Comment on Are most people here left-wing?

• Forester@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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 is 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.

  source

  • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.

    source

    • Forester@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

      source

      • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        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.

        source
    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.

      source

      • Forester@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It’s not even that it’s that they are deciding what the definition of the idealogy is based only on the most of 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

        source
    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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)

      source

      • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • freely1333@reddthat.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You’re about one “and I think healthcare is a human right” from being a progressive/dem soc.

    source

    • Forester@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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.

      source
  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    you forgot to switch alts to argue with yourself

    source

    • Forester@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      You seem very confused

      source