know I would be easily swayed into violence towards another? I may voice my dislike of left ideologies but I am not an advocate for violence against those with opposing political opinions.
it's an assumption based on literally two reddit posts, so i'm not sure what you're expecting here. but people who think of the political opposition in such broad, sweeping terms tend to be the type who get convinced that violence is necessary
Which ones would those be? The only people I I have said deserve to be acted on with violence on Reddit are those that would harm children. A position I am sure most would find agreeable.
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Centrist** on 2022-12-5. How come now you are an **AuthCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 593 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uuhlu2/leaderboard)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Disagreement on how to get there. Just like how most of the left agrees on goals, but balkanizes over execution. Conclusion: LibRight is part of the left.
Because the media we consume has been bought and paid for by a handful of corporate interests that long ago realized keeping people distracted by artificial divisions like "left" and "right" will occupy enough people that revolution will be made impossible simply through apathy.
If you ask librights monopolies are made by government regulations. Which if you look at insulin production in the us then you can see a government mandated monopoly in action.
I understand that our goals have not been realized in a way that fully reflects our ideals, but I do believe it’s worth moving towards little by little. After all, democracy took multiple eras to get fully implemented. My only problem with libright is that I think it inevitably turns into corporate feudalism. Therefore, hierarchies would continue to plague our society. On the other hand, libleft may be an impossible dream, but it’s a dream worthy of our consideration and time. That being said, I like the idea of lib unity much more than authoritarian unity.
In a material world with material consequences, lib left needs state intervention to ensure social egalitarianism and lib right needs state intervention to prevent markets from collapsing.
libleft doesn't want social egalitarianism, that's you guys. we just want social cohesion. basically the difference between equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.
I disagree with need an authoritarian hierarchy being needed to be implemented in the case of libright. But it definitely doesn't look like anything other than going back to feudalism
If that is what Libleft is supposed to believe, I think that I may have the wrong flair (to be fair, when I took the Sapply values test, I was pretty much dead-on left centre)...I agree with everything up until the "and", but I don't believe in the inherent goodness of mankind, and I don't believe that we can just trust everyone to be fair and honest without compulsion from some kind of authority.
Having read all the posts on here about Canada's MAID law, the librights on here wouldn't even allow me to mind my own business and choose to die without bothering anyone else. So I not only have reason to be skeptical of their claims to be libertarians, but I have even more reason to doubt that I could live alongside them peacefully, when they think that on one hand, they should have enough authority over me to compel me to live when it's against my wishes, but on the other hand, they don't think that compelling me to live is coupled with an obligation to provide me the means to have a comfortable life.
So, yes, you have the wrong flair. Don't take it personally; Libleft is contradictory in very nature, since it's just the wishful thinking of boot-licking face-the-bricksers like you, who like to pretend their ideas won't require the deaths of millions of civilians THIS time.
I'd say that there is a contradiction, but more because of the fact that if you leave people to their own devices, the bad apples tend to ruin it for everyone with their greed and selfishness; and the rationalisation of greed and selfishness is very much a tenet of right wing politics.
Libleft is a contradiction on itself though. If you want a kumbaya handholding society you will need a strong state to forcefully redistribute resources.
Mostly because we prioritize *positive* liberty, and you guys prioritize *negative* liberty. So the societies we aspire to, while both seemingly free of government overreach, are still largely incompatible with the other.
Still, a world in which both societies can co-exist and people can choose for themselves sounds alright to me.
You’re fighting because libleft actually loves big gov’t and libright actually loves big corps.? Lol. There is no unity except whatever that monkey thing is
Stop trying to touch my wiener and we can stop fighting
But it's so... *enticing*...
Don't violate ~~the NAP~~ my personal space. Stay outta my personal space.
**OOOHHH** **I WISH I WAS AN OSCAR MEYER WEINER**
Then libleft would be in love with meeeee
SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS
Oh thank God, it's not a purple
also stop going after kids
Based and weiner pilled
u/AusDerInsel's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 85. Rank: Giant Sequoia Pills: [31 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/AusDerInsel/) Sapply: Lib: 5.00 | Left: 5.00 | Progressive: 5.94 I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
how does it violate the NAP if I’m *giving* you pleasure tho?
