Comment on There is significant evidence that Grok actually inserted information about “white genocide” in South Africa into prompts that didn't appear to be related to this topic.

• kmacmartin@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Libertarianism is a traditionally left wing philosophy that started in the 1800s. They’re also typically pretty big on human rights and equality.

  The more modern America-centric “tea party” libertarians fit what you’re saying, but they didn’t create the term.

  source

  • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The second paragraph is ultimately what libertarians are and as such how I engage them.

    source
• Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Well yes, because liberals believe in state enforced equality while libertarians believe in equality as a moral prerogative but one that cannot be imposed through laws and regulations because the state should not have the right to impose any form of laws that dictate morality or way of living etc. At least that’s my interpretation of it from conversations with libertarians.

  So that means that libertarians will be against the use of state power to right systemic wrongs. Which I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.

  The real problem though is that the US only has two parties so you have to choose one that overlaps with most of your views and for libertarians that ends up being the GOP due to the fact that their own party is an insane clown show worst than the GOP. But at the same time I’d like to point out that libertarian adjacent members of the GOP in the past are the ones who have made the biggest strides for human rights in the US. The party it is today is unrecognizable from the one it was 60 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago.

  But calling libertarian fascist just devalues the definition of the word, which the real fascist use to their advantage.

  source

  • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.

    We are just treating libertarians for what they are. Not by what they claim to be.

    libertarianism fertilizes right wing conservatism, is that it advocates against balancing systems of control (government). This means that since there is no entity intervening in affairs, there is nothing keeping a more excessively authoritarian entity from emerging. This is an oversimplification, but basically right-wing authoritarians want to weaken authority (even more benevolent ones) so that they can take additional power. (Again oversimplification, I also don’t like considering groups as monoliths)

    Basically proto rightwing forces, can march in lockstep with libertarians because they both initially advocate for the removal of governing,regulatory, and policing institutions.

    Thus I think this is what causes people to see libertarians and conservatives as overlapping, as both initially support the same goals and probably can be found in similar spaces. Once prevailing (more benevolent, or less malevolent) insutituions are removed, by joint action of libertarians and authoritarians, the authoritarins break with the libertarians and can now install their definately more malevolent instituion. (This malevolence may be incidental or the end goal, it depends)

    If libertarians don’t want to be seen as fascist, then they should stop welcoming them.

    source

    • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I hear what you say, but again that’s intellectually dishonest. Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.

      What progressives want is also authoritarian, and libertarians are against authoritarianism on principle, whether it has noble or evil goals because the potential for abuse even with noble goals is too great.

      source

      • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.

        Yeah, there is a word for what they are overlapping with.

        What progressives want is also authoritarian

        I don’t see how prioritizing civil rights over property is authoritarian.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Well yeah, “liberal” has come to mean “progressive” or at least the Democratic Party establishment, which has drifted pretty far from OG liberals. Classical liberals restricted themselves to negative rights (freedom from), whereas modern liberals believe in positive rights (freedom to).

  I consider myself a libertarian and a classical liberal. I strongly disagree with both major parties, because neither prioritizes anything I care about.

  I think the issue is that the Libertarian Party does a terrible job representing libertarianism. They focus too much on the “less taxes” angle when it should be focusing on less protectionism. Here are some changes I’d like to see related to corporations:

  • eliminate corporate taxes - also tax stock options/grants above some level as income
  • eliminate corporate liability protections above a certain size (say, $100M?)
  • eliminate any explicit or implied criminal protections for corporate officers
  • eliminate any tax benefits for providing benefits, and combine corporate benefit programs (e.g. 401k) with non-corporate programs accessible to all (e.g. IRA); if they offer benefits, they must also offer the cash value if the employee declines

  Yet the LP focuses on the first and ignores the rest.

  Don’t willy nilly lump libertarians with corporate hacks. Yes, we align on a few issues, but the principles behind where we align are very different, and a libertarian would also push for a bunch of changes the corporate hacks don’t want.

  source