you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (16 children)

Yea, that's what I meant. In the rest of the world libertarian is still a left wing ideology with no connection to ancaps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    what are you talking about, in Europe it's center right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (14 children)

    Libertarianism is a anti capitalist, socialist and very left wing ideology everywhere except in the US where it apparently has been co-opted by insane people with the opposite beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

    I have the feeling you don't know what libertarianism is, or you are one of the guys who dosn't understand the consequences of your actions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (12 children)

    Feel free to read the wiki to get an overview of what happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    But basically anarcho capitalists co-opted libertarianism in the US. That effect has not spread to Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    so you fall into the camp of not knowing the consequences.

    the issue inherently is that the power imbalance of stuff like wealth inequality, coupled with material conditions, always end up curtailing the freedoms of those who are not on top, ironically making them less free (bit of an irony, eh?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Not sure what consequences you are talking about or what you are even arguing about. I agree with the second paragraph as would most libertarian outside the US so I'm like double confused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    Not sure what consequences you are talking about

    my point exactly, and no libertarians outside the USA still advocate for low government interference

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Care to fill me in on the point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

    that a lack of government does not equal an increase in freedom, instead it just allows those with power to exert it more directly upon the less well off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    OK, how does that connect to the point of libertarian means a completely different thing in the US?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    because the outcome is the same

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

    Yet at no point did I ever mention any outcome of any libertarian belief or even mention if it was superior to anything. So again: How does that connect to my point?

    Also I'd suggest you read the wiki, even that ain't true: Not all libertarian ideologies want to abolish the government. But that's beside the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    to believe in something means you must hold the belief that something is superior to all other options.

    as for the abolishment of the government, sure, some want a minarchy instead, the issue is that a weak government is literally as good as none at all, or may even be worse, as for example a government that only cares about policing will just become the paid thugs of the powerful

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

    Are you high? I believe nazies exist, that hardly makes them superior to anything.

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

    no, you're just wrong and need to brush up on your English comprehension, believing the Nazis existed (past tense, since the Nazis are an outlawed political party, the group that believes these things are neo-Nazis, since we are being pedantic here) is not the same as believing in their doctrine.

    these are two very different statements, one is about the existence of the Nazis, and this is a view that I take it you do think superior to the idea that Nazis did not in fact exist.

    the other view you mentioned, you did not have is the notion that Nazis are good, hence, to remove the negative, the view that the Nazis are bad, a view that I do hope you think is superior to its counterpart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment