1251
One party deserves criticism for being insufficient. One party deserves nothing but scorn and opposition. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
249 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Universal health care is antithetical to both market economies and economic freedom which are both core liberal principles. Liberals cannot actively support it without also confronting the inherent contradictions within liberal ideology.

Unless you're using the term "liberal" in the US sense of 'anybody "left" of fascism' in which case you're statistically correct, but mostly due to generalization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well how about this I DEFINATELY %100 do agree that capitalism has a fucking problem. I believe it makes more sense to regulate harshly and have a 50s style tax on the rich than to throw baby out with water. Im liberal in the sense that HUMAN RIGHTS must take precedent no matter what part of an economic shift we're in

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

    Liberals cannot actively support it without also confronting the inherent contradictions within liberal ideology.

    Thank you, I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of this point. A healthcare system that is based on the free market but that is "regulat[ed] harshly and [with] a 50s style tax on the rich" is not universal healthcare!

    If you can see the issues with healthcare and can understand why universal healthcare would be a necesarry improvement then how are you still advocating for a free market solution for anything?

    That baby died a long time ago, and required required constant human rights violations to keep it alive in the first place. Getting rid of the bathwater won't bring it back or make it require less cruelty to keep alive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I never said I was against UHC? Where do I mention anything about free market anything? Free market doesnt do shit when monopolies are allowed to run rampant. I-am-pro-human-rights-above all. About the only thing I "agree with "on with capitalist is being pro personal property but only in the sense that the gov doesnt have a right to come and take your personal shit for no reason. That does not extend to businesses and monopolistic expanse of land ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    regulate harshly and with a 50s style tax

    Isn't this argument 'free-market but with guardrails' or did I misunderstand?

    What do you mean by "personal property"? That monopolistic land ownership is okay so long as it's individuals not businesses?

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

    Im arguing that the system we do have has the tools to get closer to the ideal world most of us want. Not exactly pro-free market, but its the system we have and we should use it if its what we have.

    Regulation and heavy tax on the rich could do a lot for the proles. That in itself is pretty social, but its not as dramatic as marx would like.

    What do you mean by "personal property"? That monopolistic land ownership is okay so long as it's individuals not businesses?

    No man, I'm saying monoplies are bad but the government can't seize citizens personal property for no reason and without compensation.

    I will disagree with a communist who says personal property shouldnt exist, but agree that businesses need to have their power and ownership regulated heavily

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    it's the system we have and we should use it

    That was Thomas Jefferson's justification for the continuation of slavery.

    Regulation and heavy taxes

    This assumes a world where regulatory capture is not the default state of things.

    the government can't seize citizens personal property for no reason and without compensation.

    That "no reason" is extremely vague and allows it to be one of the primary underlying argument against taxes and regulations.

    Disagree with personal property shouldnt exist, but agree that businesses need to have their power and ownership regulated heavily

    But without also limiting the power and ownership of individuals we loop right back to feudalism and the exact issues these systems were designed to solve.

    What is your understanding of what "personal property" is like under some idealistic, utopian communism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent