364
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Freedom is the ONLY thing that counts. I do acknowledge that Libertarians claim to want to pursue freedom.

However I believe that Libertarianism, will only replace tyrannical government with tyrannical rule by businesses.

The problem with governments no matter their political leaning is that most political ideologies lack any mechanism to deal with corruption and abuses of power. Libertarianism seeks to deal with this by removing government and instead hand the power to private companies.

Companies are usually small dictatorships or even tyrannies. Handing them the power over all of society will only benefit the owners of these companies. The rest of society will basically be reduced to the status of slaves as they have no say over the direction of the society they maintain through their 9to5s.

These companies already control governments around the world through favors, bribes or other means such as regulatory capture or even by influencing the media and thereby manipulating the public's opinion through the advertisement revenue.

Our problems would only get worse, all the ills of today's society, lack of freedom, lack of peace, lack of just basic human decency will be vastly aggravated if we hand the entirety of control to people like petur tihel and allen mosque.

Instead the way to go about this is MORE democracy not less of it. The solution is to give average citizens more influence over the fate of society rather than less. However for that to happen we all need to fight ignorance and promote the spread of education. It has to become cool again to read books (or .epub/.mobi's lol)

The best way to resolve the the corruption issue is to not allow any individual to hold power, instead having a distributed system.

More of a community-driven government. Sort of like these workers owned companies. We should not delegate away our decision-making power. We should ourselves make the decisions.

Although this post is in English it does neither concern the ASU nor KU or any other English speaking countries, in particular. It's a general post addressing a world wide phenomenon.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 101 points 8 months ago

;)

Libertarian Police™ Department

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 8 months ago

One of the best copy-pastas ever written. Gets me laughing every time.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

It's also popular in libertarian circles because it's funny as fuck.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

One of my favorite copypastas.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

This is awesome. You might also like Fry and Laurie's Private Police

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 79 points 8 months ago

Unpopular opinion: obvious stuff that 99% of the people here will agree with.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago

It's true that it's not really an unpopular opinion (especially here), but it's still thoughtful and well articulated. I thought it was more interesting than most posts.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

True, I didn't mean it as an insult to OP, just pointing out the ol' tradition of posting very popular things on the forum for unpopular opinions

[-] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

It is a timeless part of our online heritage.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago

It’s been my experience that libertarians are just conservatives that are too cowardly to commit to the bit.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

I've encountered three stripes of Big-L Libertarians online (thankfully, they don't seem to exist in Oz, they're mostly Americans with too much free time):

  • The Libertarian who is just a walking tax grievance. All he cares about is not paying taxes, it was how he got introduced to libertarianism, everything else is rationalising this point.

  • The Libertarian who treats it like a model train set in his basement. Everything works perfectly in his head, all the systems snap together, and he doesn't much care how it relates to an actual railway network in the real world. Libertarianism is more a neat little thought experiment for him than anything else. They have varying levels of commitment to implementing these ideas in the real world.

  • Actual fucking psychopaths. Social Darwinists. These guys are the ones who go on about "freedom", but they're engaged in sleight of hand. When they say freedom, they mean the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak, and the freedom to starve in the gutter. They all seem to imagine themselves as temporarily-embarrassed millionaires and captains of industry, or ranchers who get to print their own money and turn people living on their land into neo-feudal serfs.

None of them have a satisfying answer for how their utopian power vacuum is supposed to be stable. Some know it isn't, but can't give the game away.

And of course any time any of them are presented with evidence of deregulation or privatisation having a negative human cost, they'll also claim there's a magical inflection point where things just weren't deregulated or privatised enough: you have to give them everything they want first, then their theories will start to work, pinky-promise. And sometimes the psychos will say the quiet part out loud and will chide you for daring to bring morality and human suffering into an economic debate.

And yes, a lot of this language is gendered. No, it is not unnecessary. Yes, they are almost always dudes. No, I don't know why.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

I think you may have come up with the least unpopular opinion on Lemmy. There's more people who are unabashed fans of Stalin and Mao than there are libertarians.

Buuut...I mean, I'm not a libertarian, but I've taken libertarian ideas more seriously than you have, so I can play devil's advocate.

The idea behind libertarianism isn't to hand power over to corporations; that's just what detractors claim will happen. What they claim will happen is that corporations will become far less powerful.

The nightmare cyberpunk scenario where companies acquire private militaries and just physically take over doesn't really apply. The difference between libertarians and anarchists is that the former do see a place for government, usually including military, courts, policing, enforcement of contracts, and a few other things. So companies would continue to have to earn your dollar the old fashion way.

Now, think of industries that suck, where the companies are really shitty causing people to complain about them all the time, but are nonetheless stuck using them for lack of options.

Got some? Okay, now, were you thinking of electronics companies? No? How about bedding, or kitchenware? Hardware & tools? Flooring? Children's toys? Food & grocery?

Or...were you maybe thinking (depending where you live) of banking, airline, healthcare, insurance, or telecom industries?

Okay, now, change of topic: think of some industries with lots of regulation and government intervention.

Did you by any chance come up with the same list?

Lots of people will claim those industries are heavily regulated because they're somehow inherently shitty, and need the government to step in to fix them. Libertarians would say that those industries are shitty because regulations and government interventions prevent competition and shelter incumbents. They don't have to treat customers well anymore, or make particularly good products, because their position is secure whether they do or not. In an actual free market, competition is easier, so it's harder for a company to establish a monopoly.

An extreme example: Britain famously demanded Hong Kong as compensation from China during the Opium Wars, and used it as a gateway to Asia. They treated it with a sort of benign neglect: as long as the port was functioning, they didn't pay that much attention to the operation of the territory. It was not heavily regulated, to the point that even (for example) the healthcare industry was basically regulation-free. You could literally stick a sign on the door of your apartment claiming you were doctor, and start treating people, and nobody would stop you.

So, since healthcare is one of those sacred industries that requires heavy government regulation to protect people, the life expectancy and health outcomes of Hong Kongers must have been abysmal, right? Well...no, it actually climbed steadily throughout, and is #1 in the world today (though it should be noted the situation re: regulation changed post-1997). And it was a hell of a lot cheaper than American or European healthcare at every point.

There are industries where monopolies seem to form naturally. In my lifetime, Microsoft, Facebook and Google have all been accused of being monopolistic. There were calls for government intervention. But like...they were monopolies (or got close, anyway) because lots of people chose to use them. Nobody was forced. I couldn't stand Microsoft or Facebook, so I switched to Linux way back in the 90s and I've never really used Facebook at all. I do use some Google products, because they're pretty good.

And I'm fine. Nobody ever threatened me. My life wasn't negatively affected AFAICT. I just didn't use that product. Competitors appeared, like Linux & BSD, Reddit, Lemmy, etc, and I liked those better so I used them instead. That was it. Pretty boring as far as dystopias go.

The situation is a bit different when it comes to government. I can't opt in or out, I'm just stuck. I mean, I can move (assuming I have enough cash to do it), but fully extricating yourself from your home country is surprisingly hard: the US will chase you around the world to claim taxes from your income. And you immediately have to pick another country, and your options are severely limited.

People talk about corporations in such dire terms. It's kind of mystifying to me: just don't fucking use that corporation's products. Voila! You're free from their insidious influence.

Ahh, but they corrupt government institutions with their lobbying money! The libertarian answer is: have fewer government institutions, then. They can't lobby to bend regulations in their favor if there are no regulations in the first place. They would say that heavy regulation means incumbents are protected from competition, and can thus extract more 'rent', meaning more profit, which they can then turn towards warping the copious regulations in their favor...meaning still more protection, more profit, and more regulatory capture.

Like I said, I'm not a libertarian, but I understand their perspective, and I think it should be more influential than it is. I can talk about how rent control raises housing costs, or how "worker's rights" results in lower pay, or how minimum wages are racist and sexist.

Or you can just call me names for taking libertarians seriously! That seems like the more popular approach.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Now, think of industries that suck, where the companies are really shitty causing people to complain about them all the time, but are nonetheless stuck using them for lack of options.

...

Or…were you maybe thinking (depending where you live) of banking, airline, healthcare, insurance, or telecom industries?

Okay, now, change of topic: think of some industries with lots of regulation and government intervention.

Did you by any chance come up with the same list?

Typical libertarian blather.

In each one of these cases the industry predates the regulation. The regulation of banking is a response to the shitty behaviour of pre-regulation banks. Ditto for airlines, health care, insurance, telecom, etc. etc. etc.

