libertarianism

397 readers

1 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property.
In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.
If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed.
Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topic

We are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.

Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informational

In general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.

This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

PropaGandalf

HLMenckenFan

-2

Adjusting the rules to prevent low effort/information spam (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by PropaGandalf to c/libertarianism

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hey fellow libertarians,

I'm writing this post because I really got annoyed by the recent increase of low effort and often also low information posts shared in this community. When I tried formulating the rules when creating this community, my main focus was to create a culture of civil and constructive discussion.

There are a lot of possible ways to contribute to this goal and I don't want to exclude any type of content in any way. But to prevent meaningless spam, I thought about adjusting the 3d rule to better align with the aforementioned goals.

Lemmy offers the great opportunity to share an image or a link together with some text to explain it. Based on this, I'd add something like: "the context and relevance of otherwise textless or shared content should be explained in words by it's contributor." or "the information of shared/remote types of content should be evident from the post itself without the need of visiting the source." Also, we could start requiring a TLDR for shared news posts.

What do you guys think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PropaGandalf 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't want to prohibit anything. Just that the person who shares a link or other remote content adds one or two sentences about what is going on, why they find it relevant to share or a personal statement. Anything that could quickly explain the content and why it was shared.

[–] Rwaterhouse 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Implementing these rules would kill any chance at an active community. Things are already slow here, and the articles have actually spurred some activity. If you prefer no community to a community that doesn’t 100% follow your preferred rules, then go ahead with the plan. This post just sounds like a moderator trying to find an excuse for existence. Getting annoyed by articles that are a common prompt for discussion on many platforms and calling article posts “meaningless spam” is ridiculous.

[–] PropaGandalf 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey man, wanna stay calm? No point calling people names. I wanted to ask you guys how you see it. This is your opinion and I accept it. But don't think that it's more worth than any other persons opinion.

I just wanted to make it easier for people to get the information as I personally hate it getting redirected to another website which may be paywalled or have annoying ads or anything like that just to get some little information.

I would also disagree about the earlier state of this community as it did not have as many posts but the overall discussions were quite more active than they are now.

[–] Rwaterhouse 4 points 1 year ago

I’m perfectly calm and at no point have I engaged in name calling. As for the redirects, nobody is required to take those. Those who want to engage in the discussion more may choose to follow the link, and others will not. No one- or two-sentence description will replace reading the full article. I can’t understand how you think the prior state of the community is superior. Most posts here don’t get more than a handful of comments, be it an external article or an essay written here.