1338
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 78 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I considered myself a Libertarian for a few years. I was a disillusioned Republican during the George Bush days and Libertarianism really grew on me. I voted for Gary Johnson twice.
As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it. Private business is more than happy to keep chugging away with fossil fuels until it's far too late.
For Libertarianism to work, these same private businesses need to do the right thing voluntarily. In Atlas Shrugged, those businessmen and women are doing what is right for their business and it just so happens to be what is right for everyone else, that isn't always the case. All too often, what is right for business goes against what is right for society. Once I realized this, everything unraveled for me.
So anyway, here I am, years later, voting for Democrats because I've got no other option as the GOP became more and more insane since I left.

[-] Sibshops@lemm.ee 40 points 5 days ago

Anyone who is a libertarian is unfamiliar with game theory. Some problems happen when individual people act in their own self-interest, but the collective outcome is harmful. Climate change is a prime example.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 23 points 5 days ago

It seems to me like American libertarianism isn't truly libertarianism - its focus is on freedom for capitalists, not freedom for people (corporations are not people). In theory, libertarianism is guided by the principal of non-aggression. Passing laws to fight climate change does not violate the principal of non-aggression, despite what the capitalists claim.

[-] Sibshops@lemm.ee 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I wish this were true, but what you are describing is more akin to the Democratic party's platform. Laws by the Democratic party are passed so people and companies don't violate the principle of non-aggression. For example, besides climate change, regulation on banking is to prevent banking from taking people's money and just going out of business.

The Libertarian party doesn't support the principle of non-aggression in practice. By this definition, the Democratic party would be the true libertarians or liberals.

For example:

Australia: https://www.libertarians.org.au/wa_platform

Ending Climate Alarmism Policies: Repeal state laws and subsidies tied to net-zero targets. Let the free market decide the energy mix.

And like you said, the US one too: https://lp.org/environment-energy-resources/

When governments try to tackle environmental issues (which is hypocritical, as governments are the largest polluters), they use a punishing approach that rarely, if ever, solves the problem

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I think you misunderstood my point. What you're referring to as "libertarianism" and "the Libertarian party" is what I referred to as "American libertarianism."

I don't believe true libertarianism exists in the USA. I agree with your point that the Democratic party most closely aligns with the theory of libertarianism. It sounds like you agree with the point I was trying to make, but maybe misinterpreted it.

Edit: I want to add that the Libertarian party in America doesn't follow the principal of non-aggression as I understand it.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

The closest thing the US has to a true libertarian is Bernie Sanders.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Very true, at least at that level in politics.

[-] Sibshops@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Oh yeah, I think I was confusing in my response. I should have said:

All libertarian parties both in and outside of the United States don't ascribe to your interpretation of the theory of libertarianism.

I included Australia as an example, but here is Canada's platform as well.

https://libertarian.on.ca/platform/2011/environment Agreements among neighbours would be another factor that would replace top-down regulations.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

That's disappointing. Maybe "modern libertarianism" would have been more accurate than "American libertarianism." According to Wikipedia, in the 1950's libertarianism was synonymous with liberalism, which seems to align much better with my interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology

I wonder if Penn's (old) interpretation of libertarianism was the same as mine.

[-] frostysauce@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I love how they just drop the statement that governments are the largest polluters with no sources, supporting evidence, or even explanation. Just saying something obviously does not make it true.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago

Or they're so used to their privilege that they don't understand how protected they are by society.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Exactly, they ask why they should have to contribute to letting disabled people not have to work. I ask why people too disabled to work should have to beg for sustainance or live in poverty

[-] sepi@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago

American Libertarians have no experience dealing with other people and are incredibly naive. At least one customer service job would be very horizon-broadening for them.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it.

The libertarian solution to climate change would involve privatizing the commons: sell off the atmosphere to some private entity which would then issue licenses for emitting, have standing to sue unlicensed polluters for violating its property rights, etc.

In other words, basically cap & trade but with a for-profit corporation in charge instead of the government, for no good reason.

At least, that'd be the theory. In reality, that's how you get Spaceballs.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago

Libertarianism also was my first stop out of my childhood religious right upbringing. I still tend to see issues from a libertarian framing -- i.e., if it's not hurting anybody why should the government care? -- but most US libertarians seem weirdly fixated on ideas like "why can't I dump 5,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid into a hole in the ground if the hole is on my own property?" or "why shouldn't I be allowed to enter into a contract with somebody that allows me to hunt them for sport?" or especially "why can't I have sex with a minor if they say it's OK?", where there's really obvious personal and societal harms involved and the only way that you can think otherwise is if you've engaged in some serious motivated reasoning.

Whereas my thinking these days is more like, "who does it hurt if somebody decides to change their outward appearance to match how they feel inside?" and the like -- i.e., the right to personal autonomy and free expression, rather than the right to do whatever I want to others as long as I can somehow coerce them into agreeing to it. I don't have much patience for the anarchist side of left-libertarianism -- in my experience you need robust systems in place to keep bad actors from running amok, and a state without a monopoly on violence is simply ceding that monopoly to whoever wants to take it up for their own ends -- but that starting point of libertarian thought, that people sold be free in their choices until those choices run up against somebody else's freedoms -- is still fundamentally valid.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

I always say it's not crazy to become a Libertarian as much as it is to remain one. It just astounds me that anyone could debate those positions for a length of time without starting to realize how tenuous most of them are.

[-] blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io 9 points 6 days ago

The problem with Communism is that if requires non greedy people.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it requires non greedy rich people.

[-] Fluke@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago

Exactly. We're nothing but monkeys in trousers. We have a lot of evolving yet to do, psychologically speaking.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

One of the biggest failings with a lot of idealist political systems (anarchism, libertarianism, communism, etc.) is that they try to do away with hierarchies and bosses. But, those are inevitable for great apes. A good setup provides a way to limit and manage the bosses that will inevitably appear. Yes, it legitimizes their power, but by acknowledging it, it also provides a way to limit it.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago

You guys are wearing trousers? I find it slows down the whole process of throwing feces at my enemies.

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Oh, so it’s faster for you to take a shit on command than it is to have trousers to collect the shit so you can just reach back and grab it when you want to?

If so, I’m impressed.

I imagine you haven’t flung much shit or spent much time thinking about it. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you can just shit when you want to. You’re probably just a beta trying to impress the shit flinging alpha shit veterans though. :p

If I’m wrong though, all hail floofloof. We’re not worthy!

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

Disclaimer: I support pigouvian taxes on greenhouse gas emissions.

Long ago, one libertarian solution to climate change was insurance. So you'd buy disaster insurance for your house, then the insurer would bet that pollution would go up. This creates a financial incentive to reduce emissions. Best case scenario, your insurance payments are a slight reimbursement for a voluntary reduction. Worst case scenario, your insurance payments essentially bribe their workers to sabotage.

However, the Coase Theorem says this only works while transaction costs are low. And you'd need long-term contracts that aren't realistic with today's interest rates. So it would take decades to establish the financial infrastructure necessary.

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago

Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 19 points 5 days ago

... It's happening right now bro. You're alive right now, and we're having extreme weather events right now.

Climate change isn't a point in which either before that point nothing happens and after that point something bad happens, instead as we continue with bad practices, things get continually worse.

We're having extreme heat, right now. Places with longer hurricane seasons, or where hurricanes are now way worse, etc. And things can still worsen.

What you seem to be saying is that, you don't care about your future and minimizing future issues, but also don't care about any family or friends that you have. Society has done so much, that here you are born, with Internet access to a federated app, electricity, many of life's privileges compared to our ancestors, people now and in the future would appreciate what help you can provide now.

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

you are born, with Internet access to a federated app, electricity, many of life’s privileges compared to our ancestors. Those were knowledge, most of things were born because our ancestors needed them for own benefit. Here with climate change. First of all, My small country doesn't make a difference, I don't have a car, I don't spend more than 400 kw monthly. If you really want to make a change, stop having kids. Less carbon print to ZERO carbon print, but a lot aren't willing to do it. I am not willing to do anything that involves changing my ways of life.

[-] rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 5 days ago

Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?

Empathy, or caring about how other people are affected, even if it doesn't affect you personally. Empathy is normal and healthy.

Better question is, why are 60+yo Capitalists who already have more wealth than they could possibly spend before they die, so desperate to hold and collect even more wealth?

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

But most of this people doesn't even exist in the present. I mean, isn't better that stop having kids, you can kill 2 birds this way: Reduce footprint to ZERO, avoid future generations suffering of global warming.

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

So you don’t feel bad for future humans because they’re assholes for existing?

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 15 points 5 days ago

"Why should I care about other people?" is a question that comes up a lot, and I am deeply suspicious of people who don't care about others.

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

But we are talking about future here, some of that people doesn't even exist

[-] NostraDavid@programming.dev 12 points 5 days ago

Because "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit" - Greek proverb

If we don't cover the things that our children (or nieces/nephews) will benefit from, no one else will. There are no adults in the room. It's just us.

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

What children? I will not have nieces nor nephews because I do not have first grade brothers or sisters. I mean sorry but I don't care.

[-] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago

Then you're a bad person. It's quite simple.

Whatever quality of life you have enjoyed beyond living naked in a cave eating bugs and berries you owe to the people who came before you. Not just your ancestors, but the people who invented tools and discovered natural laws and organized societies and legal systems, the people who built the cities with their sewage systems and hospitals and electricity, the people who developed fertilizers and antibiotics and undergarnments that don't itch like a thousand angry fleas are having a rave in your crotch. And now, after enjoying the fruits of 10,000 years of civilization, you decide that you're the be-all and end-all of people and everybody who comes after you can go fuck themselves? Bad person. Plain and simple.

[-] pishadoot@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago

That is the definition of unbridled selfishness, bordering on sociopathy.

If this is truly what you think and drives how you behave then you are a leech on everyone else that will follow in your footsteps.

I won't have children either, but I still want the world to be better for them, and I do the best within my means to make that happen.

People like you, when they're competent, are the ones that rise to the top of the corporate ladder and own businesses that expound the worst parts of capitalistic society. Greed, selfishness, disdain for the plight of others, no thought for consequences as long as they don't affect you personally.

So, don't care if you don't want to. But internalize that you're a POS if that's actually how you feel.

[-] belastend@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago

pissing in your water supply rn cuz i dont care

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 days ago
[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Not really, I would be dead by then, no family. I mean if I have to make a great change in my life because of climate change, forget about it.

[-] Fluke@lemm.ee 16 points 5 days ago

I'll give you a point for honesty, but to also be honest, I think you're a selfish arsehole.

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

So? Doesn't matter I'll be dead.

[-] bamboo 12 points 5 days ago

I think if you're under 50 years old, you'll probably be impacted by the effects of climate change for a majority of your life at this point. The change won't be an instant thing like in The Day After Tomorrow after you're long dead, it's happening now when you're alive.

[-] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

You are so optimistic you think I will be living more than 30 years since now lol. Bad lifestyle.

[-] Agrivar@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine? Bless your heart.

[-] Rokin@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

I'm sorry to see downvotes on a genuine question. From a libertarian point of view, the question is very valid.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The basis of classical libertarianism is the non-aggression principal, which basically means "don't harm others." Seems like that would include causing harm after you die. But modern libertarianism seems to have a very strange interpretation of that principal...

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
1338 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7577 readers
2938 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS