Is it still libertarianism if those freedoms donāt exist anymore? I donāt think libertarians argue for no regulations.
Regarding the bad people, the trick is that bad people donāt look bad, much like captured markets offer the illusion of choice. So itās difficult to vote them out.
The thing is that we argue different moments in development. You compare the correction of the corrupted states whereas I was talking about maintaining the functioning states.
Itās strictly speaking not libertarian, but libertarianism is a left wing ideology and the post is clearly referring to the right wing self-ascribed ālibertariansā who do in fact argue against regulations roughly indiscriminatelyā¦
I never said itās easy to vote them out, I said itās easier than holding corrupt private executives accountable, for the same captured market illusion of choice reasons.
Donāt understand what youāre trying to say in the last part, donāt think your assessment really reflects my goals, sorry.
Sorry for the wrong assessment.
There can be rough ālibertariansā but I think most donāt want to dismantle a libertarian state but instead want to create one. A lost opportunity where left and right could meet.
To me, the meme is not clearly right wing because the clown looks like the joker.
Let me shift the last part a bit. Corrupt executives are expected. Thatās why freedom is important so that nobody is locked in with them. The same cannot be said for civil servants. As long as a party covers important topics, it can be corrupt in many other areas and voters cannot change anything.
I just donāt see the distinction. Without a government with actual regulatory teeth, those corrupt executives are just as liable to lock people in. Dismantling state power just gives those executives more opportunities to abuse their power. You canāt reduce government and expect private interests to not fill the vacuum. The concept that private executives with no voter accountability would be less corrupt than politicians is wholly ridiculous.
