Tinidril

joined 1 year ago
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on libertarianism:

In the mid-19th century,[10] libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists.

And

In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.

Don't feel too bad. Having no fucking idea what you are talking about just makes you a typical American style libertarian.

As for centralizing power, corporate personhood and broad deregulation are about the most radical systems for centralizing power that have ever existed. You are still ignoring the entire history of conflict between unions and corporations. Unions had their day using the "libertarian" model and all that came from it was disaster. It wasn't until the labor movement gained political power and had pro-union regulations put in place that unions had any real ability to negotiate with corporate power. But that's all reality so it's irrelevant I guess.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 16 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Libertarianism is properly a socialist philosophy, but it's been coopted by the far right in America who then started exporting their bullshit to the rest of the world. It's entirely possible for two people to call themselves "libertarian" and have next to nothing in common in their understanding of what that means.

Most libertarian support of unions in America is a bad joke. It's meaningless feel-good rhetoric that completely ignores the entire history of unions in America. Corporations have a million ways to crush unions and union organizers. Without government regulations requiring corporations to engage with unions, unions are next to impossible in reality. But that's just fine with the kind of people attracted to the Libertarian party, because they don't live in reality.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

Lemmy's origins are as an alternative platform for Russian shills and sympathizers to spread misinformation, and the founders / developers are deeply stuck in that bubble. Sometimes being smart makes people more prone to conspiracy thinking instead of less.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

Every billionaire is grifting like this. That's how they become billionaires. Most just hide it better.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I know plenty of people with technical smarts and high IQs who regularly fall for disinformation scams. Lots of smart people are as prone to believing what they want to believe as complete idiots.

People with strong intuition often make it through life without ever seriously developing critical thinking skills because they simply don't need them.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 33 points 1 month ago

"Sir, this is Four Seasons Landscaping".

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

That's an accurate summation for my understanding as well. Things that the judge should look at when considering a minimum sentence are defendant cooperation, displays of genuine remourse, and indications that the defendant is unlikely to continue breaking the law. If the judge can find any of that, it's beyond me how.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

None of his current convictions are expected to come with a custodial sentence

Strict adherence to sentencing guidelines actually would see him jailed on his current convictions. If he isn't given some kind of imprisonment it will be because the judge was afraid of the aftermath.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago

I'm not so sure he's much of a security risk, unless he is still in possession of sensitive documents. I sincerely doubt he is capable of remembering anything in the way of valuable secrets. Anyways, even if he did, any adversary would be daft to trust he remembered correctly.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 28 points 2 months ago

Anybody that the Republicans put in charge of any federal agency is there for the purpose of destroying that agency. I used to think defense was an exception but, given Republican's new found love for Russia, I don't think that can be assumed any longer.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 40 points 2 months ago

Trump's way ahead of you there.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago

He was arguably a worse president than even Trump. Which of them is a worse human being is a different question.

view more: ‹ prev next ›