34

Is there any flavor of libertarianism that even in theory makes sense? I lump libertarians together which I guess is unfair but I only talk to them online and they always seem to so similar however they define themselves with nuance. I find them to be ridiculous, obnoxious, and selfish.

For example - at Bluesky I just had an argument with a self-described socio-libertarian who was against "disruptive" protests against climate change. The character limit at Bluesky makes an actual discussion pointless in a situation like this. But they were an asshole anyway so that limit did me a favor. And I didn't need to her some kind of fantastical thinking about the magic of the free market solving climate change.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about libertarian socialism...

Libertarian socialism

Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Thallo@hexbear.net 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It sounds like you don't have any problem with a strong government that is capable of "indiscriminately punishing" people or that is capable of dictating banks to shut down 50$ transfers for entertainment. Rather, you're more concerned with the particulars of laws themselves.

People shouldn't be punished for driving over the speed limit as it stands; however, you'd be okay with it if the speed limit were 30 mph higher. Gambling shouldn't be banned, but bank accounts should be frozen at a particular number.

None of what you provide is a critique of power or capitalism or liberal democracy- it's just preferences concerning laws.

I want a state that leaves people alone as a rule unless it's absolutely necessary to intervene.

Everyone believes this. There's no ML who says "we need a strong vanguard party who dictates the happenings of our personal lives because I like it." Everyone wants laws to be "reasonable."

[-] MayoPete@hexbear.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

It sounds like you don't have any problem with a strong government that is capable of "indiscriminately punishing" people or that is capable of dictating banks to shut down 50$ transfers for entertainment. Rather, you're more concerned with the particulars of laws themselves.

I don't have a strong preference over what size the state is. I just want life to get better and for life to be more fair. I want the bombings to stop, I want the world to stop being exploited by the rich and the big corporations. Maybe I have the wrong labels to describe my views? I don't really care for political labels but I figure Libertarian Socialist fits best. That or just plain "Marxist"

I'm trying to find a happy medium between enabling companies to prey on whales/problem gamblers & allowing the casual players to still have their hobby. So yeah, details matter.

I'm not anti-state. I support having a state, just not one that is so big it gets to veto the entire UN, send bombs to Israel, and crush dissent back home.

People shouldn't be punished for driving over the speed limit as it stands; however, you'd be okay with it if the speed limit were 30 mph higher. Gambling shouldn't be banned, but bank accounts should be frozen at a particular number.

More like 10mph higher, but harshly enforced. We all know the posted speed limit isn't the "real" limit. If the sign says 65 people are going 75-80 and it's fine. So make it 75 and then, because this is the future, cars just throttle you past that limit or your car insurance automatically ticks up but there's an override if you have an emergency and have to get to a hospital. Again, future here so the car's onboard systems & GPS knows this.

I want the highways to be safer because I want to be safer driving on them. We have roads here that get 2-3 accidents PER DAY. These laws aren't working!

Everyone believes this. There's no ML who says "we need a strong vanguard party who dictates the happenings of our personal lives because I like it." Everyone wants laws to be "reasonable."

I can't tell if people are joking on here when they talk about banning video games or FanDuel or anime.

[-] Thallo@hexbear.net 9 points 3 weeks ago

I don't have a strong preference over what size the state is

I support having a state, just not one that is so big

I mean this politely, but you are politically confused. You are someone who cares about all of the inequality you see in the world, and it makes you really angry. Which is good.

I just want life to get better and for life to be more fair. I want the bombings to stop, I want the world to stop being exploited by the rich and the big corporations

I want the highways to be safer because I want to be safer driving on them. We have roads here that get 2-3 accidents PER DAY. These laws aren't working!

it gets to veto the entire UN, send bombs to Israel, and crush dissent back home.

It's good that you're angry about all of these things, but it's important to have a roadmap to actually achieve all of these things. It has more to do with how society is structured and how the government interacts with the people rather than the particular laws themselves. The current laws create inequality because they serve capital.

The reason you get dogpiled is because you're drawing a distinction between libertarian socialism and actually existing socialism in a way that implies you care more about freedom than the alternative.

The fact is, states like China have already implemented laws, particularly related to driving and surveillance, that are similar to what you're requesting. They've also had a heavy hand in regulating toxic apps without outright banning them. They are not libertarian. They are Marxist Leninists.

Get with the program and drop the libertarian label. It's American nonsense. Any major communist organization shares all of your concerns and has a better theoretical framework to achieve them.

I saw someone here recommend that you read state and revolution. I second this. If you have read it, I'd like to hear why it wasn't convincing enough for you to adopt its framework.

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13547 readers
579 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS