Lemmy itself is a good example of this. Most of the userbase heavily disagrees with the main developers’ political opinions, yet the software works well for everyone.
this is a perfect example of why we should always allow an escape space for everyone. Sometimes that person in the space you are polar opposed too will create something that defies even their own rules
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
snowboardbumvt@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In what way does Wikipedia defy Jimmy Wales own rules?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I consider myself libertarian and absolutely love Wikipedia! In fact, if I didn’t have to work, I’d work on FOSS full time.
Libertarians have no issues with collectivism, they only have issues with forced collectivism. Libertarians love private unions, co-ops, non-profits, etc.
snowboardbumvt@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s how most libertarians I’ve talked to think. There are some people who call themselves libertarians who actually just want the government out of the way so mega corps can control everything, but i don’t think Jimmy Wales is one of them.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
There’s an element of vibe contrarianism in any pronounced political ideology. Meaning that libertarians often hate what they perceive as anti-libertarian, communists often hate what they perceive as anti-communist, and so on.
In that regard yes, there are plenty of libertarians who just want to kill anything with leftist vibes with fire.
But the world of ideas is far richer than the existing conventions and established ideologies, and every person has their own trajectory in that.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
Did those “libertarians” vote for Trump last election? What’s their take on Jan 6? I have a sneaking suspicion they’re conservatives who like weed, not libertarians.
You’re right that libertarians don’t want government involved in as many parts of daily life as possible. That’s where the support comes from for things like drug legalization/decriminalization, gay marriage, gun rights, etc. Wikipedia is part of that, it was created and is maintained independently, and whether it’s funded by donations, ads, or subscriptions is irrelevant. As long as government isn’t involved, libertarians are happy.
Here’s a quote I love from Penn Jillette (from memory, may have mistakes):
He goes on say he supports libraries and would fund one if someone came around asking for donations.
That’s pretty much exactly what Wikipedia is, it’s a privately created, publicly available library that runs on donations, which is a libertarian wet dream. If everything good could be funded that way (charities for a social safety net, police for law enforcement, military for national defense, etc), that would be a libertarian utopia. Since that’s not feasible, libertarians want as many functions as possible to exist outside of government and carefully audit the rest.
I personally believe a social safety net cannot be independent, so I support something like UBI to replace our coercive and often subjective welfare programs and ensure everyone is above the poverty line. I also believe small companies should have legal protections (e.g. limited liability structures we have today), and large companies shouldn’t (they can buy insurance if they want), so a lawsuit or bankruptcy could go after shareholder and executive team assets.
Many libertarians disagree with me on specifics, but we agree on the foundational idea that less is more when it comes to government.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 hours ago
There are a lot of people on Wikipedia(s). There’s bound to be some that defy its creator.