51–60 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very American point of view, in the rest of the western world we consider buying off politicians to be be immoral, a corrosive thing inimical with democracy
So the wealthy don't donate to politicians in the rest of the western world?
>> Peter Theil's mastery of Dark Arts... I mean providing Data Mining and Intelligence analysis software for Intel organizations is Dark Arts now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications…
We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term because you aren't using the term in the modern way, and that's a silly semantic debate. The United States is a democracy according to the modern use of the word, please just accept it and st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the downvotes are out of disbelief, but this is not really disputed (it's worth clicking the link).
And also avoid things like entries in the Oxford English Dictionary to prevent becoming similarly enraged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…
Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker, outed Thiel for being gay and he later helped fund a lawsuit someone else brought against them (for taking and publishing a recording of a private sexual encounter). That lawsuit put Gawker out of business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…
Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe idiot was too strong a word, but it was shorter than the alternatives. If she'd left it as a work of fantasy, and not encouraged adoption, I'd be less inclined to be disrespectful. However, she gave many talks on the subject and pushed her views as serious political philosophy. This was adopted by others and has pretty much ruined the whole party and platform.
So, maybe she isn't an idiot but is actually a genius for undermining a once viable political platform and duping young people into believing in fairy tales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
The question I was replying to was specifically about the US. From the same Wikipedia article: > The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself. What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shar…
Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62.
"For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers."
No one’s denying that it’s modern connotations hem toward the right-wing cooption that that took place in the 1950s. Their project was to dress up reactionary ideology as radicalism and was undeniably successful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…
...
Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them.
How do you square these two lines of reasoning? If you can afford making sure I get killed and I cannot afford to defend myself against you what difference my theoretical right to defend myself make? If the only rights I have are the ones I can personally defend then only the rich have rights.