yes
This is the fediverse it’s full of new people, adventurers, change makers. The majority of people who would be interested in this platform will have a more progressive bent. So the majority of people here will be more accepting of liberal policies.
Quibble: Many here are explicitly leftist, in the a leftist-not-liberal sense, and will even use “liberal” derogatorily. So, progressive, yes, but liberal, not necessarily.
Good point, many think left = liberal = US democrats who are centrists at best from the international perspective. So no, most people on here probably aren’t actual leftists, but I’m guessing when they say they ‘lean left’ they mean US-liberal-not-conservative, not socialist or whatever.
to make matters more fun, many ‘explicitly leftist’ lemmings are tankies (blind supporters of russia, china, north korea, etc), who are explicitly not leftist but authoritarians masquerading in the skinsuit of the people’s revolution.
From my perspective I think that that is very silly. I don’t care for purity tests, but what would I know? I’m just a dirty libertarian.
Liberal policies are an actual thing, a thing that leftists frequently disagree with.
Libertarians are often placed on the right part of the left-right divide. The fact you’ve chosen the label libertarian instead of conservative is animated by the exact same “purity test” that you find so silly.
I would like to throw out there that the ACLU is a libertarian organization that would likely line up with the majority of the beliefs of Lemmy users. With that said I understand most people aren’t using libertarian in its ‘correct’ meaning as the ACLU does.
Yea I tend to think than when someone identifies as a Libertarian they almost certainly don’t mean a civil libertarian, which is how the aclu actually identifies themselves.
We have grown from a roomful of civil libertarians to more than 4 million members, activists, and supporters across the country. The ACLU is now a nationwide organization with a 50-state network of staffed affiliate offices filing cases in both state and federal courts. We appear before the Supreme Court more than any other organization except the Department of Justice.
This is literally the only time the word libertarian appears in their own history https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history
I only know because I interned there and it’s something they talked about. Maybe it was always preceded with ‘civil’ I just don’t remember that as well. The big issue amongst the workers when I was there was that in principle they supported Citizens United, and most of the employees did not support it in practice.
Just adding my experience to the topic, not sure why I got down voted for it. I’m not trying to push anyone to be libertarian just pointing out other ways the definition can be used.
You were downvoted because you dared to question the group think. Bad terrible actions irredeemable actions. How could you dare to bring your face here again?. Shame unending unyielding shame. Feel it understand it. You deserve it. /S
Authoritarians are often exceedingly fragile.
Neat, I appreciate your insight. Upvote from me and today I learned.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler is an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler was an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
I’m libertarian because I believe in freedom of choice. I’m not a conservative because the only things I care about conserving are the oceans and the forests.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
It wouldn’t kill you to read
But based on your username, that may not be in your skill set
You’re about one “and I think healthcare is a human right” from being a progressive/dem soc.
I like the Democratic socialists. I don’t like it when they seize power that will be upsurped by the next administration in powerand used to oppress people.
you forgot to switch alts to argue with yourself
You seem very confused I edited a comment and it posted to itself. It’s the same fucking comment should I have deleted the tree and collapsed the thread?
It isn’t a purity test, it’s a necessary accommodation of the fact that people in the US (and I say this as an American) think that the left ends at progressive liberalism, while everyone else in the world sees progressive liberalism as center-left at best because they acknowledge that ‘the left’ extends quite far past the bounds of Liberalism (the philosophy, not the political leaning), because Liberalism is about individualism and property rights but most people to the left of that are collectivist in some way shape or form.
Libertarian as the USA mean or the rest of the world mean?
As in the traditional meaning of the word
Thanks. I look forward to learning about libertarianism with and from you. Not saying I’ll agree, but that I look forward to learning more.
Personally myself, I’m a bit of a geoist and a bit of a minarchist. I would advise that if you are interested you should start reading, John Lock and David Henry Thoreaus essays on governent and from there branch out.
it’s full of new people,
Don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a new people. I’ve been a people for almost my whole life. I bet most of us have.
Not me, I’ve only been a person for the past couple years. Prior to that I was a caffeine-powered AI.
Just say yes
Not only that, I’ve tried pitching the fediverse to right wing people, but they didn’t bite.
Even the crypto bros that were all about decentralization couldn’t see why a decentralized social media platform was superior.
This also didn’t matter for people who care about “free speech”.
You think the allure of being fully independent and having your own instance would be right up their alley given how they value independence, but nope.
Seriously? Why isn’t there a right wing instance? My guess is that a right wing person can’t fathom owning something that benefits others which doesn’t give them back profit.
You think the allure of being fully independent and having your own instance would be right up their alley given how they value independence, but nope.
Because it’s not about freedom of speech for them, it’s about freedom to force people to listen. Having their own server where they can shout at each other all day doesn’t serve their purpose. Their panties get wet by forcing others to listen.
i think there were one or two right wing instances, but they got defederated from everyone
Do they still exist? I’m honestly curious if they are active or if it’s abandoned
The only one I know of shut down and the admin posted this message:
I knew Lemmy had its challenges, but I hoped it would evolve for the better. Sadly after 2 years, the culture of censorship through defederation has only grown stronger.
So they shutdown because they couldn’t federate with any other instances and considered that censorship. A few people in that thread linked to another instance I’ve never heard of as an alternative and that one 404s if you type in the address so I guess they’re all still on reddit and twitter.
So they shutdown because they couldn’t federate with any other instances and considered that censorship
Damn, I actually didn’t see that coming, I guess they will move the goal post from any starting point.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and ask: How is it not censorship?
Cause no one is stopping you from going to said instance and just having the discussion there.
If there was this super important leak that needed to be out there, if it’s posted on a right wing instance that is a defederated ghost town, it’s still out there. People can link to it and leverage the instance to have the needed discussions.
Censorship means removing access, defederation does not wipe it off of the Internet.
I would argue that censorship includes the suppression of information in its definition, not only it’s removal.
Which were they? As in what was their domain name?
Trump’s tremendous social media platform truth dot barf runs on Activity Pub, they just don’t federate with anyone by default. It’s like they don’t want dissenting views on there. Weird.
Because “crypto bros” care about making money, not any ideology, except in a performative sense. If you pitched the fediverse to the original researchers inventing cryptocurrency and the early adopters, they would likely be receptive. But these are no longer associated with the current crypto crowd.
They don’t care about making money, they care about gambling and having a gambling addiction and trying to justify it
Why isn’t there a right wing instance?
Because all other instances would assume that it’s for Nazis and defederate.
Like everything on the right, decentralization is a means to an end, not a value in itself. They only care about it when it’s useful for helping them get ahead. Just like they only care about free speech when it’s them speaking to people who don’t want to hear their bullshit.
“free speech”, as your quotation marks imply, does not really exist outside of theory. In reality, free speech is a set of laws governing hate speech or other dangerous speech.
Both the right and the left have ideas of what they think these laws should be.
But there is no such thing as “free speech” in the real world.
there are 3 major right-wing instances: lemmy.ml(ran by the Lemmy developers), lemmygrad.ml(the openly fascist version of lemmy.ml) and hexbear.net.
if anyone wants to argue, I don’t. Anyone supporting Russia is right-wing. Authoritarianism is inherently conservative, reactionary and therefore right-wing.
Authoritarianism is inherently conservative
Sorry, but no
There’s a reason the step up from just left/right axis is the up/down of libertarian v authoritarian. Auth-left is very much a thing and is what tankies are
My priorities in politics is:
- Don’t wreck the economy.
- Uphold the rule of law.
In my country that makes me right leaning. In the US with the current president that apparently makes me a leftist.
You communist!
Oh dear, here come the tankies!
Most people everywhere are slightly left of centre*. Most leaders everywhere are slightly right of centre*.
*Not in the American sense. Y’all crazy.
I’m team right-wing.
The right chicken wing is always tastier, so I eat that first.
Edit: Wait, this is politics? Wrong thread.
See, this is why so many right-wingers are seen as simply not intelligent enough to understand basic science. Numerous studies have shown that the left-wing is on average, plumper, juicier, and more tender.
I bet you probably also believe those wing pieces with two bones are better than the big one-bone wings that look like little chicken legs, too. Typical right-winger, your brain has been melted by right-wing propaganda.
Sorry, but reality has a left-wing bias. Educate yourself, and do better.
I’m as left-wing as they come but to imply that drummies are somehow superior to flats is wrong-headed and shows your own biases. I’ll concede that the little chicken legs are easier (and more fun) to eat, but the quality of the delicate meat between the two little wing bones in the flats ones makes them more of a delight to me.
Do Twix have wings?
I promote right-wing policies: you should always use the right wings for your airplane, using whatever wings you happen to have left in stock is a recipe for disaster. Left-wing policies are dangerous.
By LEFT do you infer compassion, empathy, and class solidarity? In contrast, by RIGHT do you infer me-first, only my rights matter and only those in my clan deserve to be cared about?
Then, yes.
Well we know where you stand without doubt
Spoken like a true liberal.
If you consider Democrats left wing then yes, by far the most here are left wing, since by most European standards Democrats are clearly right wing.
Republicans are extreme right by most standards. Republican (MAGA) is basically an American version of AfD!
So by that standard I guess about 80% here are left wing, maybe even more?Anti-Conservative
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
- Frank Wilhoit
Thanks, Frank! Very eloquently put!
Yes. Signing up is not easy. Most people here can understand written instructions and have some basic technical knowledge. People who are not stupid tend to lean left.
I like to consider myself leftist. But it’s true that I don’t agree in all that most current left wing political parties stand for.
I think all human are born equal, and should have a good life. That politics should be used to improve everyone’s life.
But in the what does this mean or how to do it I feel more and more differences lately.
To give an example, I cannot really stand identity politics. I think that the best course of action is to dissolve identitarian (is that word real?) groups instead of exacerbating their differences. I feel like people should be getting rid of labels instead of having more and more labels every day.
That’s just a personal opinion, based on the idea that if you define different groups the chance of conflict between groups is bigger than if you define only one group. And I do get the idea behind identity politics within the left wing spectrum. I just don’t agree that’s the best course of action.
Minority groups didn’t make up identity politics, majority groups did, when they engaged in oppression of minorities.
Queer people don’t have that much in common. Straight people forced us to band together for our rights.
Gay people don’t have much in common with trans people, but straight people can’t tell us apart/treat us the same so we band together.
Disabled people, people of color, it’s similar stories.
I also have a hard time with ID politics and the like, but I’m also a privileged white dude so my primary gripe will always be focused around economic disparity. The BLM protests helped me see it this way: There is not war but the class war, but there are multiple fronts. If we don’t at least try a little to protect minority groups, we won’t have any progressives left
While I don’t understand gender politics, alternate pronouns and labels, I long since realized that it doesn’t matter. I’m all for everyone living their lives their way with equal respect. You do you, and be the best you you can, whatever you that may be, and I’ll be happy to call you friend
Maybe. But your impression of it may be skewed, because there are a lot of non-USA people here. That creste some mismatch in terms that tend to overwaight the perceived size of left-leaning people. But it’s terminology, really. What in USA is considered “left” more-or-less align with what is considered left outside of USA. But what an average Trump supporter call “conservative”, in the rest of the word is simply know as lunacy.
What in USA is considered “left” more-or-less align with what is considered left outside of USA
What is considered left in the USA is largely considered center or center right outside of the USA
Most current US Democrats are Neoliberal Reagan Republicans.
US Republicans since Reagan are fucking Nazis.
I believe all life have value, no matter what.
I believe in justice and equality.
I believe in the rule if law.
I believe in democracy.
I believe in the freedom of speech.
I believe in religious freedom.
I believe no one should go hungry.
I believe no one should freeze.
I believe no one should die from preventable diseases.
I believe everyone has a right to education.
I believe everyone has a right to healthcare.
I believe everyone has a right to participate in society and the internet.
I believe everyone should contribute if they can, because that is fair.
I believe people should be able to retire.
I believe most people are good, and want to do good.
I believe in cooperation, and working towards a common goal.
I believe that all people should have a minimum set of rights, that are non-negotiable.
I trust my neighbours, my family and strangers.
Based on these values I could be placed anywhere from center-right to far-left in Europe.
In the US I am a filthy commie
I’m Independent, but cannot support Republicans anymore … so I guess I’m a Democrat that hates gun control.
if you go far enough left, you get your guns back. :)
I’m a left libertarian. I embrace decentralization, collectivism, freedom from corporate and central government tyranny, and want to maximize individual liberty and progressive values as we ideally move towards a society like the Culture series by Ian M. Banks.
I’m not Anarchist because it’s too chaotic and unrealistic, and I’m not ML because I don’t like State authoritarianism and central planning.
Can you give some examples of how that works? Like, who pays for roads, who handles environmental regulations (or are there any), who establishes education standards (or are there any), etc. I’m not trying to argue, it just seems like on the internet people referring to “state authoritarianism” and “central government tyranny” ranges from “adults can’t be transgender” to “I have to pay taxes and the government won’t let me own slaves.”
There’s a few ways to handle, but for example:
-
Roads: large towns and cities would mostly handle their own road maintenance. Roads connecting towns would probably be joint ventures. Projects would be funded and contracted by the towns and financed by town income tax. Rural areas would be underfunded, but that’s partly intentional - dense population centers are more sustainable.
-
Environmental regulations: handled at the level of impact. for example, water quality standards for a river bind everyone who accesses the river. restrictions (e.g. standards for heavy metal levels) would be passed by minority vote - if 40% want a standard, that’s enough. carbon credits would be administered at the Federal or World levels, by a combination of central government and treaties.
-
Education: probably pretty devolved, mostly a choice by municipalities in what they offer/teach. there’d likely be standardized tests that most places agree on for transferability (e.g. how the SAT works today.) religious schools could exist in religious communities, or you could have a Montessori program in your secular socialist Kibbutz.
-
Slavery: illegal at the Federal/World level. same with indentured servitude and coercive contracts. one of the most important functions of the central government is to protect the civil liberties of individuals.
So the principles are mostly:
- Externalities are handled at the level of their impact.
- More power locally, less power centrally. City governments are more like micro-nations bound by a sort of EU.
- Cities largely have a lot of direct democracy with some representatives. Critically, city governments wield lots of power over the businesses that operate in the city. This is critical to check corporate power.
- Federal government exists as a backstop to safeguard fundamental rights and for truly national concerns.
i like what you are saying, just a few modifications I would make:
-Water control and regulation should be based on watersheds. all organizations operating in a given watershed are beholden to the laws of that watersheds own regulator. this would allow for actual management of the resource and protection from exploitation.
-there would need to be a strong incentive to work together with other municipalities and not be antagonistic. I am unsure what that would look like, but when you reduce central power, smaller powers can attempt to oppress others more easily.
-
