• 0 Posts
  • 90 Comments
Joined 11 个月前
cake
Cake day: 2025年1月16日

help-circle



  • American “libertarianism” is a correct identification of the issue with oppressive use of force by the state, coupled with a somewhere-between-ambiguous-and-incorrect interpretation of when force is oppressive and when it’s not. It’s my stance that American libertarianism (based on the NAP definition) with a properly calculated ethical interpretation of justifiable “property” simply reduces to anarchocommunism, as many unexamined assumptions about when a “property” claim is justifiable and when it is not simply accept a capitalist market economy, and any inequality that may result, out of sheer laziness. A lot of people find this way of looking at it jarring, usually because they just try to cram it somewhere on the “left/right” scale without really examining each ideological underpinning, or by really examining the range of thinking within the space. And some of that results from fascist groups trying to coopt the label as well. Good litmus test for that is asking a self-identified “libertarian” what they think about immigration, or the justifiability of a given war. The “MAGA LINO” types will justify immigration crackdowns and wars, the dyed-in-the-wool “libertarians” will oppose them, and so on with other oppressive policies that leftists also oppose. Which leaves the main point of contention being how the economic system works and how property distribution works, something which the “NAP” is ambiguous about. Therefore…


  • There’s some 0.0001% theoretical possibility that a billionaire could be a non-sociopath. If they literally dedicated their life to extracting money from the wider economy or top crust, not spending any of it on themselves or their descendants, but instead solely redistributing to the most needing people in the world. Monetary wealth at the end of the day is just economic control - it doesn’t become evil until it’s actually used for your own benefit, i.e., the economy is being rewired for you to live in luxury.

    Assuming of course (big fat assumption) that you don’t screw people over to get it in the first place - and, even if you are giving it all away, it’s questionable why you’d end up with a surplus of money that large, if your goal is to donate it, why would the rate coming in exceed the rate going out, unless the goal was to purchase some institution or something, i.e., purchase Walmart and turn it into a cooperative. Probably not to invest the money to grow it to have more to give, because the return on investment for the money also has to come from somewhere, i.e., has its own ethical ramifications.

    But I mean, name a single person in the last century who fit that profile. I can’t name one. So. And at the end of the day the best situation for the society isn’t to have single people controlling things and hoping they use their power responsibly, it’s to democratize that power and have everyone use it responsibly.














  • dx1@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlit's so over
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 个月前

    My description wasn’t “wealthy hoard money, empire make money.” And I didn’t say anything about anyone else’s work. Honestly, I don’t know what ax you have to grind here, but I really don’t care. I assume you think you’re arguing against someone who’s trying to say it’s the “natural and best way” and all that, but you’re not, I’m literally just saying that these kinds of structures have occurred for millennia and seem to recur alongside broader imperial structures.


  • dx1@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlit's so over
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 个月前

    Seems like your comment only seeks to discredit and not address the issue. Waste of time to go down this path. My claim’s simply “something like this did in fact exist a lot longer ago than only a few hundred years back”, which is just a fact.


  • dx1@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlit's so over
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 个月前

    Well, notice how you’re using the word “tend”. Religious ideas only come from attempts to derive explanations for what we experience. The latter is the basically intrinsic part of human nature, the former isn’t. I’m talking about what is an absolute, unchangeable part of human nature, versus what’s variable and just “something that humans do sometimes”.