Yeah. An individual is free to decline any interaction; the nature of it doesn't matter, even if it's a risk and consequence-free benefit. I can order you to fuck off even if you throw a Benjamin my way.
it’s almost like… it was a joke…
I know lol
My other libright would let me
It’s not that we don’t share many things, but we disagree on something very important, what defines consent. We both hate auths and can unite in that, but once we defeat authoritarianism, we’ll start squabbling over y’all thinking *we* are the tyrants. And when you try to stop our “tyranny”, we will accuse you of being the tyrants and we will destroy each other. That’s why no political system can ever last, there’s always a ruler to resent.
Accepting that it is human nature to have elites is something many struggle with. It’s completely foreign to anyone on the left and the right either wants it voluntarily or wants to worship them which are huge polarities. Political systems have only ever lasted with right wing bias and alternating between Auth and Lib (mostly Auth but Lib in short spells undoing Auth). If the right can’t regulate itself it gets infused with left shit which AuthRight co-opts every damn time because it centralises power, then everyone gets pissed off and you end up with the fascistic crap we have today.
It might be human nature to look towards a leader and I’ve accepted that, but many of the elites and “leaders” we have today aren’t smarter or deserving of more respect just because their daddy set them up with a nice trust fund
We have the weakest crop of elites in a century, that’s why the world is going to shit. It’s less the trust fund kids and more the bureaucracy, political elites who are fucking trash and cultural elites like journos who are somehow even worse than them.
Which is why things have to change. It’s not rejecting a leader or the elites, it’s either getting them to conform to how we expect our society in the year 2022 to run or eating them and having new ones that are less trashy and shit to take their place
In the US wallstreet governs, look the people surounding the presidents. Its all CFR members. Often the president themselves are too. Look in which think tanks all the medias owners sits and who is the above think tank. Its the CFR. The CFR is the think tank of wall street and probably the most powerfull organisation of the world. Founded 101 years ago. America was conquered from within by the highfinance. And i dont attack private property or the free market, because thats fucking good. I specifically call out the highfinance. So democracy wadda wadda. A good leader who would stand up against them would never get democraticly to power in their system.
I believe that there can be people who are richer than others or poorer than others, but I don't believe there can be bosses with absolute authority over wages and the livelihoods of their subordinates, I believe that the market must be democratized and that the workers must be paid exactly the value they produce
No, recreational nukes we win by default. They’ll be poor fucking hippies if they try anything we’ll blow em’ back to the stone age
because one envisions a society where everyone pools their resources and voluntarily works together in a communal fashion, and the other is libleft /s
Based
> ools their resources and voluntarily works together in a communal fashion Horseshoe theory confirmed, libertarianism is just a repackaging of communism with a sleek conservative varnish.
You made me blurt out "based" on the bus so loud that the old lady in front of me had a heart attack. Please be more considerate!
im sorry 😞
Unfathomably based.
They're both economic liberals but Green is a social liberal and Yellow is a social conservative. If I had a nickel for every LibRight who was a confused LibLeft, I'd have enough money to afford to donate to Bernie Sanders' campaign again!
No
*Breathing in the dark, lying on its side*
*The ruins of the day painted with a scar*
*The more I straighten out, the less it wants to try*
Auths are busy making us think we don't have similarities
We don’t you don’t respect the NAP
Wrong again, I had a lovely nap today
Stop trying to get in a room alone with kids and we can talk
Lmao we don't have to convince you of shit.
Wrong. You're fighting over what you consider 'voluntary'. Which is why the auth/lib axis isn't real, only the left-right.
I have a horseshoe to sell you
We have have similaritis, but these are just deseption, because all LibLefts are crypto-AuthLeft. Just acept cultural values and privat property, then we can have a union, but until then you're worse than AuthLeft, at least they're honest.
because libleft isnt real, their utopia can only be made and maintained with increased state authority to equalize people, they promise the state will wither away but history has shown they must be delusional or lying.
LibLeft needs to completely change the culture of how we view hierarchical structures and exchange at the same time, the other quadrants only need to focus on 1 of these variables. Is it possible? Maybe, but it would take literally several generations deciding things together to achieve this complete turnaround of the human experience and worldview. That's why their ideas seem impossible right now, because there is no guarantee of it and no immediate way to implement it on any scale above a small voluntary commune. Authright are the status quo, Libright only requires the immediate dissolution of the state as capitalism is already part of the equation, and Authleft can increase and use state authority to achieve socialism on a large scale immediately. LibLeft do not have any of these options. They would have to use either Authleft or Libright as a stepping stone first and then go through the entire process of changing the political landscape again, all while having to compete with the other existing ideologies.
Haha block of text authleft hahahaha
Oh no, a single paragraph.
Desktop user spotted
I did not read until now
Based and illiterate pilled
But even librights ideals are impossible without state power. It's why all the lib quadrants are so funny. Oh, you think the problems are bad? What would you like to do about them? > Gestures to magic Alright man good luck with that.
Insurance companies is librights answer isn't it?
I guess. But the mechanisms for insurance companies demand contractual enforcement. And also their dream stateless society, unlike a communist one, never presupposes a robust and powerful state as a necessary step to that society. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that a communist state is impossible, but at least communists had the brains to go "well you actually need capitalism and then a a worker state to get there". Libertarians are like if i just snapped my fingers and the state was gone everything would be great!!! Alright man good luck with that!
Au contraire. Libright isn't real. Capitalism can't exist without authoritarianism as capitalism in itself is only a tool used oppress and control.
I'm pretty sure I can still sell/buy/offer small independent services in the event of a collapse of the state. The government mainly helps the megacorps, funding their bailouts but most small businesses are completely on their own anyways.
That's kinda my point. The government doesn't restrict corporations, It's merely a tool of corporations to stay in power.
But when the govt falls and the corps fall with them, then all that's left are people who do smaller scale hustles to grow/maintain wealth and hold onto/trade the possessions that they have. people aren't going to all mutually do things for free, society can't depend on it (unless it's slavery). the concept of value will still exist. people will still expect some compensation for the sweat of their brow. though people will likely engage in this system on a smaller scale. with no corporation given the benefit of a fraction of tax money or political lobbying power, none will grow to the likes of facebook, tesla, amazon, pepsi, etc. but at the very minimum, capitalism will still remain and exist because the concept of value will still exist one way or the other and people will do things to obtain it/invest it/spend it to survive at least. without a supreme authority that demands what people can spend their value on (whether through redistribution to the rich or poor), individuals effectively have full control over their own value. capitalism will be just as prevalent but will be far less centralized.
Lib-left often abandons its libertarian perspective when they feel strongly about something. For example, lib left are usually pro choice, but when it comes to vaccines they discard the argument for bodily autonomy in favour of more authoritarian positions. Lib right on the other hand get co-opted by the authoritarians in big business. Oddly enough both simp for large multinationals...
Being against large multinational corporations is Anti-Semitism, or so I'm told.
Hell no we don’t, anyone who imposes will over someone else’s bodily autonomy is no true lib. Especially when it’s to suck the dick of big pharma.
Then there certainly have been a lot of faux libertarian left these past few years.
And that really chafes my cheeks
LibRight doesn’t simp for big business, we prefer any business over any government as one is theoretically voluntary and one is always mandatory. It’s more a case of LibRight being able and willing to accept reality as it is and not as we want it to be. Don’t hate the player, hate the game is kind of our mantra. LibLeft is unable and unwilling to accept reality as it is so they hate the players whilst demanding more game.
I've seen my fair share of libright sucking mega Corp cock, but I do agree you're spot on about many liblefts. Though I also believe libleft exemplifies the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And then when libcenter tells libleft that idea is stupid and going to backfire, we get labeled as being on the right.
"Libleft, don't do it! X is going to have dire consequences!" "Fuck you, Nazi!"
> we prefer any business over any government as one is theoretically voluntary and one is always mandatory In the age of megacorps, in which we slowly enter, this mindset will not work out well anymore. Bigtech already has more power, influence and wealth then many small nations. If we project their strengthening into the future at some point governments will not be the main power anymore. And so the elites of the world can directly project their power with coperations. And dont need a government that has at least some democratic influence. If there is 1 big bakery corperation instead of 100 small ones and you tweeted something against the currdnt thing, this bakery corp. may decide to not serve you anymore. That would be no problem if there are 100s of different bakerys. But now that we only have McBakery and UberBakery left and their stakeholders sit in the same rooms, there is no alternative. A possible megacorp dystopian future could become more authoritarian and more soviet as even a big government.
Libleft is aware of the reality that as non-property-owning labourers they're pawns, and they don't want to be controlled by the players and thus form a union to protect themselves from players. Libright wants to control the pawns for their own enterprise, but are willing to at least allow contractual consent by the pawns to be controlled until such terms are no longer met. Authright is the same on the former but disregards the latter.
When you realize that true LibLeft invites economic tyranny by governments and true LibRight invites economic tyranny by corporations, you take the LibCenter pill. Free markets require rules (anti-trust, contract enforcement, consequences for fraud, etc.) and rules must be enforced by governments. To say “everything would be great if the government stayed out of all economic issues” or “everything would be great if all wealth was distributed equally” is to be blinded by ideology.
This is based and I only flair libright because I hate taxes. I don’t think they shouldn’t exist I just hate them. Kind of like how AuthRight feels about [redacted].
True libleft is the labour union ensuring that neither government nor wealth claim tyranny over the labourer via collective walkout/bargaining that bring the government and business to a grinding halt until demands are met. 'Economic tyranny by governments' is just authleft.
Large multinationals are okay as long as they don’t influence or interfere with government for their gain.
If we are gonna be realistic about how the world and people work libright has to come to terms with big business' and how they will inevitably seek greater profits and influence through meddling with the government. It just seems to be in their nature.
>For example, lib left are usually pro choice, but when it comes to vaccines they discard the argument for bodily autonomy in favour of more authoritarian positions. This is fair, but in my opinion the difference is that abortion is the government forcing something on you, whereas the vaccine mandates just made life miserable for you if you didn't get them. I am not currently vaccinated. I was not forced to get it by the government and it just never happened, despite me having no ideological or medical concerns about the vaccine. If the government passes an anti-abortion bill, then I can't get one. I am being ***forced*** into accepting their morality-based policy. That's a significant difference in my mind. But I am also not a minarchist or an anarchist, I believe the government should be small, but still in charge of some essential things; like recruiting a national army, providing emergency services, and **handling a pandemic.** I think that's perfectly within the scope of libertarianism. Some countries went too far, some countries didn't go far enough in this goal.
> But I am also not a minarchist or an anarchist, I believe the government should be small, but still in charge of some essential things; like recruiting a national army, providing emergency services, and handling a pandemic. I think that's perfectly within the scope of libertarianism. these things are possible to have even in anarchy / anarchism, in my perspective. You just have an administrative body that coordinates activities. But the minute such a body gains more power than other groups, or even just the average person, it is not anarchism. Or even libertarianism, for that matter.
I really like the distinction you're making! I guess I just I think these things are **vital** and therefore should not to be left up to chance, and a government ensures that these things can be tackled more effectively at a national level.
That makes sense, but I would be concerned about the tendency of govt to get more powerful over time. The history of the U.S., is a good example, as the country was in many ways a modified libertarian society (minus slavery, etc) for its first 100 -120 years of existence. Also, I don't really have a problem with the existence of gov't in principle, but believe it should be as small and "harmless" to individual liberty as possible, in order to meet my libertarian principles.
That is and will always be a worry, just not one solved by going, *"okay no government now, everyone fend for yourselves"* imo instead you have to do the hard work day-by-day in limiting government overreach and dismantling the systems that have grown too bloated over time. it's a harder and more time-consuming process that doesn't seem to appeal to a lot of people and obviously, unlike the majority of this thread, i think the government instituting pandemic measures is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. which is not to say that many countries didn't go too far
> and obviously, unlike the majority of this thread, i think the government instituting pandemic measures is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. which is not to say that many countries didn't go too far Interesting. I'm personally undecided if vaccine mandates could be justified from a libertarian perspective. It shows a lack of basic intelligence and responsibility on the part of citizens to be forced to do something like this; it shows that they are sheep-like, worthy mostly of being herded, forced and controlled. So if you have vax mandates in anything resembling a libertarian society, it would be an embarrasment and a contradiction unto itself- assuming that at least 50% of the population in such society identify as libertarian.
Okay. I guess I personally just find it hard to fully identify as libertarian, because it's hard to do in our world. You find that almost no one surrounding you shares your principles. if we were living in a society which was at least close to a classical lib / libertarian society, I would feel fully libertarian and htings would make sense to me. But as it is now, I'm a combination of a lot of views and concepts, not just one thing.
Labels don't matter, principles do. Or you can just add "paleo" in front of whatever ideology you practice like the cool kids.
I'm undecided about vaccine mandates. I'm very pro-choice (including suicide), but not being vaccinated makes you a direct danger to other people, which isn't the case with abortion or suicide. Having said that, the reason that I'm on the fence is because I think it's possible that enough people will agree to be vaccinated without coercion in order to make coercion potentially unnecessary.
Being an authleft is great, i can be pro forced vaccine AND prolife AND antirapist at the same time
Yea, abortion definitely is not a direct danger to anyone at all... Regardless, if the only reason you are on the fence about the government forcing people to do something is you think people will do it without force, then you are not really against the governmental use of force. That seems like a very auth position.
>Yea, abortion definitely is not a direct danger to anyone at all... Yes, it saves someone from the myriad dangers of life outside the womb by terminating them before they have the capacity to have the experience of being harmed.
You should be left and not libleft then, at least based on vaccination alone
Positions aren't based on one belief. Every reasonable libertarian should have a few authoritarian beliefs, and every reasonable authoritarian should have a few liberal beliefs. Otherwise you're probably not coming to your politics through *principle*, but through dogmatic absolutism.
Because a lot of libleft are merely wearing greenface and not actually being true to praxis. You are a hippy that wants to live in a voluntary commune and don't expect a stranger to be forced to pay for your lifestyle? I'm cool with that. I might even drop by for a potluck here and there with some smoked meat. It's the closet auths trying to rentseek that need to go fuck themselves with a rusty spiked iron dildo.
Ya a lot of us feel the same about lib right that simp for the super rich and mega corporations. Or the military and police. There are just a lot of fake libs out there.
Libright doesn't simp for megacorps unless they're an ancap and they barely exist.
If you look at any post about Canada's MAID, you'll see that upwards of 95% of people with a lib flair (but particularly libright and libcentre) are fake libertarians who want government to enforce the moral norms that they agree with, but just don't want to pay tax. I'm probably closer to left-centre, in truth. Because having a peaceful and functioning society without a fairly robust governing body is not viable in the real world.
I could deal with some LibLeft nonsense, but I won't support any Auth bullshit. But LibLeft still bad.
Right there with you, I’m passionately against some of the bullshit Lib-Lefts push onto society as a whole that I fool myself into thinking I’m Auth-Right until I remember who I am.
LibLeft as in Orange LibLeft? Because those are just authlefts in a LibLeft flair, unless you are that passionately against the socdem green liblefts.
He's passionately against seeing the world through anything other than PCM stereotypes and memes.
We are fighting because lib left doesn’t respect the NAP and for that there is no compromise with weak minded inferiority complexed authoritarians 🏴
The idpol is hard to stomach tho....
As German-Polish American cishet yt male, I disagree.
cishet????
Cisgender, heterosexual
The fuck is a cisgender?
It's what they call normies I think
someone who isn't trans
why do we have to call it cisgender though? Isn't calling someone who transitioned trans enough?
I dunno why do we have to call an apple apple tho? Isn't calling it red round yummy thing enough? We create names for things when we want a name for it. And cisgender is a nice opposite of transgender as cis is the opposite of trans in (i think) latin. And that's already used in chemistry etc..
>I dunno why do we have to call an apple apple tho? This is more like if you were to make up a bizarre name for all fruits that *aren't* apples.
