• trailing9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is it still libertarianism if those freedoms don’t exist anymore? I don’t think libertarians argue for no regulations.

    Regarding the bad people, the trick is that bad people don’t look bad, much like captured markets offer the illusion of choice. So it’s difficult to vote them out.

    The thing is that we argue different moments in development. You compare the correction of the corrupted states whereas I was talking about maintaining the functioning states.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s strictly speaking not libertarian, but libertarianism is a left wing ideology and the post is clearly referring to the right wing self-ascribed “libertarians” who do in fact argue against regulations roughly indiscriminately…

      I never said it’s easy to vote them out, I said it’s easier than holding corrupt private executives accountable, for the same captured market illusion of choice reasons.

      Don’t understand what you’re trying to say in the last part, don’t think your assessment really reflects my goals, sorry.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry for the wrong assessment.

        There can be rough “libertarians” but I think most don’t want to dismantle a libertarian state but instead want to create one. A lost opportunity where left and right could meet.

        To me, the meme is not clearly right wing because the clown looks like the joker.

        Let me shift the last part a bit. Corrupt executives are expected. That’s why freedom is important so that nobody is locked in with them. The same cannot be said for civil servants. As long as a party covers important topics, it can be corrupt in many other areas and voters cannot change anything.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just don’t see the distinction. Without a government with actual regulatory teeth, those corrupt executives are just as liable to lock people in. Dismantling state power just gives those executives more opportunities to abuse their power. You can’t reduce government and expect private interests to not fill the vacuum. The concept that private executives with no voter accountability would be less corrupt than politicians is wholly ridiculous.

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those executives can also use the state for abuse. It’s easier to get tax money with one government contract than having to sell something to all citizens. Or remember those epi pens. Regulations can be used to massively increase profits.

            The point of free markets is that executives can be corrupt. Instead of voting every 5 years, customers can immediately react and buy somewhere else.

            You may be right that private interests don’t immediately fill up a government vacuum. With the internet, times may have changed and it could be easy for citizens to coordinate.