205
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by occultist8128@infosec.pub to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

as a person that came from the 3rd world country and new in fediverse environment, i genuinely would like to know about this.

edit: thanks for the replies! sorry, i literally don't know the reason since i'm not a western lol. twitter/x is too biased especially when musk openly supports trump so i came here and seeing fediverse is mostly are harris or biden (when he's still up for the candidate) supporters. don't know about reddit tho, i only use reddit as a forum for linux and programming stuff.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Almost no one pays attention to the big-L Libertarian party. Ron and Rand Paul got some attention on the national level but they weren't even members of the party (while in office) and the party itself has never been politically relevant.

I think these days the word is associated more with Silicon Valley techno-libertarians (a group I identify with). These guys favor the free market over government regulation (which isn't really relevant to Reddit) but they're also very sympathetic to free-as-in-speech open-source software.

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago

Silicon Valley techno-libertarians (a group I identify with)

I hate to break it to you but these are definitely the worst ones. It's what the Gadsden flag waving canned food and gun hording preppers turn into if they end up with tons of money. These are the morons that build bunkers in New Zealand and try to brainstorm ways to keep their post-apocalyptic security guards loyal to them with remote-detonated bomb collars or holding their families hostage.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The preppers are different because they want to be left completely alone. They don't see any acceptable role for government in their lives. I don't think they're being realistic. Freedom isn't free, as the saying goes.

The techno-libertarians are much more engaged with society and do see a role for government, even if that role is small and (at least according to some of them) bizarre by conventional standards. I'm not going to deny that the bunker-building types are involved in the movement. I often don't agree with the weirder people involved, but I like that techno-libertarians are willing to hear people out and judge their ideas rationally rather than shunning them for being weird.

(I think I might have a bunker built if I was rich enough. The expected utility of it is higher than that of, say, a second yacht. Human guards are a dead end. Probably the best thing that can be done if civilization totally collapses and you manage to get inside is blowing up the entrance so that anyone who wants to get to you has to move a thousand tons of rock first. You probably won't ever get to leave, but it's better than what would happen if you did.)

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago

The bunker-building impulse demonstrates what's wrong with libertarianism very well, an irrational attachment to individualism in all things. Libertarians refuse to acknowledge the positive role of nature and community in their lives, instead focusing on the negatives and spending all their energy fighting the very thing that keeps them alive. How long do you think you can last alone in a bunker without any support?

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I acknowledge that almost all people (including me) couldn't survive on their own. Even those that could survive (let's say that their bunkers have robust long-term life-support systems) still couldn't live completely alone for many years without going crazy.

I don't reject relationships with other people, but I think they should be between independent individuals who associate with each other only because they both want to. (Violating this principle is sometimes necessary but always undesirable.) You appear to think otherwise, and I suppose that's a fundamental value difference that can't be resolved through debate. I do want to point out that if I were in charge, my rules wouldn't prevent you from voluntarily living life your way. I suspect that your rules wouldn't leave me the analogous option.

Edit: I suppose that I do feel like I have some obligations to my family members despite being related to them through no choice of my own. Is that how collectivists feel (to a lesser extent) about everyone else?

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 months ago

I don't reject relationships with other people, but I think they should be between independent individuals who associate with each other only because they both want to. (Violating this principle is sometimes necessary but always undesirable.) You appear to think otherwise, and I suppose that's a fundamental value difference that can't be resolved through debate

I also believe in autonomy, but everyone has relationships with people they did not choose to associate with due entirely to unavoidable circumstance. This doesn't just apply to family, but to everyone on earth to varying degrees. You are just as dependent on community as you are dependent on nature, a complex web of relationships of which you are a small part. Refusing to acknowledge that these relationships exist because you did not choose to enter them is childish, and it enables you to behave selfishly because you do not take responsibility for your externalities. This is the same pitfall that capitalists dive into to justify pollution and all manner of horrible things.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Maybe you should look into why we have those regulations. - an actual libertarian

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

What makes you an actual libertarian?

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

What makes you think you are? Identifying with the sort of people the person who coined the term and defined it. Would have rightfully seen as their enemy.

We have the regulations for a reason. We've already tried the less/no regulation thing. That's the reason we have the regulations. Granted the regulations are ineffective. However the people in charge and Society at Large will not do what it takes to solve the problem outside of regulations. Things like ending generational wealth that almost every Tech bro to an individual benefited heavily from. Or ending they're very exploitative business practices.

I'd be fine with these regulations ending. So long as Society was ready to replace their more neutered threat with something more meaningful. Like the guillotine. Hell who knows. A quick test run on Bezos, Thiel, and Musk might get a decent portion of them to straighten up and fly right. But as long as Society at large worships the new bourgeoisie. Removing regulations from them will only speed up the run-up to another bloody violent revolution. Which I think most people don't want.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
205 points (94.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35868 readers
276 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS