364

Freedom is the ONLY thing that counts. I do acknowledge that Libertarians claim to want to pursue freedom.

However I believe that Libertarianism, will only replace tyrannical government with tyrannical rule by businesses.

The problem with governments no matter their political leaning is that most political ideologies lack any mechanism to deal with corruption and abuses of power. Libertarianism seeks to deal with this by removing government and instead hand the power to private companies.

Companies are usually small dictatorships or even tyrannies. Handing them the power over all of society will only benefit the owners of these companies. The rest of society will basically be reduced to the status of slaves as they have no say over the direction of the society they maintain through their 9to5s.

These companies already control governments around the world through favors, bribes or other means such as regulatory capture or even by influencing the media and thereby manipulating the public's opinion through the advertisement revenue.

Our problems would only get worse, all the ills of today's society, lack of freedom, lack of peace, lack of just basic human decency will be vastly aggravated if we hand the entirety of control to people like petur tihel and allen mosque.

Instead the way to go about this is MORE democracy not less of it. The solution is to give average citizens more influence over the fate of society rather than less. However for that to happen we all need to fight ignorance and promote the spread of education. It has to become cool again to read books (or .epub/.mobi's lol)

The best way to resolve the the corruption issue is to not allow any individual to hold power, instead having a distributed system.

More of a community-driven government. Sort of like these workers owned companies. We should not delegate away our decision-making power. We should ourselves make the decisions.

Although this post is in English it does neither concern the ASU nor KU or any other English speaking countries, in particular. It's a general post addressing a world wide phenomenon.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 100 points 8 months ago

;)

Libertarian Police™ Department

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

[-] QuantumStorm@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

One of the best copy-pastas ever written. Gets me laughing every time.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago

It's also popular in libertarian circles because it's funny as fuck.

[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

One of my favorite copypastas.

[-] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 5 points 8 months ago

This is awesome. You might also like Fry and Laurie's Private Police

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 78 points 8 months ago

Unpopular opinion: obvious stuff that 99% of the people here will agree with.

[-] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 24 points 8 months ago

It's true that it's not really an unpopular opinion (especially here), but it's still thoughtful and well articulated. I thought it was more interesting than most posts.

[-] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

True, I didn't mean it as an insult to OP, just pointing out the ol' tradition of posting very popular things on the forum for unpopular opinions

[-] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

It is a timeless part of our online heritage.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 24 points 8 months ago

It’s been my experience that libertarians are just conservatives that are too cowardly to commit to the bit.

[-] Icaria@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

I've encountered three stripes of Big-L Libertarians online (thankfully, they don't seem to exist in Oz, they're mostly Americans with too much free time):

  • The Libertarian who is just a walking tax grievance. All he cares about is not paying taxes, it was how he got introduced to libertarianism, everything else is rationalising this point.

  • The Libertarian who treats it like a model train set in his basement. Everything works perfectly in his head, all the systems snap together, and he doesn't much care how it relates to an actual railway network in the real world. Libertarianism is more a neat little thought experiment for him than anything else. They have varying levels of commitment to implementing these ideas in the real world.

  • Actual fucking psychopaths. Social Darwinists. These guys are the ones who go on about "freedom", but they're engaged in sleight of hand. When they say freedom, they mean the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak, and the freedom to starve in the gutter. They all seem to imagine themselves as temporarily-embarrassed millionaires and captains of industry, or ranchers who get to print their own money and turn people living on their land into neo-feudal serfs.

None of them have a satisfying answer for how their utopian power vacuum is supposed to be stable. Some know it isn't, but can't give the game away.

And of course any time any of them are presented with evidence of deregulation or privatisation having a negative human cost, they'll also claim there's a magical inflection point where things just weren't deregulated or privatised enough: you have to give them everything they want first, then their theories will start to work, pinky-promise. And sometimes the psychos will say the quiet part out loud and will chide you for daring to bring morality and human suffering into an economic debate.

And yes, a lot of this language is gendered. No, it is not unnecessary. Yes, they are almost always dudes. No, I don't know why.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 21 points 8 months ago

I think you may have come up with the least unpopular opinion on Lemmy. There's more people who are unabashed fans of Stalin and Mao than there are libertarians.

Buuut...I mean, I'm not a libertarian, but I've taken libertarian ideas more seriously than you have, so I can play devil's advocate.

The idea behind libertarianism isn't to hand power over to corporations; that's just what detractors claim will happen. What they claim will happen is that corporations will become far less powerful.

The nightmare cyberpunk scenario where companies acquire private militaries and just physically take over doesn't really apply. The difference between libertarians and anarchists is that the former do see a place for government, usually including military, courts, policing, enforcement of contracts, and a few other things. So companies would continue to have to earn your dollar the old fashion way.

Now, think of industries that suck, where the companies are really shitty causing people to complain about them all the time, but are nonetheless stuck using them for lack of options.

Got some? Okay, now, were you thinking of electronics companies? No? How about bedding, or kitchenware? Hardware & tools? Flooring? Children's toys? Food & grocery?

Or...were you maybe thinking (depending where you live) of banking, airline, healthcare, insurance, or telecom industries?

Okay, now, change of topic: think of some industries with lots of regulation and government intervention.

Did you by any chance come up with the same list?

Lots of people will claim those industries are heavily regulated because they're somehow inherently shitty, and need the government to step in to fix them. Libertarians would say that those industries are shitty because regulations and government interventions prevent competition and shelter incumbents. They don't have to treat customers well anymore, or make particularly good products, because their position is secure whether they do or not. In an actual free market, competition is easier, so it's harder for a company to establish a monopoly.

An extreme example: Britain famously demanded Hong Kong as compensation from China during the Opium Wars, and used it as a gateway to Asia. They treated it with a sort of benign neglect: as long as the port was functioning, they didn't pay that much attention to the operation of the territory. It was not heavily regulated, to the point that even (for example) the healthcare industry was basically regulation-free. You could literally stick a sign on the door of your apartment claiming you were doctor, and start treating people, and nobody would stop you.

So, since healthcare is one of those sacred industries that requires heavy government regulation to protect people, the life expectancy and health outcomes of Hong Kongers must have been abysmal, right? Well...no, it actually climbed steadily throughout, and is #1 in the world today (though it should be noted the situation re: regulation changed post-1997). And it was a hell of a lot cheaper than American or European healthcare at every point.

There are industries where monopolies seem to form naturally. In my lifetime, Microsoft, Facebook and Google have all been accused of being monopolistic. There were calls for government intervention. But like...they were monopolies (or got close, anyway) because lots of people chose to use them. Nobody was forced. I couldn't stand Microsoft or Facebook, so I switched to Linux way back in the 90s and I've never really used Facebook at all. I do use some Google products, because they're pretty good.

And I'm fine. Nobody ever threatened me. My life wasn't negatively affected AFAICT. I just didn't use that product. Competitors appeared, like Linux & BSD, Reddit, Lemmy, etc, and I liked those better so I used them instead. That was it. Pretty boring as far as dystopias go.

The situation is a bit different when it comes to government. I can't opt in or out, I'm just stuck. I mean, I can move (assuming I have enough cash to do it), but fully extricating yourself from your home country is surprisingly hard: the US will chase you around the world to claim taxes from your income. And you immediately have to pick another country, and your options are severely limited.

People talk about corporations in such dire terms. It's kind of mystifying to me: just don't fucking use that corporation's products. Voila! You're free from their insidious influence.

Ahh, but they corrupt government institutions with their lobbying money! The libertarian answer is: have fewer government institutions, then. They can't lobby to bend regulations in their favor if there are no regulations in the first place. They would say that heavy regulation means incumbents are protected from competition, and can thus extract more 'rent', meaning more profit, which they can then turn towards warping the copious regulations in their favor...meaning still more protection, more profit, and more regulatory capture.

Like I said, I'm not a libertarian, but I understand their perspective, and I think it should be more influential than it is. I can talk about how rent control raises housing costs, or how "worker's rights" results in lower pay, or how minimum wages are racist and sexist.

Or you can just call me names for taking libertarians seriously! That seems like the more popular approach.

[-] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Now, think of industries that suck, where the companies are really shitty causing people to complain about them all the time, but are nonetheless stuck using them for lack of options.

...

Or…were you maybe thinking (depending where you live) of banking, airline, healthcare, insurance, or telecom industries?

Okay, now, change of topic: think of some industries with lots of regulation and government intervention.

Did you by any chance come up with the same list?

Typical libertarian blather.

In each one of these cases the industry predates the regulation. The regulation of banking is a response to the shitty behaviour of pre-regulation banks. Ditto for airlines, health care, insurance, telecom, etc. etc. etc.

The old adage "each regulation is written in blood" applies (albeit the blood being metaphorical in some cases).

The libertarian cinematic universe (coughRandroidscough) has it that businessmen were just chugging along merrily making a profit when suddenly, out of nowhere, the government leaped in to slap regulations on things. The reality is that regulations (which are themselves, naturally, not perfect, often applied long after the need has vanished, and prone to being corrupted) are a response to corporate malfeasance. Very few regulations are made ahead of the fact. (Politicians are constitutionally incapable of thinking ahead, after all.)

So airlines being heavily-regulated? Go look at the history of the airline industry. Look at the accident rates caused by the complete and utter profiteering of early airlines. Then ask yourself if regulation made these industries evil, or if perhaps regulations came in because of the evil of said industries.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Typical libertarian blather.

Typical ad-hominem dismissal.

In each one of these cases the industry predates the regulation.

Yeah, I preempted you and pointed out that's the argument of the 'other' side.

There are some cases where you can argue that regulation was a response to abuses. I'd agree with banking. I gave a counterpoint re: healthcare, where free market healthcare worked really well.

Telecom was largely rolled out by government monopolies, in order to do it quickly. Then (at least in Canada, where I'm from), the government basically passed monopolistic government bodies to private companies, with a little "make sure to allow competition!" clause. Surprise surprise, there's basically 1-2 telecom companies per province in Canada today, and they've captured the fuck out of regulatory bodies. Corporations are corporations, and they're gonna seek profit. That's a good thing if they're competing and struggling, but terrible if you pass them a harness and whip.

I'm skeptical about airlines & insurance. They'd have worked themselves out eventually, if left to market forces, but that's never been allowed to happen.

Early airlines were a mess, but the last 50 years have been incredibly safe. You're like 1000x safer in a plane than a car. I've seen arguments that such extreme safety regulations are actually causing thousands of deaths per year: the level of regulation significantly raises the price (I've seen 2x as a rough estimate, no idea how accurate that is), which causes a lot of people to drive instead of fly--and driving is 1000x less safe, so lots of them die in car accidents. If flying were only a few hundred times safer than driving, and prices dropped by 25%, it might save hundreds of lives due to fewer car accidents.

There's this problem with regulation: nobody ever lost their bureaucratic job by being too careful. If you're a government bureaucrat and you eased up regulations on airlines (or food & drug safety, or building codes, etc), and that caused some incident that killed a person or two, you could be offered up as a sacrifice to public rage--even if the same relaxation of regulations saved lives by encouraging (safer) flying over driving, or made drugs available that saves hundreds of lives, or made housing 13% cheaper in some given city. The benefits are diffuse, the harm is acute--and newsworthy. And what's the upside for you, as a bureaucrat? You don't get a raise, or a bonus, or even a pat on the back for lower housing prices or exciting new cancer treatments.

So: restrict, limit, contain, regulate. That's the only sane thing to do. Make a big deal about how safe you're keeping everybody. Nobody will ever know that thousands of lives could have been saved, or housing could've been affordable, or travel could've been quicker, etc, if you'd eased up on regulations. You, the bureaucrat, will never face the counterexample--or the costs associated with overregulation.

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

There are some cases where you can argue that regulation was a response to abuses. I'd agree with banking. I gave a counterpoint re: healthcare, where free market healthcare worked really well.

Yeah but, a basic Google search about the history of the Hong Kong healthcare system makes it obvious that your counterpoint is almost entirely incorrect. Whether that's a result of your arguing in bad faith or a result of you just ignorantly parroting something you heard an elder libertarian say is up for debate.

Your example was 19th century Hong Kong and you said "the British didn't regulate healthcare and anyone could put a sign on their door claiming to be a doctor and start treating people" you then yada-yada'd to "and now they have world class hospitals".

You completely skipped a bunch of history, like how the British government actively subsidized the establishment of a Chinese medicine hospital. You skipped the part about how a combination of British physicians and Chinese physicians who were trained in Western medicine founded the first medical school in Hong Kong.

You were correct when you said it was all done without government regulation, but so was most of the healthcare in America at the time.

And the most glaring issue with your counterpoint is your comparison of late 19th century medicine with modern times. Modern medicine is practically magic compared to those times. And yet we just experienced a worldwide pandemic where millions of people

collectively lost their minds and actively fought against science, logic and common sense. We had the modern day version of "putting a sign on their door claiming to be a doctor" with all the youtube quacks and anti-vac "influencers".

Free market health care might have worked well enough when populations were smaller, distances were greater and lives were shorter. But we don't live in that world anymore.

nobody ever lost their bureaucratic job by being too careful. If you're a government bureaucrat and you eased up regulations on airlines (or food & drug safety, or building codes, etc), and that caused some incident that killed a person or two, you could be offered up as a sacrifice to public rage--even if the same relaxation of regulations saved lives by encouraging (safer) flying over driving, or made drugs available that saves hundreds of lives, or made housing 13% cheaper in some given city.

I love how you're going with the optimistically naive libertarian schtick.

I WANT my food, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and homes to be made to strict standards of quality and safety. Haven't you read The Jungle

No amount of "driving safer" will protect you from a car that will crumble/explode in a collision, no amount of "driving safer" will keep a poorly manufactured engine from falling apart or the cabin floor from rusting out. But hey, what's another couple thousand dollars in repairs or having to buy a new car when I saved so much up front, right?

And why should lower income people be forced to live in shoddy, substandard housing? Just because you're poor doesn't mean you deserve to live in constant fear of electrical fires or building collapse.

We need to regulate the development, production and distribution of drugs. ALL drugs. I csn trust that the new diabetes treatment for my aunt has been well tested and is safe because I know how exhaustive the development process is. And on that same token, the ONLY reason there are so many fentanyl overdoses right now is because recreational drugs are produced and distributed by clandestine (i.e. unregulated) facilities.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I gave a counterpoint re: healthcare, where free market healthcare worked really well.

The nation noted for its "free market healthcare" on the world stage has shit health stats. Working real well there, Sparky.

Telecom was largely rolled out by government monopolies, in order to do it quickly.

Time to open up a history book, there, dude. 'Cause you are so fucking far off the mark it's hilarious.

I’m skeptical about airlines ... They’d have worked themselves out eventually, if left to market forces, but that’s never been allowed to happen.

At what cost in bodies? I know to the libertarian mindset death counts are just number, but each increment of those numbers is a human life. The ultimate loss of liberty is death.

Want to see what "market forces" do in airline industries? Look at the 737-MAX fiasco, where government abrogated its oversight of the airline, permitting companies to "self-certify", a decision that you can draw a direct line from to 346 dead bodies.

Seriously, go visit those 346 people's families. Tell them that "market forces" would have eventually settled out the issues. Be ready to run. 346 times.

The idea of regulation is to stop the bodies from happening in the first place instead of waiting, while the body count racks up, for "market forces" to fix everything.