The old adage "each regulation is written in blood" applies (albeit the blood being metaphorical in some cases).

The libertarian cinematic universe (coughRandroidscough) has it that businessmen were just chugging along merrily making a profit when suddenly, out of nowhere, the government leaped in to slap regulations on things. The reality is that regulations (which are themselves, naturally, not perfect, often applied long after the need has vanished, and prone to being corrupted) are a response to corporate malfeasance. Very few regulations are made ahead of the fact. (Politicians are constitutionally incapable of thinking ahead, after all.)

So airlines being heavily-regulated? Go look at the history of the airline industry. Look at the accident rates caused by the complete and utter profiteering of early airlines. Then ask yourself if regulation made these industries evil, or if perhaps regulations came in because of the evil of said industries.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Quick, someone share the reddit copy pasta where the police officer does heroin in his police car.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

So, since healthcare is one of those sacred industries that requires heavy government regulation to protect people, the life expectancy and health outcomes of Hong Kongers must have been abysmal, right? Well…no

Wasn't the state of healthcare at the time somewhere between useless and actively harmful? Not much use in regulating what the experts of the day are completely wrong about.

Anyway my issue with much of the argumentation you've presented here, despite there being many reasonable points, is that most libertarians seem to simply not care at all whether their predictions of how well unfettered capitalism will go are realistic or true. It's just talking points to them, because if they weren't true, it would still be justified to favor absolute property rights over everything else. That's what they really care about, the justice of no one getting to touch their stuff, and it outweighs everything else.

Which is frustrating, because despite their rare willingness to drill down into specifics, it's a clear point of biased disingenuousness. If the only thing a point means to someone is that if it is made one way others might be persuaded of their cause, the incentive is to only understand it that particular way, and never realize or admit if it's wrong.

My issue with the core ethos is, a person's ability to opt out of things very often depends on how poor they are, and so if property is liberty, it's only liberty for those with the property.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

The state of healthcare in the 1960s through the 1990s? I mean, it wasn't that bad. Life expectancy at the time was rising very quickly in developed countries--and in Hong Kong.

Libertarians can drive me crazy too, and I agree that a lot of them are driven by ideology, not practicality. And a lot of them can't even make these arguments in defense of their own beliefs--they just come at it from a simple moral POV ("taxes are violence!"). But that's not unique to libertarians: most people hold to ideologies they don't fully understand, which is why they defend them rabidly with insults and attacks, instead of just explaining why they believe what they do. "I believe we should do this because it's right, and I'll get mad if you try to explain why it's impractical, impossible, or counterproductive!" is an attitude I hear more often, if anything, from the Left.

And, well, in a libertarian world, your ability to opt out of things may depend, to some extent, on your wealth--but (they would say) it's easier for people to get wealthy in general. And as I pointed out in my original post...well...no, it's not really true. I opt out of Facebook and Microsoft and other 'monopolies', and I'm just fine. Why would that change? But I really, actually can't opt out of the state, and the bigger the state gets the more restricted we are. So, the solution to "if the libertarians got their way, some people would be more free than others" is "we should significantly restrict freedom overall, for everybody"?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Is that an unpopular opinion? I thought that was the whole appeal, hence why most billionaires are libertarians.

That's also basically the moral of the story of bioshock.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Instead the way to go about this is MORE democracy not less of it.

Agreed. Some good steps to take:

  • Switching to approval/STAR voting (far fewer flaws than FPTP, generaly better than ranked)

  • Requiring all companies to be worker owned democracies. We don't accept dictators or monarchists in government, so why would we accept that kind of tyranny in our work?

  • Shit loads of anti-corruption efforts. As of right now, politics is controlled with money, and politicians effectively get a free pass to use their office for personal gain. That shit needs to end.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

You based motherfucker - have an upvote. I'd do it twice if I could.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Libertarianism denies humanity. Exalting the individual as the basic unit of society is the political equivalent to a spherical cow in a vacuum. The human mind and body deteriorate in isolation; we need others to even think or be healthy.

The individual in isolation also happens to be the weakest political unit. It's almost like the ruling class invented the an ideology for the serfs to demand feudalism. An ideology that not only rejects collective action, but short circuits any attempt. A group of libertarians is called an impasse.

