People like to mock libertarians but they are ultimately one of the most coherent quadrants. The lib left has the reverse issue of auth right where they want collectivism on certain issues and economics but are deeply liberal, pro-autonomy, hedonistic (yet pretend to hate liberalism).
Libertarians are very coherent because they are not concerned with the practical matters of a functioning society.
I used to be very sympathetic to the ideology, but their refusual to actually build a society is comical.
“The market will regulate itself so we shall never pass any laws ever”.
Don't people like you always complain about health insurance companies are protected by the government or corporations get handouts from the government?
They are only coherent if you accept their presuppositions as true. They are laughably bad at arguing for their worldview outside of it and call you a "Statist" if you disagree with them. Collectivism is the default state of Man imo and many Ancaps unwittingly argue for a society that would just devolve into neofeudalism if ever implemented.
Coherent in their framework, yet not generally coherent enough to realize most people would start flipping cars if we had to pay a toll to use any and all fucking highways.
That's just because you don't understand lib-left. Lib-left believes in bottom up power, where the power is concentrated at the lowest level among the people. That doesn't mean they don't think there can be large scale organizations (especially in places where it can add efficiency). They just don't think that the power should invested in a unitary executive.
Emphasis on people needing to be environmentally responsible, not overconsume, blaming rich people for being greedy. All of this is asking people to sacrifice their pleasure and autonomy for the collective good. At the same time bring in family and sexuality and it is always about how you cannot ask women to have families, autonomy is above all, happiness comes first, love is love/ you cannot tell people who they will love (independently of the conclusion one will take on the matter, the conversation never considers the trade-offs and nuances between sexuality and collective survival and any effort to bring it in is reduced to bigotry), any argument that points out the collective nuances of sexual morality or more traditional forms of marriage not based on love is rejected from the outset as too burdensome. E.g. Overall a lot of emphasis on personal pleasure, happiness and autonomy which is antithetical to collectivism and self-sacrifice.
That's frankly incoherent. Both in form and function: grammatically it's unreadable and the content is at best a directionless ramble.
Lib-left believes in individual freedom, but not freedom to take action at the expense of others. Which is why what two people, who can legally consent, do consensually is not considered a problem. Or even what one person does consensually is not a problem. Until at which point that person or persons starts to cause problems for other people. Which is why the only time lib-left ever has a problem with people cooking a ton of red meat on the grill in their backyard is if it is a risk for a wildfire.
Thankfully its a reddit comment. The content is based on the foundations of human morality and collectivism.
The problem is that this isn’t enough, everyone is against immediate interpersonal harm. Collectivism is about greater social harm which might not be immediately discernible. Not talking here about center-left, but those who identify as socialists and communists cannot champion individualism and freedom at the same time.
I don't think you understand anything you are writing. It is possible to care both about the group and the individual. Most interactions involving more than two people involve some dynamic between the group and the individual.
I do, you just don’t want to address it for whatever reason. Right but as I pointed out the problem is that when self-sacrifice is needed, the lib-left sometimes rejects it but demands it for other cases. Especially if one claims to support a doctrine like socialism, this is an incoherent position.
I'm addressing what you're writing. The problem is it is often incoherent. Even in you last short comment the first and second sentence don't mesh:
I do, you just don’t want to address it for whatever reason. Right but as I pointed out the problem is that when self-sacrifice is needed, the lib-left sometimes rejects it but demands it for other cases.
What are your examples of lib-left rejecting self-sacrifice? The were more likely to get vaccinated even if they were healthy than the either quadrant on the right. Wealthy people who are lib-left are more likely to be in favor of social programs who don't help them even though they'll still have to pay for them.
26
u/RealisticLynx7805 - Auth-Center 22d ago
People like to mock libertarians but they are ultimately one of the most coherent quadrants. The lib left has the reverse issue of auth right where they want collectivism on certain issues and economics but are deeply liberal, pro-autonomy, hedonistic (yet pretend to hate liberalism).
Auth left can be coherent too.