• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Just one of many examples of how a linear scale cannot place all ideologies are current Libertarians. For example, I’m friends with a libertarian couple that are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Where would you place them? What about someone who supports social economic systems as well as Christian Nationalism? You can’t force data to fit into an assigned scale. A scale must be selected to accommodate the available data. There’s a reason professors have been using the political compass or Nolan Chart in higher education for the last twenty years.

    That organizational need only applies to ideologies, however. The current state of political parties in the US, for example, is somewhat linear.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Confused.

      Socially liberal fiscally conservative is the most meaningless label/platitude in American politics for sure. Even some Republicans will classified themselves that way. As well as Larp-atarians and democrats. Truly meaningless. Of the three groups Democrats probably come closest to actually being that. While still falling well far of it. Literally everyone is conservative with their resources, but wants everyone to believe they aren’t anti social.

      Homeless as an example. Everyone treats it like some complex unsolvable problem. When everybody knows the solution. Give them actual housing. The kind that allows them to have stability and security in their life. Not just access to a shower, and overnight use of a random cott in a roach/rat infested building that they’re forcefully turned out of every morning. With no regular access to actual meals. If we just “gave actual housing” to them. That would take care of 60 to 80% of homeless. The few that would remain don’t have homeless as a primary problem.

      A libertarian might debate whether we should do this at the town/city, county, state or national level. They wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t, or already are doing too much to address it. As many larp-atarians do. Larp-atarians can’t even agree on a basic concept of freedom beyond capital/capitalism.

      Many, but not all support legalization of marijuana. Many but not all even support equal rights. Whether it’s about racial, gender, or sexual lines. The term that best describes Larp-atarians, is selfish. Their views on freedoms etc don’t really extend much beyond themselves. And worse. Many will vote Republican if there isn’t a Larp-atarian on the ballot. Which considering how anti free speech etc they’ve been for decades. Makes them an extremely anti libertarian group to vote for whether you consider yourself right or left.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        And what about the Christian Nationalist who supports increased social programs from my example? Or are you going to redefine their beliefs with arrogant condemnation to fit your analysis as well?

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn’t make him a good person. Or even right.

          Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It’s one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It’s oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they’re not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.

          There’s no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It’s all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it’s the opposite.

          Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone’s a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.

          And just to finish since I sense that you’re getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.

            There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.

              Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.

              Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.

              If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?

              Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.

              In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.

              Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.

              So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I never suggested that the origin or basis of libertarianism was subjective. I simply said that the ideology is currently defined as supporting high civil liberty and supporting low economic social systems, and because of these qualities, is difficult to map on the same axis as liberal and conservative. It’s really quite simple, and doesn’t justify a wall of text to counter.

                You have yet to explain how the aforementioned fascist fits on your line. Do they go on the left for supporting high economic social systems or on the right for support of highly restrictive social legislation? Whichever you choose determines if your line is preferential to economic or social system definition, which in itself is biased. Some individuals vote more heavily on social issues, and others economic. Just food for thought.

                • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn’t trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?

                  I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler’s government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.

                  Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they’re doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.

                  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You’re dodging the question. Where do the Christian Nationalists that support economic social support systems go on a line? Left or right?