FUCK YEAH!

Fuck yeah you can.

Give me an F!

But there are lobbyists for non-profits, unions, and advocacy groups, too.

Correct, but those interest groups should be allowed some kind of formal consultative role in the political process, rather than being forced to throw money around

You're thinking within the confines of the suboptimal system we currently have. What if lobbying wasn't useful because there was no central authority figure to plead with? What if nobody's voice gets lost in the noise because the people who can help are near enough to hear them?
You may have missed it, but this is an anarchist take, so your argument doesn't really apply, whether it's true or not.

How does “people should not like in poverty” fit with anarchy? I’m asking out of curiosity, not to be contentious.

Rich vs poor is a garbage social hierarchy.

Supporting unemployed or disadvantaged needs collectivism, some system to contribute to people in need, which then also needs some kind of tax collection and governance.

This is just capitalist/statist assumptions within the hegemonic narrative.

People don't need "some system" to solve poverty. People need to end the current system that creates and depends on poverty.

Poverty is (supposedly) a made-up metric in result of capitalism. If capitalism no longer exists any worker gets enough to escape poverty just by working

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution

Yeah. See. You can’t ask lemmy “anarchists” questions. They only know how to yell at you about shit that only works in their heads.

Normies don't generally understand this distinction.

I don't disagree with any of that. But if you're framing the homelessness problem as a veteran homelessness problem then the applied solutions will likely leave non-veterans that still need help without. All homelessness is a problem. That is not the same as "all lives matter" because homelessness isn't primarily a problem that veterans face. They're estimated to make up 5 percent of the homeless population.

The government does have a particular responsibility to vets, and should be fixing that. But they have a responsibility to non-vets too. And the things that cause homelessness for veterans causes it for everyone else too. We can and should be helping veterans by addressing the root causes that effect everyone. But any solution that only results in helping vets (like supplying only veterans housing) when they could be helping everyone is unacceptable, particularly as plenty of people would consider the job done so long as the homeless that remain aren't vets.

I've seen your post history, You don't have the authority to speak for "Liberals"

Lobbying should be done by citizens, lobbyists that bribe politicians should be laid off. The former is a citizen, the latter is their job which should be a no no.

Well, kinda. Lobbying can be about simply informing a politician

Who lobbies. Corporations, trade associations, labor unions, nonprofits, universities, cities and states, and foreign governments all lobby. Some hire outside lobbying firms (often staffed by former members of Congress, congressional aides, or agency officials); others employ their own in-house government affairs staff. Last year, external firms took in $2.76 billion versus $2.46 billion for in-house operations, the first time on record that firms accounted for the majority of federal lobbying spending.

2.76 Billion.

Other sites put lobbying over 5 billion in 2005

There are only 13k registered lobbyists.

It is not a "good thing" that billionaires and their corporations pay billions to influence law.

Naw, in the US Liberalists stand in the way of Progressives. They are not on the same team because one is radical in nature and the other is conservative.

While the strict definitions will muddy these two terms most people who understand what is going on resist this trap.

Yes, but that would make this make even less sense. The US sometimes uses liberal as a stand in for left-leaning. The more common definition is against regulation, so sometimes socially liberal, but also, and more importantly market liberal (think Argentina's president for an extreme example). So this is very us liberal coded, just with goals far exceeding what most us "liberal" politicians currently try to achieve.

Look mate, if you go check the definition of "Liberalism" in Wikipedia it's literally self contradictory.

For example, the whole Private Property Rights shit collides with the Freedom part - give people the right to own Land and to do whatever they want with their Land (which includes keeping other people out of it or from using it) and that lowers Freedom for everybody else who now can't access that Land.

Ditto for other shared resources - if somebody owns them, others can't use them.

Ownership of those for which "no more of it is being made" (most notably Land) is probably the keystone of inequality, not just modern day but all the way back to the time when Monarchs took ownership of the Commons.

Liberalism is like the Bible - there's something in there for everybody but the whole thing is a self-contradictory fable promising people that they too will one day be in bliss (one promises Heaven, the other promises the possibility of becoming Rich) as long as they keep being obedient sheep.

How I wish we lived in a sane society. 🫡

He had the trifecta and the best they could do was continue expanding the profits of the insurance companies. They could have done literally anything else and it would have been better but they fundamentally believe in the markets, they believe everyone should work, they believe benefits should be means tested and they believe that only compliant people should be given any benefits, and that anyone getting benefits should be in full poverty.

They mean what the rest of the world would call left

🤡

In the rest of the world there are middle of the road Catholic parties you can get behind half of this at least. The U.S. is unusually cruel.

It wasn't misuse of terminology that led to neoliberalism, but the crisis of profitability in the 60s:

Liberalism itself has always supported private property, because it originated as the ideological justification for the replacement of feudalism with capitalism.

The problem is that the Right To Private Property in Liberalism clashes with the Freedom part.

In simple terms, if people own limited resources such as for example Land and have the right to do whatever they want with it, that reduces the Freedom of everybody else (since they can't go into that Land much less do what they want with it). If landowners have unlimited "right to private property" then the more Land is owned, the less Freedom there is (since you can't just make more Land for use by everybody else).

(And there are further practical considerations that need to take in account in actual policy making anchored on Liberalism due to real world having things like Negative Externalities and Tragedy Of The Commons situations - if you let individuals do whatever they want with what they own, in aggregate they can destroy the very things required for the survival of everybody)

So that inherent contradiction creates a lot of room for interpretation and actual Liberal political teories with actual policies have to chose their own balance between the Right To Private Property and Freedom in their interpretation of Liberalism.

From what I've seen Neoliberals are Liberals which chose a balance between the two were Right To Private Property is VASTLY more important than Freedom, whilst at the other end of the scale Social Democrats have Freedom be as much or maybe even more important as Right To Private Property.