Sure, the US does skew right. I do think Lemmy is pretty far left even compared to areas like Europe that are further left from the US. It’s kind of hard to gauge whether people are serious about things like “guillotine the rich” (or Luigi references) or exaggerating, but you don’t see that type of talk on popular subreddits (even before the crackdown), at least I didn’t, and coming to Lemmy was a bit of a shift left from what I already saw as “center left.”
I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I’m left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what’s left and right.
I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I’m left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what’s left and right.
I started at your position a long time ago, when I was a teenager. I realized libertarians are full of shit, and eventually discovered a better descriptor of my beliefs was anarchist (in particular, social anarchist). I think the government shouldn’t be telling people how to live or what they can or can’t do. It should be there to protect people (emphasis; not corporations).
Libertarians (in the US at least) are really just anarcho-capitalists. They want freedom for businesses, but usually at the expense of freedom for people. They don’t want protection for people from exploitation. They want businesses with enough money to be able to exert their authority as far as possible, to the extent of blocking competition and effectively creating slaves. (They’ll argue they don’t agree with slavery, but what’s the difference between your employer owning your ability to live and slavery?)
I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.
I started life as a conservative, mostly because I bought into the lie that they actually wanted smaller government. Ron Paul got me excited because he actually wanted smaller government, but seeing him get trashed by the establishment pushed me out. Around that time I found Penn Jillette (libertarian anarchist), and he really resonated with me.
I dislike the Libertarian Party, but I have liked individuals within it, and that generally seems the most likely party to actually make a difference (i.e. get on a debate stage so people can hear a different perspective). My ballot is all over the place though, with a mixture of Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and sometimes a random third party if the candidate is good.
But yeah, I just want to be left alone, and if we need a government (I think we do), it should be limited to protecting us from each other and ensuring everyone has the necessities. Other than that, business should be largely unrestrained and unprotected (limited liability should end after a certain size, execs should be arrested if they break the law, etc), and there should be strong support from government to protect privacy. Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that, but consumer protections should be provided by the AG leading lawsuits against companies.
I think “classical liberal” is the better term for me, but “libertarian” gets the message across pretty well, and I identify with the NAP underpinnings of the ideology. I’m registered with the party to increase the stats of third parties to hopefully encourage electoral reform (end FPTP), not because I think they’re great.
I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.
You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:
Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that…
Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn’t the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can’t remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.
There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we’ve seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the “Amazon Basic” name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.
This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that’s empowered to protect people, but that let’s people do what they want (assuming they don’t hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don’t see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.
Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition?
Right now, corporations get off w/ light fines and their execs don’t face jail time because of the explicit and implied protections in our legal system. Companies can declare bankruptcy without reaching into the pockets of those w/ a significant interest in the company because of financial protections, and prosecutors very rarely pursue criminal charges for something done in a business context. The larger a company is, the less likely it is to fail, but also the less competitive it is, because it can just buy legislators to block competition.
Here’s the current lifecycle of a corporation:
small, scrappy startup w/ an innovative idea
medium corp that expands its product line to corner a piece of the market
large corp that buys out competition and lobbies to raise the barrier to entry
mega corp that strategically uses subsidiaries to compartmentalize risk to not suffer consequences for bankruptcy
At step 2, companies are vulnerable to scrappy startups, but by the time they get to step 3, it’s too late to hold them accountable since they can just drown them out w/ negative press, lawsuits regarding regulations (and few consequences for trollish suits), etc.
I believe that if we cut corporate protectionism (say, for anything 2 or above) and hold execs legally liable for harm their products produce, we’ll largely stop the flow from 2 to 3 and largely force those at 3 and 4 to improve their behavior. You wouldn’t get situations like Boeing since the execs responsible would’ve been in jail at the first instance and the rest would follow for subsequent instances.
Our current strategy seems to be to pass regulations to improve the behavior of corporations, but corporations naturally sidestep the law and pay off legislators to make the consequences small. Instead, we should be making it unprofitable for corporations to lobby legislators and hold them accountable w/ law enforcement and the judicial system. Make laws extremely simple so there’s no wiggle room, such as if your product harms someone and you knew enough to have prevented it, you go to jail and need to make full restitution to the injured parties, and anything you earned while working there is available to make that restitution (smaller companies would have protections, but also limitation on how much profit they can pull from the corp).
In short, make it extremely unlikely a company will get powerful enough in the first place. The smaller a corporation is, the more protections it should get, not the reverse.
For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the “Amazon Basic” name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.
I haven’t seen those originals disappear, and I’ve heard a ton of complaints from people about the low quality of many Amazon Basics products. The only ones I’ve personally found value in are their rechargeable batteries (basically rebranded Eneloop) and their mice (backup only, they suck to use), but pretty much everything else has been poor quality.
