this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
1099 points (97.8% liked)

Political Memes

5428 readers
2154 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It happens another way usually - in libertarianism anything non-voluntary and any violence is bad. The ideal is a society with involuntary violent interactions being minimal.

First, just like with Bolsheviks, ends may justify the means (let's build a totalitarian state which will fight capitalism, imperialism, conquer all the world and then make communism).

Second, and more often, different kinds of violence are not so different for a libertarian. As in - a normie might agree that they owe something by social contract that they hadn't signed and can't refuse. For a libertarian that's bullshit, and the legal systems built by non-libertarians don't allow them to argue their point - somebody else decides for them and says they are obligated to obey. ("Sovereign citizens" are basically libertarians who believe in proving a libertarian position through normie laws, which is nonsense, you can't win by rules defined by your adversary.) So "if there's going to be violence, then let it be our violence to our ends".

From the libertarian point of view the world is fascist in general. So they (libertarians gone violent) are trying to change it to good, while playing by its rules. It's sort of a revolutionary logic, which, again, is similar to that of Bolsheviks.

so they can’t imagine a situation where they aren’t the one with the boot or the one being stomped on

They can imagine that pretty well, but from their point of view they sort of already are expected to be stomped on in a non-libertarian world.

I hope I've explained it well.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe they want to live in a world where someone will sell them a girlfriend that the government won't make them put in a car seat.

Lolitarianism is full dog eats dog to an extent no government has ever tried. It promises to reduce every human relationship to transactional at best, brute force more likely. You aren't going to call the police on abusive parents when you know the children will be homeless as a result. A crushing nightmare where property holders know that all that want to eat need to go through them.

What kinda fascist wouldn't want that? Imagine the power they would hold, fully backed by the state.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago

Maybe they want to live in a world where someone will sell them a girlfriend that the government won’t make them put in a car seat.

Maybe I'm a green dinosaur.

It promises to reduce every human relationship to transactional at best, brute force more likely.

One should learn about libertarian ideologies from people practicing them, and not from their circlejerk partners.

It obviously doesn't. It doesn't specify anything except voluntarism and use of force being taboo, thus it allows even ancom if those ancoms don't try to ancomify people who don't want to join their communes.

brute force more likely.

Brute force is the least acceptable thing in libertarianism, everything else has smaller priority, so obviously not.

You aren’t going to call the police on abusive parents when you know the children will be homeless as a result.

They'll be adopted or will live in an orphanage, of course, and not that.

A crushing nightmare where property holders know that all that want to eat need to go through them.

No. There's nothing to make zoning laws in ancap and other similar regulations allowing the weird real estate market some countries have.

What kinda fascist wouldn’t want that? Imagine the power they would hold, fully backed by the state.

I dunno, I don't see your visions because you didn't share the stuff.