artificialfish

You'll get to the point where you can't use windows anymore XD

What if he has 0 legs?

So what do you call a pair of jeans for a one legged person? You ableist.

Thanks for posting man! This is awesome! I need to turn on notifications for posts here.

Well again, the proper use of the term should not be the implication that libertarian is implied right or left. It’s the axis on which we balance liberties. Both left libertarians and right libertarians want maximal liberty, but they disagree how those liberties are obtained. They both want a minimal government, but a minimal government best ensures liberty how? Both of their relations to anarchy are on the axis of the discussion of the word “maximal/minimal”. Minimum government manifests itself how? Maximal liberty manifests itself how?

The words greatest use is there. Not a political pin to be reclaimed by either side.

Well I’m fundamentally against language protectionism, basically saying a word used to mean x and it should always mean x. Words should have utility more than history. But I think the struggle you’re having is real.

I’ve frequently said the left needs new words, if not primarily for the reason that all the old words have the baggage of failure from a century ago. But they should also engage in new ideas, hopefully not just new words.

Left libertarianism is not engaged with because it’s often just used as a synonym for left anarchism, whereas right libertarianism is not synonymous with right anarchism. If it doesn’t have a distinct philosophy, they feel you are tricking them, then they are right to just take all the problems with left anarchism and associate them. And IMO all anarchism is equally discredited. As someone who used to be left anarchist.

Which is funny because to me it’s very clear liberal philosophy is leftist. Rawls being more modern liberal is basically distributionist. Classically Rousseau and even Smith were definitely not neoliberal.

I think the right hijacked liberal just like they did with libertarian, but in this case they did it wrong. The left needs liberalism or else they go the way of Stalin and Mao, they need core principles that they don’t sway from even for revolutionary ends such as justice, rule of law, freedom of speech, etc. The Marxist immoralism gave them far too much freedom to be opportunists in their principles basing them literally on material conditions rather than principles like rights and freedoms. As I often say, what revolution is worth anything without principles? If it was just scientific necessity, who would care to do the work?

I actually think the newer meanings is more accurate. Libertarian is now distinguished from anarchism by the presence of a limited government. That’s a necessary distinction. But what should that government do? Right libertarians say defend property rights, Left libertarians would say things like organize production.

Damn that’s so real… fuck that. I have a hard time remembering sometimes how bad it was.

The problem is that the economy slowing down is the consequence of their bad budgeting. We can’t get out of the deficit without consequences.

However, the American consumer ultimately is a market for things, so whether or not that market is expensive or cheap, it’s worth being in the market.

The USA also controls its currency and its border. We can tax in ways that no other country can. We can just say, no, you can’t take your USA currency to overseas banks as a us citizen. And if you sell it to buy gold or something, that’s capital gains.

Very cool

From a class perspective the rich are those who hire labor rather than laboring themselves. But we could start with billionaires.