People are the important thing, not companies
Agreed. I do think that employee owned companies are the ideal, but they’re not the only way for a company to be structured.
How people choose to organize themselves is their business, the government shouldn’t be picking and choosing structures it prefers. However, we’ve pretty much done that w/ the legal structures around corporations.
My solution here is to tear down the existing corporate structures and only have some kind of legal protection for sufficiently small orgs. For example, if your org has 50 employees and makes under 50M/year in revenue, you can apply for federal asset protection in exchange for submitting to regular audits. You would be disqualified from those protections if your net worth is above some amount, if you own a substantial stake in some number of companies, etc. The intention would be to give small companies some amount of protection so people actually want to start them, and once you start seeing success, then you’re expected to buy your own private insurance or whatever and do your due diligence to make sure your operations don’t harm others.
I would also like to see civil lawsuits be dramatically reduced in favor of actual criminal prosecutions. So if you’re being discriminated against or harassed at your job, you would go to the police and they would investigate and potentially arrest your employer, instead of going to a lawyer to seek a settlement from the company. The former gets results, the latter is a high enough barrier that most don’t bother.
Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.
Neither should be the end goal, the goal should be leaving people alone so they can pursue happiness on their own. The government shouldn’t protect me from making poor choices, and it shouldn’t prevent me from getting rich, it should prevent me from being taken advantage of and ensure I have whatever basic necessities I need to pursue happiness on my own.
I think we need some form of government, but I think that form needs to be very focused on providing limited, high quality services. Instead of welfare and retirement programs, just give poor people cash, whether young or old. Instead of complicated IP protections, let the courts deal with the general idea of “fraud” and “theft.” Instead of laws that say behavior must be within certain guidelines, prosecute actual harm (e.g. no tickets for “speeding,” but prosecute “reckless driving” heavily, as in actually endangering others). The government should only step in when absolutely necessary, and otherwise leave people alone.
In all honesty, the role of a legislator should be very boring, most days they should do absolutely nothing. We don’t need full-time representatives, we should have regular people that assemble whenever something truly important comes up, like maybe a few times per year or so. If the legislature doesn’t have enough power to favor or disfavor a given corporation (i.e. it doesn’t consider enough bills to matter), the corporation won’t bother lobbying them.
I think that sort of approach can self-correct and result in bad corporations failing and good corporations succeeding, because the financial and practical risk of bad behavior is high enough to discourage it.
Obviously, I haven’t dealt in specifics at all and I represented it in fairly extreme language to make a point. The idea I’m trying to convey is that I think less is more absolutely applies to the government, and we should strive to simplify it to where it’s transparent enough that the average person actually understands what government does.
Sure, the US does skew right. I do think Lemmy is pretty far left even compared to areas like Europe that are further left from the US. It’s kind of hard to gauge whether people are serious about things like “guillotine the rich” (or Luigi references) or exaggerating, but you don’t see that type of talk on popular subreddits (even before the crackdown), at least I didn’t, and coming to Lemmy was a bit of a shift left from what I already saw as “center left.”
I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I’m left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what’s left and right.
I started at your position a long time ago, when I was a teenager. I realized libertarians are full of shit, and eventually discovered a better descriptor of my beliefs was anarchist (in particular, social anarchist). I think the government shouldn’t be telling people how to live or what they can or can’t do. It should be there to protect people (emphasis; not corporations).
Libertarians (in the US at least) are really just anarcho-capitalists. They want freedom for businesses, but usually at the expense of freedom for people. They don’t want protection for people from exploitation. They want businesses with enough money to be able to exert their authority as far as possible, to the extent of blocking competition and effectively creating slaves. (They’ll argue they don’t agree with slavery, but what’s the difference between your employer owning your ability to live and slavery?)
I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.
I started life as a conservative, mostly because I bought into the lie that they actually wanted smaller government. Ron Paul got me excited because he actually wanted smaller government, but seeing him get trashed by the establishment pushed me out. Around that time I found Penn Jillette (libertarian anarchist), and he really resonated with me.
I dislike the Libertarian Party, but I have liked individuals within it, and that generally seems the most likely party to actually make a difference (i.e. get on a debate stage so people can hear a different perspective). My ballot is all over the place though, with a mixture of Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and sometimes a random third party if the candidate is good.
But yeah, I just want to be left alone, and if we need a government (I think we do), it should be limited to protecting us from each other and ensuring everyone has the necessities. Other than that, business should be largely unrestrained and unprotected (limited liability should end after a certain size, execs should be arrested if they break the law, etc), and there should be strong support from government to protect privacy. Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that, but consumer protections should be provided by the AG leading lawsuits against companies.
I think “classical liberal” is the better term for me, but “libertarian” gets the message across pretty well, and I identify with the NAP underpinnings of the ideology. I’m registered with the party to increase the stats of third parties to hopefully encourage electoral reform (end FPTP), not because I think they’re great.
You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:
Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn’t the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can’t remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.
There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we’ve seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the “Amazon Basic” name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.
This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that’s empowered to protect people, but that let’s people do what they want (assuming they don’t hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don’t see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.
Right now, corporations get off w/ light fines and their execs don’t face jail time because of the explicit and implied protections in our legal system. Companies can declare bankruptcy without reaching into the pockets of those w/ a significant interest in the company because of financial protections, and prosecutors very rarely pursue criminal charges for something done in a business context. The larger a company is, the less likely it is to fail, but also the less competitive it is, because it can just buy legislators to block competition.
Here’s the current lifecycle of a corporation:
At step 2, companies are vulnerable to scrappy startups, but by the time they get to step 3, it’s too late to hold them accountable since they can just drown them out w/ negative press, lawsuits regarding regulations (and few consequences for trollish suits), etc.
I believe that if we cut corporate protectionism (say, for anything 2 or above) and hold execs legally liable for harm their products produce, we’ll largely stop the flow from 2 to 3 and largely force those at 3 and 4 to improve their behavior. You wouldn’t get situations like Boeing since the execs responsible would’ve been in jail at the first instance and the rest would follow for subsequent instances.
Our current strategy seems to be to pass regulations to improve the behavior of corporations, but corporations naturally sidestep the law and pay off legislators to make the consequences small. Instead, we should be making it unprofitable for corporations to lobby legislators and hold them accountable w/ law enforcement and the judicial system. Make laws extremely simple so there’s no wiggle room, such as if your product harms someone and you knew enough to have prevented it, you go to jail and need to make full restitution to the injured parties, and anything you earned while working there is available to make that restitution (smaller companies would have protections, but also limitation on how much profit they can pull from the corp).
In short, make it extremely unlikely a company will get powerful enough in the first place. The smaller a corporation is, the more protections it should get, not the reverse.
I haven’t seen those originals disappear, and I’ve heard a ton of complaints from people about the low quality of many Amazon Basics products. The only ones I’ve personally found value in are their rechargeable batteries (basically rebranded Eneloop) and their mice (backup only, they suck to use), but pretty much everything else has been poor quality.
Agreed. I do think that employee owned companies are the ideal, but they’re not the only way for a company to be structured.
How people choose to organize themselves is their business, the government shouldn’t be picking and choosing structures it prefers. However, we’ve pretty much done that w/ the legal structures around corporations.
My solution here is to tear down the existing corporate structures and only have some kind of legal protection for sufficiently small orgs. For example, if your org has 50 employees and makes under 50M/year in revenue, you can apply for federal asset protection in exchange for submitting to regular audits. You would be disqualified from those protections if your net worth is above some amount, if you own a substantial stake in some number of companies, etc. The intention would be to give small companies some amount of protection so people actually want to start them, and once you start seeing success, then you’re expected to buy your own private insurance or whatever and do your due diligence to make sure your operations don’t harm others.
I would also like to see civil lawsuits be dramatically reduced in favor of actual criminal prosecutions. So if you’re being discriminated against or harassed at your job, you would go to the police and they would investigate and potentially arrest your employer, instead of going to a lawyer to seek a settlement from the company. The former gets results, the latter is a high enough barrier that most don’t bother.
Neither should be the end goal, the goal should be leaving people alone so they can pursue happiness on their own. The government shouldn’t protect me from making poor choices, and it shouldn’t prevent me from getting rich, it should prevent me from being taken advantage of and ensure I have whatever basic necessities I need to pursue happiness on my own.
I think we need some form of government, but I think that form needs to be very focused on providing limited, high quality services. Instead of welfare and retirement programs, just give poor people cash, whether young or old. Instead of complicated IP protections, let the courts deal with the general idea of “fraud” and “theft.” Instead of laws that say behavior must be within certain guidelines, prosecute actual harm (e.g. no tickets for “speeding,” but prosecute “reckless driving” heavily, as in actually endangering others). The government should only step in when absolutely necessary, and otherwise leave people alone.
In all honesty, the role of a legislator should be very boring, most days they should do absolutely nothing. We don’t need full-time representatives, we should have regular people that assemble whenever something truly important comes up, like maybe a few times per year or so. If the legislature doesn’t have enough power to favor or disfavor a given corporation (i.e. it doesn’t consider enough bills to matter), the corporation won’t bother lobbying them.
I think that sort of approach can self-correct and result in bad corporations failing and good corporations succeeding, because the financial and practical risk of bad behavior is high enough to discourage it.
Obviously, I haven’t dealt in specifics at all and I represented it in fairly extreme language to make a point. The idea I’m trying to convey is that I think less is more absolutely applies to the government, and we should strive to simplify it to where it’s transparent enough that the average person actually understands what government does.