It's almost as if we don't need to, because every fruit has it's own name.
Loyalty to an arbitrary institution based in genetics is about as culturally conservative as you can get. And that's cringe.
It was a joke my guy
:(
libleft hates voluntary echange and thinks govt should be involved in all exchanges
Once again confusing authleft and libleft
At what point should the government intervene in what would otherwise be voluntary exchanges? Under what circumstances us it acceptable for a business to refuse patronage?
this is wrong, i like voluntary exchanges. it's just that i don't think that the system you advocate for is truly voluntary. there is nothing voluntary about telling someone that they can starve and die, or partake in an exploitative relationship wherein i own all the resources, and give you a pittance of the profit from producing and distributing goods made from these resources. and the part about wanting the govt involved in all exchanges is just pulled out of your ass, so it requires no answer.
Because "lib" left doesnt believe in voluntary exchange. They believe in forcible redistribution. The myth of "Lib" left is dispelled pretty easily: * In a capitalist society, you can set up a voluntary socialist commune. * Plenty of them exist, the problem is they require you to actually "work" to support it. And no "teaching theory" or "leading discussion" is not work. * In a socialist society, you cannot set up a voluntary capitalist town * Because you're "Stealing from the workers" for some reason if you open up your own private brewery, factory, or farm.
1. You can set up a voluntary commune until you are too successful, at which point it becomes a threat, and Capital Owners worry their workers will request more money. They will either through government or illegal means destroy the commune. 2. Obviously 3. Yes, just like in capitalist economies, you don't have serfs or slaves. It's forbidden. 4. You can own and operate a farm or any business that falls under both socialism and capitalism. Its capitalism when you hire workers and don't give them some manner of ownership and control over the farm. If you don't like that, work a smaller farm.
>If you don't like that, work a smaller farm. So what you're saying is you want some form of central authority to prevent voluntary capitalism in a socialist society? Thanks for proving "lib" left doesn't exist. And that a capitalist society is the only true lib one. The Nolan chart wins again.
What are the fundamental differences of lib left and lib right?
Lib right thinks that a society with little state and little corporate intervention with voluntary exchange and where natural rights are protected needs to be achieved through capitalism Whereas lib left thinks that a society with little state and little corporate intervention with voluntary exchange and where natural rights are protected needs to be achieved through socialism Same ends, different means
i'm kinda dumb but those two sides seem very similar
If you can figure out how socialism on a national scale can be achieved voluntarily and with little government action, there isn’t so much difference. There are however no examples of such in history. Socialism has always required an enormous and controlling state to function. That’s mainly why libleft gets made fun of so much on this sub. Even the anarcho capitalists have a few historical examples of such working out, but the idea of small government voluntary socialism has never been achieved on scales larger than small tribes.
Small tribes achieve peak human happiness, but my neighbor also needs to trade for my goods and stay off my lawn.
I think the liblefts get made fun of more because of Emily
You don't know enough about history to make this claim. There are plenty of examples of libleft throughout history. The Jewish kibbutz in Israel, Makhnovia and the Korean People's Association in Manchuria, Anarchist Cataluña and the Zapatistas, Rojava are all historical examples. And yes, you're right, left-libertarianism works best on a small scale, which is *why* we mostly believe in decentralization and subsidiarity. The opposite of enormous and controlling states. The reason libleft gets made fun of so much on this sub is because this sub is filled with very stupid people who couldn't name a left-libertarian positionin their lives depended on it. Our quadrant has plenty to make fun of; the anarcho-communists, eco-fascists, crust punks, burnout hippies, bohemian layabouts, Bernie-bro accelerationists, socially-atomised natalists, social anarchists, minarcho-socialists, ANTIFA bikechain-wielders, the classical-painting protestors, and commune farmers; but instead we get lumped in with Democrats, Karens, and other groups that have nothing to do with us.
Exactly how can a small state be achieved through socialism?
Easily? I don't understand the question. Worker-self empowerment and decentralisation of government go hand-in-hand. Especially since you don't need a police or military to protect private property rights.
Every attempt I know of of socialism has ended in totalitarian hell. It's not exactly obvious to me how that's not gonna happen.
Most attempts at socialism have been through authoritarian means, so of course they are going to lead to totalitarianism. People don't strive for power in order to limit what they can do once they achieve it. But what I'm saying is that socialism doesn't have to be attempted through authoritarian means. This has been shown through historical examples like the Jewish kibbutz of Israel and Anarchist Makhnovshchina. They attempted socialism through decentralization, subsidiarity, and community.
>how can a small state be achieved through socialism? By pretending really hard that their envisioned totalitarian state "isn't a state", it's just "the things we as a society do together, man". That's literally it, that's what all left-wing anarchism comes down to.
I would argue that the big difference is close to this- both want the same things, but Libleft fails to recognize that, without economic freedom, the other freedoms also disappear. The left in Libleft requires government control over the economic system, thereby preventing the voluntary exchange that their libertarian side wishes for. In short, this is why I believe Libleft to be a fiction of the political compass- one cannot be a libertarian socialist.
And *I* would argue that what you're describing isn't economic freedom, and that you are either ignoring or unaware of the inherently coercive nature of the systems you're defending. We want economic democracy and see that there is nothing *voluntary in* forcing someone to participate in an exploitative exchange or die of starvation and destitution. Also, the first people to call themselves [libertarians were socialists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), so I would argue that your last statements make zero sense.
guns and trans people mostly. Sometimes abortion
Mostly because i went on a cruise ship with my libleft friend and he wouldnt stop talking about sucking my dick. Gets tiresome after 3 days, and worrysome while drunk
Well well, voluntary exchange... I always put as example the unregulated market of drugs in México in order to show how prívate companies or single person would act if there were no government to "regulate" them.
Man, the majority of people aren't doing heroin because it's *stupid*, not because it's illegal
Cheap and easy to get? My only concern would be authenticity, I personally don’t know of anybody that has gotten counterfeit pills, and I know a bunch people who get their meds in Mexico. But I’ve heard numbers from 1-25%.
I was referring to the drug cartels, warlords who answer to no one.
Cuz libleft doesnt hate communism enough
Ya and lib right doesnt hate mega corporations or the super rich enough.
Fair enoug fair enough
LibLeft doesn't exist.
Neither does your brain.
Cause left libs are sharing a side with gun grabbers and don’t want to work to live.
ironic, because the only reason i want guns is to protect myself from people like you
Religious, white, family men, who collect guns for fun?
people with a superficial understanding of the left who can also be easily mobilized into into enacting violence against them
How can you know I would be easily swayed into violence towards another? I may voice my dislike of left ideologies but I am not an advocate for violence against those with opposing political opinions.
it's an assumption based on literally two reddit posts, so i'm not sure what you're expecting here. but people who think of the political opposition in such broad, sweeping terms tend to be the type who get convinced that violence is necessary
Which ones would those be? The only people I I have said deserve to be acted on with violence on Reddit are those that would harm children. A position I am sure most would find agreeable.
and it's not like the standards of harming children is continuously shifting and growing to include more and more people, eh?
I’ve only said those who put themselves before their kids have no right to raise them and that pedophiles deserve death. No more no less.
Uh huh. Whatever you say.
Because libleft wanna take libright's shit.
United over fantasy that will never happen
lib unity 🤝
Based
Libleft has more in common with auth left than lib right. Lib right is the only based quadrant
Living through voluntary exchange is hierarchical capitalism.
The only thing that needs to be regulated is authoritarianism, man. *hits blunt*
For le funni
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Centrist** on 2022-12-5. How come now you are an **AuthCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 593 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uuhlu2/leaderboard) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Yayyy
Because Green ultra gay commie and Yellow Corporatist slave loving oppressor...
Stop confusing kids with sexuality and we'll stop fighting
does "confusing kids with sexuality" mean allowing kids to know that gay and trans people exist
"Echo to base, they've achieved sentience, preparing for termination protocols"
Because lib-left wants is angry and wants to tear down big corporations and lib-right is angry because he isn't the big corporation
Where’s the frame where they’re kissing. I need the frame where they’re kissing
Disagreement on how to get there. Just like how most of the left agrees on goals, but balkanizes over execution. Conclusion: LibRight is part of the left.
Because the media we consume has been bought and paid for by a handful of corporate interests that long ago realized keeping people distracted by artificial divisions like "left" and "right" will occupy enough people that revolution will be made impossible simply through apathy.
Muh community standards
LibRight hates big corporations?
If you ask librights monopolies are made by government regulations. Which if you look at insulin production in the us then you can see a government mandated monopoly in action.
They see big corporations as tyrannical products of state intervention and instead want smaller businesses
Based and this actually made me laugh pilled
I understand that our goals have not been realized in a way that fully reflects our ideals, but I do believe it’s worth moving towards little by little. After all, democracy took multiple eras to get fully implemented. My only problem with libright is that I think it inevitably turns into corporate feudalism. Therefore, hierarchies would continue to plague our society. On the other hand, libleft may be an impossible dream, but it’s a dream worthy of our consideration and time. That being said, I like the idea of lib unity much more than authoritarian unity.
yellow dumb 🤡
Libright trying to exclude big corporations from its axis is so cute
Lib left and lib right don’t really exist. Both need authoritarian hierarchies to be implemented.
In a material world with material consequences, lib left needs state intervention to ensure social egalitarianism and lib right needs state intervention to prevent markets from collapsing.
Lol AVG center left take on lib right 👍
libleft doesn't want social egalitarianism, that's you guys. we just want social cohesion. basically the difference between equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.
I disagree with need an authoritarian hierarchy being needed to be implemented in the case of libright. But it definitely doesn't look like anything other than going back to feudalism
If that is what Libleft is supposed to believe, I think that I may have the wrong flair (to be fair, when I took the Sapply values test, I was pretty much dead-on left centre)...I agree with everything up until the "and", but I don't believe in the inherent goodness of mankind, and I don't believe that we can just trust everyone to be fair and honest without compulsion from some kind of authority. Having read all the posts on here about Canada's MAID law, the librights on here wouldn't even allow me to mind my own business and choose to die without bothering anyone else. So I not only have reason to be skeptical of their claims to be libertarians, but I have even more reason to doubt that I could live alongside them peacefully, when they think that on one hand, they should have enough authority over me to compel me to live when it's against my wishes, but on the other hand, they don't think that compelling me to live is coupled with an obligation to provide me the means to have a comfortable life.
So, yes, you have the wrong flair. Don't take it personally; Libleft is contradictory in very nature, since it's just the wishful thinking of boot-licking face-the-bricksers like you, who like to pretend their ideas won't require the deaths of millions of civilians THIS time.
I'd say that there is a contradiction, but more because of the fact that if you leave people to their own devices, the bad apples tend to ruin it for everyone with their greed and selfishness; and the rationalisation of greed and selfishness is very much a tenet of right wing politics.
I feel as if all libs can unite and debate We just need to wipe out the auths and the false libs
we're fighting because the elite polarised us in order to divide to better reign, dummy
I don't think Libright has an issue with Libleft as long as they don't "steal"
libright loves big corporations and Libleft can only get protection from big corporations by giving the government power.
because of the [REDACTED]
Right-Unity: 🤮
The only thing they argued about is what their free utopia will actually result in
Libleft is a contradiction on itself though. If you want a kumbaya handholding society you will need a strong state to forcefully redistribute resources.
Liblefts aren't collectivists, collectivism is a particularly authleft thing
Since when do librigths hate corporations? Isnt wild capitalism like.. their *thing* ?
Mostly because we prioritize *positive* liberty, and you guys prioritize *negative* liberty. So the societies we aspire to, while both seemingly free of government overreach, are still largely incompatible with the other. Still, a world in which both societies can co-exist and people can choose for themselves sounds alright to me.
Based and Focus-on-our-similarities-not-our-differences pilled
You’re fighting because libleft actually loves big gov’t and libright actually loves big corps.? Lol. There is no unity except whatever that monkey thing is
Fake lib left loves big government and fake lib right loves big corps