all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 10 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I've read enough political posts on Lemmy to know that the correct term for the people in the middle is "Nazi sympathizers."

Does that tell you where the strongest voices on Lemmy fall?

The other answer is "the left / right spectrum is false." The actual spectrum is "right / wrong," and the writer's beliefs are always on the former side.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    Amen. Any political post I make, even like citing basic facts of government and law... often results in multiple screams of nazi and maybe one reply that is legit.

    Extremists don't like facts. Just the other gay some guy was arguing me and he defaulted to 'everything is propaganda, therefore anything you say is propaganda'. And well, he got me. Because apparently in his world me taking a dump is a form of political pro-capitalist propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Oh, definitely. The far left never did anything wrong. They only want unicorns and rainbows. All the states that turned authoritarian to preserve their revolution of the workers are actually just far right fascists. If you want to make a dollar or increase your home's appeal and attraction, you're a stooge of Big Somebody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    had someone yesterday comment multiple times at me how financing my car was endorsing fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    It's difficult for some to understand the world is not black and white. I am an anarchist I always have to start saying: "I am an anarchist but I understand the world I am in and the things I have to do to survive they doesn't mean I can't spread the word" and the last word goes hard because I am a anarchocristian.

    You can't talk with "black and white world people". All you can do is reply in hopes those who read don't fall into the "black and white world hole".

    I would like to not own a car, to not have to spend half my life working for a company that pollutes the world and to no need money. I don't live in that world but I can try to put a small stone in building that world even though I won't see it because we are not ready for it.

    That being said I hate this world where the State is God and its getting worse but as the saying goes: "the night is darker before dawn"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)

    "genuine" anarcho capitalists (who arent grifting or trying or are otherwise not just interested in new political concepts like anarchism) dont know what they believe in and no one really helps them out because its easier to make fun of them (valid, but making fun of something isnt how you fix things). They are in a transitionary phase between liberalism, fascism, and socialism. They started from one of those places, are becoming dissillusioned to it, and are opening up to ideas of the other two.

    Now you know how to talk to an anarcho capitalist and sway them to your side. Find out where they are coming from, and appeal to whichever side you want them to go to (or back if you want them to see the err in their ways). This also works in favor of fascism btw so if you dont help the anarcho capitalists, they will, and they are.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Would the capitalism we currently have be the same in anarcho-capitalism? Corporations wouldn't exist without government. Legal tender laws would not exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 10 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    How do enforce a lack of private property without a state? How do you prevent a capitalist system from sprouting up in socialism without a state?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    Same way animals do. You don't need to enforce something that doesn't exist in the first place.

    If there's no state to stop me from building a garden on some billionaire's ranch, private property no longer exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    How do you prevent someone from not taking ownership of something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    I believe I already answered this? There is no ownership without a state to enforce your claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    So nothing then. If you want something then you take it, if you are more powerful. That sounds problematic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    That's already the way the world works today, and violent people will certainly continue to exist, though some of the incentive to be violent won't exist without the ability to accumulate infinite wealth. But the key difference is the state won't forbid you from organizing community self-defense as needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    depends on which anarcho capitalist you are talking to. I know many former ancaps were free marketeers before going more socialist routes like market anarchism and mutualism. Think like Kevin Carson, a former bleeding heart libertarian, now probably a mutualist. These kinds of ancaps would see todays capitalism as a farce of the free market—they dont believe at all that capitalism is a market free of state sponsored racism, oppression, or violence etc. They believe a market free of state sponsored violence (they call current capitalism crony capitalism but whatever) would look more egalitarian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Capitalism would be completely different under anarcho-capitalism. I think ancaps are for using dispute resolution organizations to resolve conflicts and for a polycentric law system. Legit cryptocurrencies and legit DeFi could work well in an anarchistic society as a decentralized currency system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    There are no real core ancap theories. Unlike leftists which you can 9 times out of 10 just start with the observations of marx and go from there without necessarily supporting his solutions, ancaps don't have a core theory they can revolve around which is why often they just stick with the libertarian "non aggression principle" and go from there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago

    We should be against the concentration of political and economic power. We should try to expand both positive and negative freedoms of the individual as much as possible for as many people as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    Ideologies such as social liberalism and democratic socialism are often regarded as in between extreme left and extreme right positions. There are many other positions of course such as centre-right and various "green" and religiously motivated positions. They could also often fit somewhere in between on a conventional right-left spectrum. This of course varies a lot between countries and political systems.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    There's no such thing as the middle. It's not a spectrum.

    Sometimes things are actually just distinct beliefs.

    You can't be in between Christianity and Hindu for example. They aren't attached to each other, they are distinct.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago* (14 children)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    What would it be a spectrum of? Either you think society needs to be ruled by elites (right wing) or you think society should run itself based on universal rights (left wing).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    How would you have elites without government?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Are you asking why governments exist or what classes are?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I believe in universal rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Class systems predate governments so, no I don't think governments as we know them are a prerequisite for class systems. Class systems are always perpetuated with violence so when a state has a monopoly on violence then class systems can only be upheld with state approval.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    Because you can't really have parts of both.

    Either you have wealth redistribution, or you don't. A lower amount is still wealth redistribution.

    You can have a government, or you don't. A smaller government is still a government.

    So if someone wants some wealth redistribution, and some government. They are just arguing how much of a Libertarian Socialist they are, not how much of a anarcho-capitalist they are.

    I personally am a Social Democrat. Capitalism is good most of the time, just make sure you're holding the reigns tight so it goes in the right direction. Skip capitalism altogether for specific industries where it just doesn't do very well and have the government run those ones directly.

    I'm neither a libertarian socialist, nor an anarcho-capitalist. Not even close to either of them, because again, it isn't a spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago* (3 children)

    A georgist could use a land value tax to fund a minimum income program. Can social welfare programs be rolled out mostly (but not completely) outside of the state through ngos and non-profits?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It depends on what you mean by social welfare programs.

    A basic income system requires very little administration, and what parts of it are required wouldn't make sense to have it sitting outside the government.

    I'd rather see a basic income than need non-profit food banks needing to exist. Grocery stores already exist, are reasonably competitive, and are enormously more efficient if people have the money available to use them.

    For things like helping people with disabilities, where economies of scale are mostly irrelevant, ngos and non-profits can make more sense because they can specialize according to the need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    The administration of a basic income sitting outside of the government?

    The government already has a list of every citizen registered via birth or immigration, and provides identification for people. They're always going to need to do that. There's really no reason to replicate that level of information outside of the government.

    Most people would just go online and register where you'd like your money to be sent (Direct deposit, Mailed cheque)

    However, you would still need a few call centers to handle issues, and If someone needs in-person support, the government already has common government service offices like DMVs and service centers that can provide in person service if required, saving significant money on needing dedicated service locations just for this one service.

    Tl;dr Economies of Scale matter, and it doesn't make any sense to replicate the parts that the government already does and has to continue doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Of those two? Christian Democrats, I guess. But there are ideologies far to the right of anarchocapitalists (eg. neomonarchists) and far to the left of libertarian socialists (eg. communists), and anyway political ideologies don't map well to a single- or even dual-axis graph. You need axes for economic model, rights vs. authority, and stability vs. innovation at a minimum.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago
    [–] 3 points 10 months ago
    [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Anarcho-primitivism?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    The leave me alone, live and let live, enough with the politics because every politician lies (we can tell because their lips are moving) middle.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    Rationality.

  • source