• inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.

    Democracy dies in the free market.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        16 hours ago

        anarcho-capitalist libertarian utopia?

        I hate that edgelord libertarians are trying to rebrand themselves as “anarcho-capatalist”. Anarchy and capitalism are antithetical to one another. It doesn’t have anything to do with anarchy if you aren’t evaluating hierarchy, and capitalism is literally one of the most hierarchical organizational structures possible.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Fun fact: Conservatism was literally invented by a monarchist in the aftermath of the French revolution trying to find a way for an aristocracy to exist within democracy.

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Except England wasn’t a democracy at the time, it was a heavily rigged parliamentary system with a limited franchise, and it could be overridden by the Lords. But yeah, conservatism represented the interests of the aristocrats, in opposition to Englightenment notions like equality, accountability, rule of law and meritocracy.

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I at least was talking about Burke, whose most influential work was talking about the French revolution, not the English revolution(s). That one was, at least in the start, a proper democracy.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          edgelord libertarians are trying to rebrand themselves as "anarcho-capatalist

          Actually, American style " libertarianism" IS anarcho-capitalism. They’ve just been trying to keep that a secret until recently.

          Anarchy and capitalism are antithetical to one another.

          Yes, and no. Anarcho-capitalism is anarchic in the colloquial “no rules, no order” sense, whereas political anarchy very much isn’t.

          The stupidity of the term is what makes it apt, though: the people politically illiterate enough to think that a total lack of regulations and worker’s rights would lead to anything resembling freedom also think that the colloquial definition of anarchy is the politically accurate one.

        • Sekoia
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          It’s anarchy for the hierarchies, not for the components of the hierarchies

        • metaldream@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          A real democracy wouldn’t allow a fascist to even run for office. Advocating for fascism and authoritarianism in a republic isn’t a valid political stance. It’s sedition.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Well, if over 50% of votes agree, is it sedition? The American people wanted the treasonous, corrupt, criminal, draft dodger sexual predator as president. We might not like it, but it’s what the majority wanted.

            • metaldream@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              14 hours ago

              *Plurality and it’s still sedition on the part of the leaders. If you advocate for authoritarianism in a republic then you are inherently advocating for overthrowing the republic. You are advocating for some people to have rights, while others don’t.

              It doesn’t matter if a majority of voters want that, they don’t have the right to strip the minority of their right to representation.

              All authoritarian ideologies are inherently incompatible with the concept of natural rights

              • Tja@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                13 hours ago

                Those who don’t vote make an explicit choice, so it is a majority.

                And the fascist, dictatorial intentions were known from the beginning so kind of hard to argue with the result.

                People voted to convert the republic to an empire.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          In a more democratic system there wouldn’t be president Trump because there would be no presidents. So I disagree with the premise.

          The presidency is fundamentally undemocratic, regardless of the quasi-performative democratic ritual by which he is selected.