@nooneinparticular Said
Ah, so only some types of government action constitute Authoritarianism? Putting aside the fact that such an exception flies in the face of some forms of Libertarianism, and would cause Ayn Rand to roll over in her grave, what actions of government oversight are allowed under a Libertarian philosophy? Is corporate welfare? Is the Military-Industrial complex?
Leaving pointless tangents into minutiae (that I suspect would appeal to you and bore the crap out of me), aside, I would have thought we could all see a variation in the level of oppression government action can entail. For example, an act of government that bans dissenting voices under the guise of hate speech, is more authoritarian than an act of government that legislates free speech as a right that the state must uphold.
I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand (even though I've owned one of her books for about 20 years). Are you claiming she is an anarchist?
Didn't I say in an earlier post to you that I oppose the MIC pretty much exclusively, as well as corporate welfare for the most part (unless, in the case of corporate welfare it acts in the interests of the people, eg., the Amazon deal that AOC loathed through her ignorant incompetence)?
I would prefer that corporate welfare was done away with. However, as a pragmatic supporter of capitalism I realise globalism and corporate control of government is not going anywhere any time soon (unless the so called right have a revolution and remove the so called left and the major corporate global elites). Under these miserable circumstances, corporate welfare is one tactic that can be used to stop the west from being further destroyed.
I would prefer a political class that acted on behalf of its constituents though.
@nooneinparticular Said You like to do this a lot. You say there are exceptions that prove your point correct, but you never wish to articulate them and leave me guessing as to what they are. Then you accuse me of straw-manning when I apparently guess incorrectly.
Not by intent. I just find the need to argue every point into miniscule pieces a bit tedious. Sure, I have done it with people here over religion and their weird animal libbing ideas, but as a rule I don't care enough to get that in depth. It's why I often bugger off from here. I miss the good old days where people talked instead of argue every single thing.
Now, it's true I like a debate, but damn, it would be nice to just discuss stuff from time to time.
@nooneinparticular Said It's rather funny that you say that the economic Right and Left don't matter and then you ascribe the traditional economic position of the Left (worker's rights) to the Right.
This is the kind of thing I mean that I get weary of. Instead of mindlessly just say, "no it isn't," think about what I said. This is not intended to be rude, but you seem to disagree with every point on everything no matter what it is. It gets tedious. Try discussing a point from time to time... and consider what I'm saying as a whole rather than take one sentence, decontextualise it, place it next to another decontextualised sentence and imply something I'm not saying.
I'm not claiming that workers no longer exist, or that there is no class distinctions. I am arguing that the old paradigm of right and left are currently irrelevant because the so called right side with workers over the so-called left who side with global corporations.
Why?
Because economics is no longer a major consideration.
Why?
Because both so called sides have embraced the same globalist political "pragmatism" that Reagan, Thatcher (right wing) and Hawke and Keating (left wing) all embraced at the same time. Meanwhile, the people are disenfranchised on the so called right and left and have no real power to do anything, because the so called right and left in politics are no longer working for the good of their own people.
And now, with the advent of social media that allowed the lies of our globalist friends in politics and media to be exposed, we have a new battleground - the realm of information and ideas. The globalists (called the left, but also has a large contingent of the so-called right (possibly RINOS in the US now depending on who you ask), is siding with global tech to shut down voices they dislike.
That is the battleground that matters.
For the most part on economics (wing nuts aside) most people just want to be able to work, earn money and get rewarded for their effort, and other people to be able to do the same, no matter who they are or where they live.
@nooneinparticular Said That aside, you keep saying freedom is the new political litmus, but you don't go for Freedom of expression, or freedom to decide where to work, or even political freedom. No, you reach for the old
economic banners of workers rights ( An Authoritarian principle) and high profits at the expense of all else ( A Libertarian Philosophy).
What? I have no idea what this even means.
Freedom is freedom. That means freedom to speak, but also freedom to choose your own career path.
And yes, people should be free to accumulate wealth, but they should not be free to exploit people in that accumulation (and these hazy terms need a definition I can't be assed giving).
I am not talking of worker's rights in the sense you imply. The UK working class has been screwed badly (and literally), by their political class, to the point where millions of cases of sexual abuse were considered fine in the name of "diversity" that hurts workers anyway by undercutting their wages at a time s***ty trade deals are sending low income jobs overseas.
This is far more than economics, but it is not economics free. And the old paradigm of left and right no longer provide a good predictor of where a person's allegiances lie.