this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
1099 points (97.8% liked)
Political Memes
5405 readers
4273 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ironic that Libertarians are banning things in their own subreddit.
Not at all, there's no such thing as a right wing libertarian. Just liberals who think their girlfriends shouldn't need carseats.
That doesn't cover the Republicans that want to be able to do drugs
I got u fam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
Bayer, heroin... More like Banyear
Great read!
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. If Joseph Dejacqe were still alive. So called right wing libertarians would be the ones he was railing against.
Blame Grover Norquist for the absolute garbage right wing libertarian agenda now.
Nah, Grover is a nobody and not all that closely tied to the Liberals masquerading as libertarians. He was plenty up Republican asses as well. Milton Friedman and Murray rothbard share most of the blame. Along with the Koch brothers.
At least Rothbard realized as he was dying that the other conservatives were playing him for a chump.
And that's always a good thing. I just wish they'd realize that before their mortality was before them and they had no chance to make amends. Lifetimes of damage are hard to un do.
Found it amusing when Rothbard came out pro-immigration restrictions and worked so hard to explain why it wasn't racist when he did it.
My ideals are left lib, and I hope that social structure becomes feasible beyond small populations in the future. That said, leftism is centralized economics. And if you centralize that, you wind up with authoritarianism.
I hope trustless and decentralized protocols make up for the inefficiencies in the long run, we're just starting to see technology catch up to make up for the inefficiencies of decentralized economics
Are you sure about that? </john cena>
You should tell that to the Democratic Socialists, or the Social Democrats, or Marxists, or actual Libertarians, or anarchists, or communists. Literally I think the only group on the left. That is significantly centrally organized are Marxist Leninist. Every group on the right however depends on a central authority to make their economy fesable.
Either this is projection, or you don't know what left is. Which if you are a fellow American is absolutely understandable. They did a lot to dumb us down and make us afraid to look to any groups that weren't capitalist or fascist. To help us meet our needs. That red scare shit is still prevalent to this day. Though the Marxist Leninist did hand them the talking point on a platter post world war II. The rest of the left just got smeared with it unduly.
I said it's feasible for smaller populations - but to be comparable to the size and strength of a world power AND have that sort of left wing economics how many examples can you provide that don't end up needing authoritarianism?
By the way, I have nothing against the left or authoritarianism. Some geographic regions lead to power dynamics where authoritarianism is just a more sensible form of management since constraints on necessary resources make it easy for militant groups to seize control.
Everything is feasible in smaller populations. That's why government should generally be smaller and more granular. It is also why businesses should be smaller still.
Just because insecure bullies make something impractical doesn't mean it's wrong. Nor does it mean that they are right.
Yes, (most) everything is feasible in smaller populations (not nuclear maintenance for example). But without technology, they've been isolated, uncoordinated, and easily bullied by those larger organized authoritarian bodies. There are billions of people, and narcissists make up about 1 in 5 of those billions of people. A smaller subset lack basic empathy, and an even smaller subset are intellectually competent. Multiply whatever that probability is by billions of people, and you have a guaranteed concern for every single government on the planet.
I agree with wanting smaller businesses as well. Capitalism isn't bad (communism is state capitalism after all), but corporatism is the emerging problem from right libertarianism that most people conflate as problems with capitalism
My point being isn't that I don't like leftism, they are my ideals. I just don't believe we live in an ideal world, so practically I follow a different set of beliefs. Thay said, I do think leftism is compatible with libertarianism in a way that it can compete in the global arena. And that starts off with solving how a decentralized governmental body "identifies" one and only one person to their "identity" (otherwise you get Sybil attacks)
Regardless of how you do decentralized economy you need a strong regulatory body to keep it that way. Otherwise you just end up right where we are now again.
Yes and Humanity has done it for thousands of years without a large centralized National body. Anarchism is not without an ability to regulate. What do you think anarchism is?
We also didn't have a better way of doing math than an abacus for thousands of years. If Anarchy could regulate then we wouldn't need all these laws about minimum wage, not using children as disposable machine tools, and not putting rat poison in their food products. Clearly there is some need for a body that can do that. And at that point, You've got a large centralized national body again because you're going to need to vote for who you trust to do it, they're going to need the physical capability to do it, there's going to need to be taxes to keep it all going, and oh look. We have a national government again.
I don't care what PCM told you.
PCM?
Hmmm and who controls the tech allowing this decentralized society?
No one, there are already plenty of protocols defined for distributed computing and are made open source. In a hypothetical lib left social network, If you want different networks, that's fine, you just have to make your own protocol. It's like how countries shouldn't have borders, or how computing platforms shouldn't lock you in or out of others (take apple/Mac OS as an example, versus Linux)
Then it's up to individuals to verify the source code and choose to be a node operator. Not everyone needs to be a node operator, just enough on that the common skilled worker can partake should they need to
If you don't like the "rules of governance" of whatever network you're in, that's fine, go to a different one you do like, or make your own with your own rules. If it's actually a better system of "decentralized digital government", you'll attract people into your Network.
Consumer grade tech is more than capable of achieving this. You don't need cpus with 2nm transistors (which are heavily gatekept by oligarchs), there's plenty of open software and hardware protocols/designs to prove not only this concept works, but has been done before by now.
The only problem in the past was with solving the identity problem and preventing Sybil attacks, but that's becoming less of a concern for other reasons (which I could elaborate further on)
That works for social media like Lemmy but what about tech for trading goods or keeping the lights on? What about the Internet infrastructure?
This a great idea to build off of and advocate for rights. But it's as possible in reality as the classical liberal "state of nature".
So, I emphasized trustless and decentralized in social organizations. "It just works for social media" isn't exactly addressing what I was getting at. For example, Lemmy has a bot account problem. All that freedom makes it harder to prevent that problem.
But if you're talking about how a government is a system of voting bodies that authorize some action given state (policy), and authority is delegated by some means - say, voting - then the botting problem of Lemmy is not just "something that doesn't work", it's a critical failure which would enable fraud.
So, when I brought up Sybil attacks, I was trying to avoid a long winded digression including arguments from Microsoft on Decentralized ID. But the point being, it can be decentralized. Policy is action given state but action is delegated to people inevitably. But when you vote, would you rather trust a person to count those votes or a trustless automated system?
I'm talking about you said you want to use tech "to make up for the inefficiencies of decentralized economics". It's not about making open source software that works. That's easy. The question is who controls the wires? We can already see where ISPs and countries can check everything passing through their system. What's to prevent someone from gaining control of a critical mass of physical nodes and blocking traffic from anyone who doesn't pay them a "fee"?
You're talking about the software but you're forgetting that it all runs on hardware somewhere in a windowless building. Even if you decentralize that, you've still got the problem of gatekeeping. How long before each node requires .1 pennies per packet? How good is long distance trade going to be when just making the offer costs a significant amount?
Again, those are my ideals. Realistically, not everything can be decentralized in a trustless way.
That said, much of our current system of signing documents to verify it was done by a certain Identity can be automated. Enforcement and neorealism are a separate issue to mitigate, but the delegation of authority to humans can be automated without human involvement
I think the ideals of anarchy left are great. But we should treat them more like classical liberals treated their, "state of nature". It wasn't a goal, it was a guiding metric. The progressives of the time theorized that humans are naturally good and that's why we can have democracies. That's a huge simplification but it's to make my point. Instead of actually trying for anarchy we should be trying to use and mold government to achieve outcomes.
For example anti-capitalism. If we tried to go into anarchy one of the biggest dangers is actually corporate feudalism. Where corporations become the default law. Instead we should be regulating corporations and making it clear that anything other than normal business under a 5 percent market share is illegal. We should be requiring unions. Then with the government itself, we get it out of our daily lives. Other than taxes and voting, it should not be something we interact with regularly. Armed police should not be a ubiquitous sight. We should be able to grow our own veggies without the government showing up to stop that.
There's so much we can do, that complete disengagement from the project of the state seems to me to be counter productive to actually helping people. In another example, one of the most powerful tools we have are Unions. But without government protection we know cooperations will do everything up to and including murdering their work force to prevent unionization. And yeah we can murder them right back. But there's always guns for money, so that's not a winning battle.