"Libertarian" always seems like a misnomer. Libertarians only want people like themselves to experience liberty. They aim to do nothing to address inequities like social and systemic discrimination against LGBT+ people, BIPOC, women, and others. They aim to do nothing to address poverty. It's social darwinism at its ugliest. This is why they are practically indistinguishable from conservatives here in the US -- the way they arrive may look different, but the outcomes are the same. At best, they are wearing blinders. At worst, they actively support the power structures and systems that result in things like poverty and abuse.

People who legitimately do seek liberty should instead be looking to things like anarchism, which is interested in addressing the root causes of all of these problems, such as hierarchies and the state.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"Libertarian" used to be a synonym for left-wing anarchism until Murray Rothbard purposefully co-opted the term and even bragged about it.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago

Yep it's just a propaganda campaign.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fellow left-wing anarchists: should we just give up on trying to reclaim this word? What do you call yourself among people who don't know the context?

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago

In Europe it's way more ambiguous. Also: you can simply specify "left-wing", or "right-wing" libertarian.

I usually just say "anarchist", though ;)

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

People who legitimately do seek liberty should instead be looking to things like anarchism

Interestingly, 'libertarian' was originally a euphemism for 'anarchist', until it was co-opted by the right

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can't fully experience liberty unless everyone is free

[–] explodicle@local106.com 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I've had this conversation, he thought everything would be fine if we eliminated zoning laws.

[–] Adori@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hell yeah, now Industry can have its workers live next to them, no more commutes! They'll be so healthy :) /s

[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Seriously though, being able to work somewhere that's within walking distance, so it's possible to have a job without also needing a car or spending hours taking the bus, is a great advantage for the person as well

[–] jcg@halubilo.social 6 points 2 years ago

I agree which is why I think remote work is the way to go for jobs that it can work for.

However, I think that guy was talking about industry pollution messing up the environment around. But I think that's a separate issue entirely and needs to be handled by another set of laws.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 8 points 2 years ago

I mean, wasn't the elimination (or extreme relaxation by American standards) of zoning laws one of the ways Tokyo has been able to afford to house so many people at such affordable rates?

Not saying we need kindergartens between the sewage recycling plant and the land fill, but being able to build housing over shopping centers would be nice.

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

Easy: Let them starve and the invisible hand will take care of their bodies

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

I like this meme, and praise Dale raise hell, but I really like Jeff Gordon :/

[–] knorke3@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

if there's enough people who can't afford a home, there will suddenly be a lot more homes on the housing market - thought that one was obvious... /s

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Raise Hell, Praise Dale!

[–] karakoram@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Charity.

[–] ComaScript@monyet.cc 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wonder why communist China has so many homeless if homelessness is a feature of capitalism

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Got any sources on Chinese homeless populations compared to American homeless populations?

[–] Pssdoff@beehaw.org -3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yes, we should all look at how we eradicated homelessness in SanFrancisco with leftist policies, and spread that shining example to every city.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

wHy cAnT sAn fRaNcIsCo sOlVe tHe sYsTeMiC pRoBlEm oF hOmElEsSnEsS? CHeCkmAte! RiP lEfTiSm 🤓

[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 7 points 2 years ago

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Every state in the USA is still capitalist regardless of which party is ruling

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 1 points 2 years ago

I mean, yes, technically that isn't wrong.

But let's be real, to say (or imply) that all regions operate at the same level of "capitalism" is a disingenuous argument. It seems that if the housing issue in the US were this truly the fault of capitalism, then one would expect that more leftist variations to produce better results for solving homelessness.

While not familiar with the data on this, it's my understanding that large cities in left leaning states tend to do worse at finding/providing long term housing to unhoused people.

I'm open to looking at contrary data, but that's really what it'd take to sway my opinion on the matter.