This religion of "the market solves all" is why libertarians are fuckwits.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Quick, someone share the reddit copy pasta where the police officer does heroin in his police car.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago

So, since healthcare is one of those sacred industries that requires heavy government regulation to protect people, the life expectancy and health outcomes of Hong Kongers must have been abysmal, right? Well…no

Wasn't the state of healthcare at the time somewhere between useless and actively harmful? Not much use in regulating what the experts of the day are completely wrong about.

Anyway my issue with much of the argumentation you've presented here, despite there being many reasonable points, is that most libertarians seem to simply not care at all whether their predictions of how well unfettered capitalism will go are realistic or true. It's just talking points to them, because if they weren't true, it would still be justified to favor absolute property rights over everything else. That's what they really care about, the justice of no one getting to touch their stuff, and it outweighs everything else.

Which is frustrating, because despite their rare willingness to drill down into specifics, it's a clear point of biased disingenuousness. If the only thing a point means to someone is that if it is made one way others might be persuaded of their cause, the incentive is to only understand it that particular way, and never realize or admit if it's wrong.

My issue with the core ethos is, a person's ability to opt out of things very often depends on how poor they are, and so if property is liberty, it's only liberty for those with the property.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 4 points 8 months ago

The state of healthcare in the 1960s through the 1990s? I mean, it wasn't that bad. Life expectancy at the time was rising very quickly in developed countries--and in Hong Kong.

Libertarians can drive me crazy too, and I agree that a lot of them are driven by ideology, not practicality. And a lot of them can't even make these arguments in defense of their own beliefs--they just come at it from a simple moral POV ("taxes are violence!"). But that's not unique to libertarians: most people hold to ideologies they don't fully understand, which is why they defend them rabidly with insults and attacks, instead of just explaining why they believe what they do. "I believe we should do this because it's right, and I'll get mad if you try to explain why it's impractical, impossible, or counterproductive!" is an attitude I hear more often, if anything, from the Left.

And, well, in a libertarian world, your ability to opt out of things may depend, to some extent, on your wealth--but (they would say) it's easier for people to get wealthy in general. And as I pointed out in my original post...well...no, it's not really true. I opt out of Facebook and Microsoft and other 'monopolies', and I'm just fine. Why would that change? But I really, actually can't opt out of the state, and the bigger the state gets the more restricted we are. So, the solution to "if the libertarians got their way, some people would be more free than others" is "we should significantly restrict freedom overall, for everybody"?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Venat0r@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Is that an unpopular opinion? I thought that was the whole appeal, hence why most billionaires are libertarians.

That's also basically the moral of the story of bioshock.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Instead the way to go about this is MORE democracy not less of it.

Agreed. Some good steps to take:

  • Switching to approval/STAR voting (far fewer flaws than FPTP, generaly better than ranked)

  • Requiring all companies to be worker owned democracies. We don't accept dictators or monarchists in government, so why would we accept that kind of tyranny in our work?

  • Shit loads of anti-corruption efforts. As of right now, politics is controlled with money, and politicians effectively get a free pass to use their office for personal gain. That shit needs to end.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

You based motherfucker - have an upvote. I'd do it twice if I could.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Libertarianism denies humanity. Exalting the individual as the basic unit of society is the political equivalent to a spherical cow in a vacuum. The human mind and body deteriorate in isolation; we need others to even think or be healthy.

The individual in isolation also happens to be the weakest political unit. It's almost like the ruling class invented the an ideology for the serfs to demand feudalism. An ideology that not only rejects collective action, but short circuits any attempt. A group of libertarians is called an impasse.

Prioritizing the rational individual causes irrationality in society. Tens of thousands of rational decisions to go home at the same time lead to the irrationality of traffic.

[-] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Well, I wish it was more popular.

I love the concept of government, it's a state mechanism that when it works correctly, society advances and everything works. The problem it, it require constant citizens involvement in order to keep it in check.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

That's pretty much any organization you can imagine. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Libertarianism: “fuck you, got mine” disguised as a legitimate political ideology

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Republicans that like to smoke weed.

