You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler was an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
I’m libertarian because I believe in freedom of choice. I’m not a conservative because the only things I care about conserving are the oceans and the forests.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
It’s not even that it’s that they are deciding what the definition of the idealogy is based only on the most unhinged thoughts of the obnoxious voices of that ideology.
But I’m sure that .ml represents all Communists and socialists correct? It’s totally an accurate representation because they call themselves those words
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
In a purely libertarian society, parks wouldn’t last long. They would either become prohibitely expensive and yet another thing only for the rich, or they would be harvested and the land mined.
Making them public is the only way to ensure they remain as they are.
Conversely, I shouldn’t have to spell out my beliefs in order to be treated as a person
I’m certain that you’re aware that words like communism, socialism and Marxism have a plethora of negative propaganda associated with them. Likewise, terms like libertarian are also dragged through the mud routinely.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
Your comment is so lacking depth of understanding that it hurts.
Whenever I see discussions about Communists, I always think about the gulags and death camps in the USSR. Russia was an empire before it was overrun with Communists. Human nature indeed. /S
Oh yeah, right wing libertarian (based on private property) seems a bad thing for forest, without specific system. I was talking about left wing libertarianism (without private property).
Maybe you should refer to yourself as a geolibertarian instead of just as a libertarian. It would prevent some misunderstandings.
That’s an interesting read. It’s quite a bit different than what I’m used to people who call themselves libertarians talking about. I still think it would unwind and would be ruined by human nature, but it would be interesting to see such a system in action.
I like the Democratic socialists. I don’t like it when they seize power that will be upsurped by the next administration in powerand used to oppress people.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
You’re thinking of the political compass there, which has two axes, one being the economic one (left/right) and the other being the Authoritarian (top) vs Libertarian (bottom) axis.
But the left/right most people use is a one-dimensional system which puts everything on that one axis. It’s based on how the French parliament used to be set up between the radical left and the aristocratic right.
The point being, the two left/right axes aren’t equivalent. I personally also think in the political compass, that’s the system we learnt in school, so I’m unclear on what falls where on the basic left/right axis. But Wikipedia has this to say:
While communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, conservatism and reactionism are generally regarded as being on the right.[1] Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, being sometimes on the left (social liberalism) and other times on the right (conservative liberalism or classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists.
You seem very confused I edited a comment and it posted to itself. It’s the same fucking comment should I have deleted the tree and collapsed the thread?
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler was an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
I’m libertarian because I believe in freedom of choice. I’m not a conservative because the only things I care about conserving are the oceans and the forests.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
It’s not even that it’s that they are deciding what the definition of the idealogy is based only on the most unhinged thoughts of the obnoxious voices of that ideology.
But I’m sure that .ml represents all Communists and socialists correct? It’s totally an accurate representation because they call themselves those words
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
In a purely libertarian society, parks wouldn’t last long. They would either become prohibitely expensive and yet another thing only for the rich, or they would be harvested and the land mined.
Making them public is the only way to ensure they remain as they are.
Conversely, I shouldn’t have to spell out my beliefs in order to be treated as a person
I’m certain that you’re aware that words like communism, socialism and Marxism have a plethora of negative propaganda associated with them. Likewise, terms like libertarian are also dragged through the mud routinely.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
Annnnnnnd what? When did I dehumanize you? Human nature is precisely why I think a libertarian system would be a disaster.
I agree.
Whenever I see discussions about Libertarians, I always think about that town, Grafton, that got overrun with libertarians. Human nature indeed.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
The book is a very nice read.
Your comment is so lacking depth of understanding that it hurts.
Whenever I see discussions about Communists, I always think about the gulags and death camps in the USSR. Russia was an empire before it was overrun with Communists. Human nature indeed. /S
Oh yeah, right wing libertarian (based on private property) seems a bad thing for forest, without specific system. I was talking about left wing libertarianism (without private property).
It wouldn’t kill you to read
But based on your username, that may not be in your skill set
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Maybe you should refer to yourself as a geolibertarian instead of just as a libertarian. It would prevent some misunderstandings.
That’s an interesting read. It’s quite a bit different than what I’m used to people who call themselves libertarians talking about. I still think it would unwind and would be ruined by human nature, but it would be interesting to see such a system in action.
You’re about one “and I think healthcare is a human right” from being a progressive/dem soc.
I like the Democratic socialists. I don’t like it when they seize power that will be upsurped by the next administration in powerand used to oppress people.
You’re thinking of the political compass there, which has two axes, one being the economic one (left/right) and the other being the Authoritarian (top) vs Libertarian (bottom) axis.
But the left/right most people use is a one-dimensional system which puts everything on that one axis. It’s based on how the French parliament used to be set up between the radical left and the aristocratic right.
The point being, the two left/right axes aren’t equivalent. I personally also think in the political compass, that’s the system we learnt in school, so I’m unclear on what falls where on the basic left/right axis. But Wikipedia has this to say:
you forgot to switch alts to argue with yourself
You seem very confused I edited a comment and it posted to itself. It’s the same fucking comment should I have deleted the tree and collapsed the thread?