American "libertarianism" is a correct identification of the issue with oppressive use of force by the state, coupled with a somewhere-between-ambiguous-and-incorrect interpretation of when force is oppressive and when it's not. It's my stance that American libertarianism (based on the NAP definition) with a properly calculated ethical interpretation of justifiable "property" simply reduces to anarchocommunism, as many unexamined assumptions about when a "property" claim is justifiable and when it is not simply accept a capitalist market economy, and any inequality that may result, out of sheer laziness. A lot of people find this way of looking at it jarring, usually because they just try to cram it somewhere on the "left/right" scale without really examining each ideological underpinning, or by really examining the range of thinking within the space. And some of that results from fascist groups trying to coopt the label as well. Good litmus test for that is asking a self-identified "libertarian" what they think about immigration, or the justifiability of a given war. The "MAGA LINO" types will justify immigration crackdowns and wars, the dyed-in-the-wool "libertarians" will oppose them, and so on with other oppressive policies that leftists also oppose. Which leaves the main point of contention being how the economic system works and how property distribution works, something which the "NAP" is ambiguous about. Therefore...
dx1
joined 11 months ago
Anyone ever commenting "human nature" should be forced to explain how: (a) some behavior is an inevitable result of brain physiology, and, (b) why examples of people who don't exhibit that behavior exist. The absence of those explanations disprove like 95%+ of "human nature" arguments. Like, "oh, religion is human nature, we must believe in a higher power because we crave meaning" - which part of the brain mandates that thought, and why do atheists and agnostics exist then?
How come every one of these AI pics uses the same font