▲ 334 ▼ The Liberal Abandonment Of Greta Thunberg (www.donotpanic.news) submitted 1 year ago by davel@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 141 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (30 children) Wym some reason? Y'all get off too easy imo. Stop with the woe is me shit, you know perfectly well how complicit y'all are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 30 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (29 children) Wait so Greta is a liberal and doing right but other liberals are enables but leftists are ... checks notes... circle jerking themselves to completion over a captured "ally"? Make it make sense permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (28 children) Greta is very clearly not a liberal. She's been very vocally anticapitalist these past few years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (27 children) You can be liberal and anticapitalist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) Read a book permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 child) What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (19 children) You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children) No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Go on I'll wait permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (29 children) Wait so Greta is a liberal and doing right but other liberals are enables but leftists are ... checks notes... circle jerking themselves to completion over a captured "ally"? Make it make sense permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (28 children) Greta is very clearly not a liberal. She's been very vocally anticapitalist these past few years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (27 children) You can be liberal and anticapitalist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) Read a book permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 child) What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (19 children) You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children) No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Go on I'll wait permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (28 children) Greta is very clearly not a liberal. She's been very vocally anticapitalist these past few years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (27 children) You can be liberal and anticapitalist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) Read a book permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 child) What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (19 children) You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children) No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Go on I'll wait permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (27 children) You can be liberal and anticapitalist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) Read a book permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 child) What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (19 children) You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children) No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Go on I'll wait permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) Read a book permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 child) What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 child) What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RenLinwood@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago Yeah sounds like a good place to start lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (19 children) You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children) No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children) No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (17 children) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago (16 children) People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) you completely dense morons You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons. edit: In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road? I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (4 children) You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) Oh you know, only the ones making the laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism. Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kurroth@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with. If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago Yes I would prefer the government to protect my rights not actively attack them. If that makes me "a pIsS Poor LiBeRaL" then so be it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago Profit does not supercede personal liberty permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (4 children) that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street "I believe in personal liberty over economic system" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children) A billionaire is no longer a person permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent [–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Go on I'll wait permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children) Go on I'll wait permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago I'm not economically liberal permalink fedilink source parent