[-] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Settle down, there, Braveheart 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lugal@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Is this really unpopular? I think it's a very based anarchosyndicalist standpoint.

ASU nor KU

Are you French? Because they have some acronyms backwards (like UE)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] crsu@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

How can anyone take it seriously now of all times? Libertarianism in the modern day is being fronted by hack stand up comedians who ran out of material so they went with the political shtick to stay relevant. They don't actually believe in anything other than enriching themselves

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thantik@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

The problem is that no single person can educate themselves strongly enough on every potential topic. That's why we're supposed to have representatives to spend all day in a specific area of expertise. I could be jobless, and study this stuff all day every day, 24/7 and STILL not be educated enough to vote on a bill and claim to understand all of the nuances and interactions with society that would ripple out from that decision.

And have you seen society? Do you REALLY want some of these idiots voting? They don't even care to educate themselves - so it's easy to influence them with advertisements and campaigns.

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

The simple answer to this is that bills have no reason being drafted in language or length that cannot be reasonably explained to a layman.

In fact it is very well known that some legislation is drawn up with the intention of obfuscating its purpose, or some detail therein.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ibex0@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Companies are usually small dictatorships or even tyrannies. Handing them the power over all of society will only benefit the owners of these companies. The rest of society will basically be reduced to the status of slaves as they have no say over the direction of the society they maintain through their 9to5s.

Well said. It's so weird how gullible people can be.

[-] AlijahTheMediocre@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

The things that always gets thought about last is transparency, accountability, and separation of powers

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

Subsidies for big business, regulatory capture and other forms of corporate rent seeking are all things libertarians are against. For big L libertarians you even have party platforms.

[-] sighofannoyance@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

regulatory capture

I thought Libertarianism promoted the removal of government regulations and allowing companies to do as they please. Basically let the markets regulate themselves. For example not having environmental regulations instead hoping customers vote with their feet. Am I misunderstanding Libertarianism?

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, not at all. Right Wing libertarians are just embarrassed capitalist. That haven't found the one thing that makes them want to come out in the open as fascist or a conspiracy theory enthusiast. Actual libertarians, those on the left. Are equally concerned about people's freedom "from" things. As they are people's freedom "to do" things. They're opposed to large many level government, that obfuscates while at the same time consolidating power. Not government itself.

Actual libertarians are just as horrified by the brutality and cruelty of under regulated corporations, as they are large government behemoths.

The origin of libertarians and left libertarianism is inconvenient though. And something never touched on outside poly sci courses. Pretty much any libertarian you've likely been exposed to would fall under the neo-libertarian moniker. Like the neo liberals and neo conservatives. Right wing reactionary groups forming in reaction to the red scare of the mid 20th century. Right wing libertarianism itself has its origins in the 50s and 60s. Murray, rothbard, Milton Friedman, Frederick Hyak and a few others are generally seen as the fathers of it. Where actual libertarianism's origins go back another 100 years.

But when it comes to who has the wealth and resources to promote their ideology. Wealthy thieves always win out in the end. And they largely set the standards by which we are all educated.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] BiteSizedZeitGeist@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

The problem is capitalist libertarians don't see corporations as a power structure, just simply as an expression of individual effort. There's no libertarian conception of a corporation as a collective unit or a way to exert influence; libertarians see a corporation as a random group of individuals who voluntarily join a leader.

[-] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 4 points 8 months ago

Yeah but isn't that just common sense for people outside libertarian circles? It's not an unpopular opinion, it's a logical conclusion.

[-] rockandsock@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Lots of people have been raised to think "government is bad" without any critical thoughts about what the alternatives to government would realistically be.

"Government is bad" has been a republican talking point since at least the 80s.

[-] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

Community driven, worker owned decision making? Maybe you could check out Democratic Confederalism?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
364 points (87.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6052 readers
356 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS