851
The best argument for altruism
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
851 points (95.7% liked)
Political Memes
5519 readers
925 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't get why people are so afraid of Libertarians when it comes to social philosophies. Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. You want me to do something I don't want to do, pay me. Weird how Libertarians get criticized for that when literally everyone has had that mindset with one thing or another in their life
Their policies lead to bad outcomes. "We don't need a fire department and I'm not paying for it" -> "oh shit our houses all burned down".
It also tends to come off as deeply anti social, and not everyone is that way.
Your anti social statement is very fair lol.
However what I was trying to say is not necessarily "we don't need a fire department" but moreso "the individual citizen shouldn't be paying for the fire department with their income. Nearly 55% of US citizens make less than $50k a year and the average income per household (in the previous percentage) is around $35k. So why should the individual spend their little bit of hard earned money on taxes when everything else is getting taxed as well?
That sounds like you change the existing progressive taxation system so the first chunk of income isn't taxed at all. That's not really a huge change
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
I think there should be more, harsher, brackets as you go up.
I also think we should probably tax unrealized gains. Or do something about like "I get a loan against untaxed assets" stuff that let the rich enjoy their wealth without paying for it.
But even all of that aside: People should pay their taxes because they benefit from it! Everyone benefits from functional fire departments! And libraries, and roads, and buses, and so on! And since taxes are percentage, the poor people are typically paying less already. (The part where some rich don't technically have "income" should be patched)
I have a little more sympathy for people who are making 50k/year that feel like their tax burden is too high. But people making $200k/year can fuck off about that.
(Also I think a lot of the squeeze now is from rent and food costs being unchecked)
I don't think you're wrong. I think how the taxes are allocated is wrong. If anything has been learned by the recent history is pennies are going to infrastructure and social systems including the VA and education. But instead, that money is used to grease hands, line pockets, corporate bailouts, make guns for other countries, the dod, and instigating conflicts. Why should the individual citizen pay for those things? There's 650,000 people experiencing homelessness a night, but the government can afford a $2 trillion defense budget. Each congress member gets an income of $174,000, governors get $150,000, and the president gets $400,000 and gets to rent the most popular house in the country for 4-8 years depending on how nice they talk to us.
So yes. The individual US citizen shouldn't have to pay for that shit
I mean, there's definitely inefficiencies and outright corruption, but I don't think they justify a switch to full on libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism or whatever. Those policies definitely will not invest in public infrastructure or education.
In an unchecked anarcho-capitalist market, the economically disadvantaged are even more fucked. No social safety nets, no regulation on companies price fixing, monopolizing, etc. So using taxes as some scary Boogeyman just doesn't make any sense. A strong welfare state is so much better for the little guy.
The big difference is economic, not social. The left has a larger overlap with Libertarian social liberties than the right. It’s the concept of economic responsibility to support the most vulnerable members of society that really differentiates the left from Libertarians.
Trust me. I hate rich Libertarians. They're the problem with it. However, I do believe there's also been political propaganda against Libertariansm
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarians if they took fascism as seriously as the left does. They should be MORE passionately anti-Republican.
In my experience most of them don't care about personal rights if it doesn't impact them personally.
Libertarians in my experience are those particular conservatives that are unable to form social bonds with other humans.
I'll be honest, most of the Libertarians I've met have a twinge of morality. So they call themselves Libertarians so they can support Republicans while not feeling guilty about it (since they disagree with both sides).
They also do tend to be the cliche inexperienced college kid of the Republican party that is overconfident in their niche political views.
This tracks my brother lol
I totally feel you, friend. Right-libertarians are typically the ones that are rich and try to play the game so they can get richer. Left-libertarians do support social systems and will participate in said systems. However, (and I have no ulterior motives using these words) left-libertarians just want the freedom and independence to choose and not have it forced on them
I do understand that the concept of financial Libertarianism is funding social programs through choice (charity) instead of by force (policy). National security, bare necessities, nothing else. I disagree with it, but I understand it.
Aside from that though, I've seen a lot of regulation policy that Libertarians should be for. Like in regards to climate change. Destroying the environment should upset Libertarians, since it's hurting others.
In my red state, we had a real Libertarian running for governor and their positions were nearly identical to the Dem. Progressives and Libertarians should be making their voice heard in the primaries and then doing everything they can to stop Republicans (assuming they share values with the rest of the party). I don't respect either if they don't at least do that.
The biggest issue I see with the party itself is the divide between left and right leaning. The party itself can't agree on how the party should respond which means that the party won't be taken seriously by Republicans or Democrats
Translator: Please go starve elsewhere
Just because we've all been selfish and shortsighted doesn't make it ok for adults to act like spoiled children every time they have to pay their fair share for living in a civilized society.
It's not fear, it's exasperation.
It's really sad that you think. How many Libertarians have you ever spoken to in person?
Yeah, libertarians tend to be against that sort of thing 😄
Too many.
I meant to say "It's sad you think that." I didn't mean to make it seem like you don't think. I'm sure you're a very intelligent person. Sorry about that. And not being sarcastic
I know. I was being a deliberately glib smartass. For which I refuse to apologize 😁
Fair enough
Because Libertarians only ideology is selfishness. They refuse to understand basic concepts that even anarchists and libertarians well understand and acknowledge. Like the fact that sometimes systems need exist. But no matter how well a system it's designed. It cannot be perfectly equitable, and still requires intervention. Or that the non-aggression principle is nothing but a thought terminating cliche
I think you meant "non-libertarians" in that second sentence, and how is that any different from the systems in place now?
No there was a difference. It's subtle. But it is there. Libertarians with the capital L is a noun. Whereas libertarian with a lowercase l is an adjective. Nouns and adjectives are different. Nouns can be applied to places things and people. Whereas adjectives are generally descriptive of those places things and people.
So it is entirely possible for someone to call themselves Libertarian but not be libertarian. If I named my dog Communism, would my dog be communist? Libertarians rely on this ambiguation as a cover for their true beliefs. And to hear and destroy the reputation of their enemies. People who are actually libertarian.
You used libertarians as a noun, though.
Nouns are capitalized wherever they appear in a sentence. I used it as an adjective applied to a group of people who espouse actual libertarian values.
I meant your sentence "...even anarchists and libertarians well understand and acknowledge."
That's using it as a noun. Not all nouns are capitalized in English.
Unless you're German or several hundred years old, no, nouns are not capitalized. If you wanna use grammar as part of a political debate, which doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with, at least make sure to know what you're talking about.
I did detect a bit of sarcasm due to my misunderstanding of context. So my bad, but let's try to refrain from that. I'm not going to be sarcastic with you, but I digress...
Do you have an argument for what else I said?
No, no sarcasm intended. My apologies if it came off that way.
Like anarchists, libertarian minded people believe in equity. And will fight for everyone to have it. Not just themselves. Libertarians will claim they value equity. But wouldn't lift a finger to ensure others had it.
I'm probably a bad libertarian then, but libertarian none-the-less
Realistically gate keeping libertarianism is very anti libertarian. Just as belonging to a group such as the Libertarian party. With the goal of forcing your ideals onto others is also very anti libertarian. But if you support ensuring equity for all. Even if you disagree on how. You can still be libertarian.
I suspect they're making a distinction between big L Libertarians (i.e. an-caps) and small l libertarians (i.e. mid-19th century left wing libertarians).
Indubitably
Thank you. It did take them explaining it to me since context is difficult in text