4 ms·

I mean, he’s not wrong. Libertarianism is freedom - for the rich. And concentrated wealth is antithetical to democracy because it’s concentrated power. He’s jus

I mean, he’s not wrong. Libertarianism is freedom - for the rich. And concentrated wealth is antithetical to democracy because it’s concentrated power. He’s just taking libertarianism to its logical extreme by repudiating democracy. Is it any wonder that he has helped fund our decline into authoritarianism? We now have concentration camps, abrogation of the constitution, judicial capture, and the military turned increasingly against American citizens.

betaby 1y ago
> We now have concentration camps, abrogation of the constitution, judicial capture, and the military turned increasingly against American citizens. Other countries got those without paying Palantir billions.
- grafmax 1y ago
  This is part of the fundamental contradiction of libertarianism. Why would those with the power and the purse strings curtail the government (including spending) when it doesn’t suit them? Instead it’s things like environmental regulations and social programs that get cut, tipping society’s imbalances further.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
anonfordays 1y ago
> We now have concentration camps Immigration detention facilities are not concentration camps.
- grafmax 1y ago
  They’re not death camps. But mass detention without due process - that’s a concentration camp.
  - anonfordays 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - grafmax 1y ago
      At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT, people are held without charges, denied timely access to legal counsel, and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention. At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
      - anonfordays 1y ago
        >At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT CECOT is not in the US. >people are held without charges You do not have to be criminally charged to be deported under civil immigration statues. The years of leftists smugly proclaiming "it's a civil violation, not a crime" ended up being a self own. >denied timely access to legal counsel Again, civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel. >and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country. >At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. Not in the US. Deportations to CECOT follow the same practices and statutes as deportations to other countries. >The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. I'll give you this, detention/prisons/etc. centers in the US are universally bad. >The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. It's not punishment, it a temporary holding before deportation. > Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights. Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to stay in the US.
        grafmax 1y ago
- justinrubek 1y ago
  You can put whatever paint you want on a turd and it is miraculously still the same thing.
  - anonfordays 1y ago
    Exactly, you can paint "it's a concentration camp" on the immigration detention facility and it is miraculously still the same thing. Glad you agree, it's not a concentration camp.
    - AlexeyBelov 1y ago
      This account (anonfordays) has never participated in good faith. Why is it still not banned?
      - bpt3 1y ago
        I've been seeing this (calls for bans of accounts who aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals) more frequently here recently. Why?
        buttercraft 1y ago
        >> never participated in good faith > aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals These aren't the same thing
        bpt3 1y ago
        I know, that's my point. Increasingly (from my limited view), people with a progressive viewpoint seem to be making this claim ("account X never participated in good faith and therefore should be banned") without any real grounds for doing so.
        anonfordays 1y ago
        >Why? No wrongthink allowed! Protect the narrative!
js8 1y ago
I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, but he is not even a libertarian ideologically. Somebody who is a boss (owner or manager) in a private company can't be considered to put freedom of his subordinates above all else; it's an authoritarian arrangement. If he was truly a libertarian, he would be either a lone contractor or consider his coworkers to be his peers (e.g. would start a cooperative instead of private company, or he would find a similar position as Linus Torvalds).
mindslight 1y ago
The capital-L Libertarian party is a bastardization of the libertarian conception of freedom based on the longstanding American delusion of "temporarily embarassed millionaires", similar to the philosophy-laundering that goes on in the two major parties. So called "right-libertarianism" as a complete overarching philosophy is a logical contradiction. For example, in the "right libertarian" framework, North Korea is isomorphic to a bastion of freedom - Kim Jong Un simply owns everything, and everyone there has contracted with him with some pretty oneous terms, including making all of their children party to this contract as well. The right-"Libertarians" reading this are now reflexively looking for logical escape hatches - restrictions on the freedom to contract, age of legal personhood, etc - but only because this example is so galling it's setting off the atrophied "leftist" inductive half of their mind. Libertarianism must necessarily be concerned with qualitative outcomes of individual liberty rather than being lured in by axiomatically asserting the existence of freedom by construction (commonly resulting in Newspeak). Analyzing all power structures with an eye for coercion, not falling into the trap of championing new ones with differently-named abstractions while defining away the coercion. The "rightist" deductive logical implication following is of course necessary (one can't get very far without it!), but it is incapable of achieving liberty by itself. Trying to do so inevitably fails spectacularly, which is why there are sibling comments in this thread abusing the concepts of liberty to argue in support of naked authoritarianism.

betaby 1y ago

> We now have concentration camps, abrogation of the constitution, judicial capture, and the military turned increasingly against American citizens. Other countries got those without paying Palantir billions.

grafmax 1y ago
This is part of the fundamental contradiction of libertarianism. Why would those with the power and the purse strings curtail the government (including spending) when it doesn’t suit them? Instead it’s things like environmental regulations and social programs that get cut, tipping society’s imbalances further.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

anonfordays 1y ago

> We now have concentration camps Immigration detention facilities are not concentration camps.

grafmax 1y ago
They’re not death camps. But mass detention without due process - that’s a concentration camp.
- anonfordays 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - grafmax 1y ago
    At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT, people are held without charges, denied timely access to legal counsel, and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention. At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
    - anonfordays 1y ago
      >At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT CECOT is not in the US. >people are held without charges You do not have to be criminally charged to be deported under civil immigration statues. The years of leftists smugly proclaiming "it's a civil violation, not a crime" ended up being a self own. >denied timely access to legal counsel Again, civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel. >and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country. >At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. Not in the US. Deportations to CECOT follow the same practices and statutes as deportations to other countries. >The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. I'll give you this, detention/prisons/etc. centers in the US are universally bad. >The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. It's not punishment, it a temporary holding before deportation. > Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights. Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to stay in the US.
      - grafmax 1y ago
justinrubek 1y ago
You can put whatever paint you want on a turd and it is miraculously still the same thing.
- anonfordays 1y ago
  Exactly, you can paint "it's a concentration camp" on the immigration detention facility and it is miraculously still the same thing. Glad you agree, it's not a concentration camp.
  - AlexeyBelov 1y ago
    This account (anonfordays) has never participated in good faith. Why is it still not banned?
    - bpt3 1y ago
      I've been seeing this (calls for bans of accounts who aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals) more frequently here recently. Why?
      - buttercraft 1y ago
        >> never participated in good faith > aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals These aren't the same thing
        bpt3 1y ago
        I know, that's my point. Increasingly (from my limited view), people with a progressive viewpoint seem to be making this claim ("account X never participated in good faith and therefore should be banned") without any real grounds for doing so.
      - anonfordays 1y ago
        >Why? No wrongthink allowed! Protect the narrative!

js8 1y ago

I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, but he is not even a libertarian ideologically. Somebody who is a boss (owner or manager) in a private company can't be considered to put freedom of his subordinates above all else; it's an authoritarian arrangement. If he was truly a libertarian, he would be either a lone contractor or consider his coworkers to be his peers (e.g. would start a cooperative instead of private company, or he would find a similar position as Linus Torvalds).

mindslight 1y ago

The capital-L Libertarian party is a bastardization of the libertarian conception of freedom based on the longstanding American delusion of "temporarily embarassed millionaires", similar to the philosophy-laundering that goes on in the two major parties. So called "right-libertarianism" as a complete overarching philosophy is a logical contradiction. For example, in the "right libertarian" framework, North Korea is isomorphic to a bastion of freedom - Kim Jong Un simply owns everything, and everyone there has contracted with him with some pretty oneous terms, including making all of their children party to this contract as well. The right-"Libertarians" reading this are now reflexively looking for logical escape hatches - restrictions on the freedom to contract, age of legal personhood, etc - but only because this example is so galling it's setting off the atrophied "leftist" inductive half of their mind. Libertarianism must necessarily be concerned with qualitative outcomes of individual liberty rather than being lured in by axiomatically asserting the existence of freedom by construction (commonly resulting in Newspeak). Analyzing all power structures with an eye for coercion, not falling into the trap of championing new ones with differently-named abstractions while defining away the coercion. The "rightist" deductive logical implication following is of course necessary (one can't get very far without it!), but it is incapable of achieving liberty by itself. Trying to do so inevitably fails spectacularly, which is why there are sibling comments in this thread abusing the concepts of liberty to argue in support of naked authoritarianism.