Prioritizing the rational individual causes irrationality in society. Tens of thousands of rational decisions to go home at the same time lead to the irrationality of traffic.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Well, I wish it was more popular.

I love the concept of government, it's a state mechanism that when it works correctly, society advances and everything works. The problem it, it require constant citizens involvement in order to keep it in check.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

That's pretty much any organization you can imagine. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Libertarianism: “fuck you, got mine” disguised as a legitimate political ideology

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Republicans that like to smoke weed.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

Settle down, there, Braveheart 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Is this really unpopular? I think it's a very based anarchosyndicalist standpoint.

ASU nor KU

Are you French? Because they have some acronyms backwards (like UE)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

How can anyone take it seriously now of all times? Libertarianism in the modern day is being fronted by hack stand up comedians who ran out of material so they went with the political shtick to stay relevant. They don't actually believe in anything other than enriching themselves

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Companies are usually small dictatorships or even tyrannies. Handing them the power over all of society will only benefit the owners of these companies. The rest of society will basically be reduced to the status of slaves as they have no say over the direction of the society they maintain through their 9to5s.

Well said. It's so weird how gullible people can be.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

The problem is that no single person can educate themselves strongly enough on every potential topic. That's why we're supposed to have representatives to spend all day in a specific area of expertise. I could be jobless, and study this stuff all day every day, 24/7 and STILL not be educated enough to vote on a bill and claim to understand all of the nuances and interactions with society that would ripple out from that decision.

And have you seen society? Do you REALLY want some of these idiots voting? They don't even care to educate themselves - so it's easy to influence them with advertisements and campaigns.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

The simple answer to this is that bills have no reason being drafted in language or length that cannot be reasonably explained to a layman.

In fact it is very well known that some legislation is drawn up with the intention of obfuscating its purpose, or some detail therein.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

The problem is capitalist libertarians don't see corporations as a power structure, just simply as an expression of individual effort. There's no libertarian conception of a corporation as a collective unit or a way to exert influence; libertarians see a corporation as a random group of individuals who voluntarily join a leader.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Yeah but isn't that just common sense for people outside libertarian circles? It's not an unpopular opinion, it's a logical conclusion.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Lots of people have been raised to think "government is bad" without any critical thoughts about what the alternatives to government would realistically be.

"Government is bad" has been a republican talking point since at least the 80s.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Subsidies for big business, regulatory capture and other forms of corporate rent seeking are all things libertarians are against. For big L libertarians you even have party platforms.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

regulatory capture

I thought Libertarianism promoted the removal of government regulations and allowing companies to do as they please. Basically let the markets regulate themselves. For example not having environmental regulations instead hoping customers vote with their feet. Am I misunderstanding Libertarianism?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, not at all. Right Wing libertarians are just embarrassed capitalist. That haven't found the one thing that makes them want to come out in the open as fascist or a conspiracy theory enthusiast. Actual libertarians, those on the left. Are equally concerned about people's freedom "from" things. As they are people's freedom "to do" things. They're opposed to large many level government, that obfuscates while at the same time consolidating power. Not government itself.

Actual libertarians are just as horrified by the brutality and cruelty of under regulated corporations, as they are large government behemoths.

The origin of libertarians and left libertarianism is inconvenient though. And something never touched on outside poly sci courses. Pretty much any libertarian you've likely been exposed to would fall under the neo-libertarian moniker. Like the neo liberals and neo conservatives. Right wing reactionary groups forming in reaction to the red scare of the mid 20th century. Right wing libertarianism itself has its origins in the 50s and 60s. Murray, rothbard, Milton Friedman, Frederick Hyak and a few others are generally seen as the fathers of it. Where actual libertarianism's origins go back another 100 years.

But when it comes to who has the wealth and resources to promote their ideology. Wealthy thieves always win out in the end. And they largely set the standards by which we are all educated.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

set the standards by which we are all educated.

Maybe one of the reasons people hate education these days.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

The things that always gets thought about last is transparency, accountability, and separation of powers

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I mean, libertarianism is a broad concept that extends way past the Koch-funded redefining of the word. Bakunin would strongly disagree that a libertarianistic society would require control resting in the hands of the oligarchs/businesses.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Community driven, worker owned decision making? Maybe you could check out Democratic Confederalism?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
364 points (87.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6186 readers
128 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS