• @empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    42
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.

    The problem stands that modern “Libertarians” have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean “elimination of government and regulation” and not “government to uphold liberty” like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual’s self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.

    I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.

    “Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it “pay as you go” does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.

    • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      346 months ago

      100% Libertarianism originated as a left wing movement in the 19th century. Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later. In the mid 20th century. Post red scare when actual leftist were keeping their heads down due to fascist witch hunts. And unable to really call out the posers.

      Real libertarians don’t have a problem with government. They just believe that it should be focused on maximizing freedom, and access to it. Where the larpers are all about maximizing their personal freedom (privilege) and don’t care if others have access.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        56 months ago

        Right wing libertarianism didn’t ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later.

        Like any good system that is a threat to those in power, it was co-opted and corrupted to remove the threat and turn public perception against it.

      • Kalcifer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        06 months ago

        “Left wing”, and “right wing” are far too nebulous to really have any continuous historical use. Even in current parlance they are borderline useless terms.

          • Kalcifer
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            The issue is that most people have slight differences in how those terms are defined, and they morph substantially and continuously over time

    • Hypx
      link
      fedilink
      216 months ago

      This is also known as “Libertarian Socialism.” Interestingly enough, this idea predates the current definition of Libertarianism by decades.

      • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        This is probably where I align economically, but I support statist mandates that are inconsistent with “individual libertarianism” or “civil libertarianism.”

        For example, we should decriminalize drug use, but there should absolutely be a strong statist intervention where people are forced to stop using drugs.

    • Cyborganism
      link
      fedilink
      116 months ago

      “Socialist” things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism.

      Huh???

      • @empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        23
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        A capital libertarian government would not fund public roads. You would need to pay a toll to drive on every privately built road, because your capital is free to move. But roads to certain places would cost more than others, thus restricting the individual’s liberty to their ability to pay.
        A individually libertarian government funds public roads. Individuals then retain the right to self-determination to decide where they want to go without restriction. How they go on those roads might be subject to their capital restrictions- whether they walk, bike, drive, rollerskate, or whatever. But they are at least allowed to use those roads.

        Certain things will always be needed in our society for humans to function. If humans are not functioning correctly, they are not free to self-determine their path. Gating such a simple thing as healthcare, which again, humans absolutely need to function, behind the ability to pay is inherently restricting their individual liberty in an immoral way.

    • @kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.

      You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”.

      Basically, there is no absolute thing called “liberty”, because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you’re able to do. So you can’t talk about simply “liberty”, and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls “freedom to” and “freedom from”.

      For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the “freedom to” shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the “freedom from” falling bullets.

      We can’t create a policy which guarantees both “freedom to” and “freedom from” for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others’ actions.

      And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called “libertarianism” plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that’s economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word “liberty” in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others’ attempts to bully you.

    • Kalcifer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      06 months ago

      I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”. One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.

      It may be better to stick with existing terms like positive and negative liberty.