The Libertarian party has never been particularly libertarian (I discovered that when I briefly worked for them back in the '80s).
For a while there, through the 90s, the libertarian movement in the US was still relatively libertarian, which is to say, advocates for the liberty of each and all, and it was fairly common to see a distinction made between "libertarians" - advocates of the ideology - and "Libertarians" - followers of the party, who were pretty much just misled idealists and the opportunists who were misleading them.
That all started to change with 9/11 and the Bush presidency, as the movement as a whole started shifting toward right-wing authoritarianism and the party stopped pretending that it had ever been anything else.
Even then though, there was still a vestige of true libertarianism here and there.
That ended though when the GOP co-opted the Tea Party movement and transformed it from a series of protests against Bush's Wall Street bailouts to a traveling right-wing carnival of hate. Virtually overnight, any pretense that US libertarians valued individual liberty (other than their own) entirely vanished, and the few remaining genuine advocates of liberty abandoned the movement.
At this point, the US libertarian movement as a whole has morphed entirely into an especially toxic version of right-wing authoritarianism, and I would fully expect them to support whoever seems most likely to let them shoot people. And that's Trump.
Perhaps it was pre McCarthyism. Though even that would be stretching it. Perhaps McCarthyism helped them coopt what was a solidly left wing ideology. As actual ideological libertarians are against the concept of a party pushing their ideals onto others. Which is just another red flag that American libertarians aren't.
The idea of a libertarian party has always been a bit self-contradictory, though not entirely. The basic idea of libertarianism (narrowly defined - not the broader use of the term in things like the political compass) is specifically to minimize but not entirely eliminate government. That's what distinguishes it from anarchism.
So there's necessarily an immediate issue - which specific functions of government need to be kept in its minimized form? And that's where a party (or something like it) can legitimately come into play. It's still a bit self-defeating though, since such a party obviously should be sharply limited in scope and influence, but that's not the nature of hierarchical organizations. It's not that the idea is immediately contrary to the espoused ideals of the movement, but that it pretty much inevitably will one day grow into something that is.
I don't and never have held with no-true-scotsmanning the supposed wing alignment of whatever it is that one or another person thinks needs to be kept in a "libertarian" system. I always leaned much more toward the left than the right as far as that goes, but I never felt any particular threat from those (the majority even 40 or 50 years ago) who leaned to the right more than the left. Like me, they were fundamentally simply opposed to the whole idea of institutionalized hierarchy, but believed that some amount of it was unavoidable, so they, like me, were prepared to argue for their preference, rather than just taking the fundamentally authoritarian position of, "This is the way it's going to be because we say so, and if you oppose us, we'll shoot you."
I think that the transition to the latter stage was inevitable regardless of which wing the US movement leaned toward. It's not really a trait of the right or the left per se, but a trait of the dominant group, when it's reached the point that its dominance is so well-established that it comes to be seen as a justified state rightfully defended. And unfortunately, as history has shown repeatedly, both political wings are entirely able to reach that point, and at that point, the specific ideology doesn't even really matter any more, since the actual point of the organization is protecting and furthering its own privilege and power, and ideology just determines the rhetoric with which they surround that entirely self-serving endeavour.
Or more simply, I think that if US libertarianism had come to be dominated by left-wingers rather than right-wingers, it's likely that all that would mean in the long run is that the current version of it would be dominated by tankies instead of... whatever the current lot should be called (neo-feudalists? anarcho-fascists? gun nuts? mall ninjas?)
No. That's anarchism and only the most intransigent ideological wings of it at that. That in no way describes libertarianism as originally outlined. It was about maximizing social freedom. As well as public ownership of natural resources. Something right wing Libertarians abhor in practice.
And no there is not a no true Scotsman conundrum when it comes to right wing libertarianism. You cannot be both capitalist and actually libertarian. Capitalists and right wing libertarians reject public ownership of natural resources. And have replaced freedom. With an imaginary concept of personal freedom. No freedom is personal. Freedom belongs to everyone or it isn't freedom. If it belongs to you personally, it's called privilege. And if something is a freedom. And anyone is unable to access it. Then they are being denied their freedoms. It's a basic core incompatibility.
My wife, AMAB, had gynecomastia- she grew breasts during puberty, and they were removed in what started as a LOCALIZED ANESTHETIC operation, and when the pain was too much she was put under.
She started hormones years later and fortunately grew breast tissue again, but why did someone cut her up like that in the first place, huh?
Where was her protection?
Oh right, its fine to force surgery on kids if its cis gender affirmation, but can't allow them to make any other decisions.
I don't. I think an uncircumcised dick looks gross. But I'm in favor of not opting kids into a choice they can't unmake. I'm not having kids, so I haven't researched the medical benefits either way.
And it's accurate to say that the GOP gives zero fucks about anything productive like protecting children. Party of fear and hate.
There's little medical benefit, really. Less chance of catching STDs and less chance of UTIs.
It's also the most sensitive part of the penis. Which is why it's removed. Kellogg (the cereal baron), thought masturbation was gross and thought if he spread propaganda encouraging the medical establishment to remove it, boys would touch themselves less.
Also, you think it looks gross because of his propaganda. An intact dick is no uglier than an intact pussy, really. Outside your conditioning, anyway. And cutting up babies because an oligarch didn't want boys touching themselves is gross. And it does hurt children.
Yet the GOP doesn't give a shit because this isn't about helping kids. But hurting trans people.
It's a good thing Threatening Lawmakers is ILLEGAL and the Republicans doing are being thrown in Jail for an appropriate amount of time to further deter this behavior!
There’s a good chance that most of the protestors weren’t going to be voting anyway. As I understand demographics, every election year, the “SJW” types aren’t counted on to participate.
I'd hope that most Muslims are intelligent enough to put their emotions aside & vote for the candidate that hasn't committed to stripping birthright citizenship & mass exile of Muslims post-election.
On April 6, 2023, the Anheuser-Busch stock price was $66.34.
By June 2nd, it had dropped more than $10 to $54.85.
When Alito sold, it had recovered to $56.30.
By October, it would hit $52.83.
He probably should have held since it's $66.84 as of right now.
But this doesn't appear to be a result of any kind of insider trading or anything. If that were the case, he would have made the trade in early April when the fake outrage was starting.
As long as Anheuser-Busch, or a competitor doesn't have a case before the court, I'm OK with this.
Yep, and after looking into this a little, affinity health providers is the culprit. They bought the hospital in 2021. ‘Streamlining’ is one of their key phrases on their website.
Corporations should not be running hospitals with shareholder profit as the primary goal. Hospitals should be owned and run by the communities, or more likely the state, with the goal of providing the best reasonable level of care.
politics
Hot