- 0 Posts
- 317 Comments
2·1 day agoAs the US Congressional commission on similar laws reported decades ago
- age verification is ineffective with highly adverse impacts
- client-side filtering[1] is more effective with less adverse impacts.
Those conclusions still hold today.
ie, parental controls, which have been available & widespread for ages. Parents supply their children with technology & pay for everything they have. It’s entirely within their power to enable parental controls on all their children’s devices instead of expect government to take over their parenting duties. ↩︎
2·2 days agoWhat I got is the EU is made up of 2 legislative chambers
- council of EU: heads of member states
- parliament: directly elected
and an executive European Commission consisting of a commissioner for each state & who are nominated by the council of the EU. The executive proposes/drafts laws for the legislative chambers to approve/reject/amend or request new drafts.
The commission (dickheads who aren’t directly elected) drafted the proposal. The council (head of state dickheads) adopted the draft without the support of key members. Parliament (the directly elected) has strongly organized for a less Orwellian alternative that opposes the draft. A commissioner voiced their support for parliament’s alternative & offered to extend time for negotiations.
8·2 days agoCreate a new community [email protected], post it there, then ban yourself. We don’t need to stop there: create a community [email protected] for every proportion x from 0 to 1. Great justice will be had.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights.
Was answered with
What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
and counterexample of liberal socialism.
And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property.
Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition. I already wrote about “personal property” & "means of production”.
Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[1], yet people have private property rights. Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn’t prohibit the right to have property.
fucking Proudhon
Don’t know, not critical to the argument. The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn’t an economic philosophy.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
China at least is fucking big
That doesn’t explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing. All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions. Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don’t need it.
social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right
Again
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.
Lapses from a philosophy don’t inform us about the propositions of that philosophy. Are liberalism & socialism consistent together? Philosophies combining both exist.
Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?
those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess ↩︎
Suck my battery, beep boop.
A bot wouldn’t fuckup markdown: bot harder?
21·3 days agoNah, straw man & bait.
-
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
-
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.
-
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”. It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
-
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. “Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue. You don’t speak for all socialists.
-
I don’t think the leftists who dislike liberalism understand it or liberal philosophy. Liberalism isn’t intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It’s a moral & political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment in opposition to power imbalances derived from ideologies & traditions that justify divine hereditary privilege, absolute authority of the church & state. To contest the legitimacy of traditional authority, it needed a new basis of legitimacy & found it in liberty.
It holds that individuals have inherent rights & liberties that exist apart from any law just for being human. All individuals have the same fundamental rights, so are fundamentally equal. Legitimate authority must protect these rights. Governments exist for the people, and the people have a right & duty to correct & replace governments with illegitimate authority. That’s the essence of liberal philosophy: legitimate governments protect fundamental rights & liberties of individuals.
It was the original leftism. While left & right varieties of liberalism exist, its leftist varieties are more coherent. All the ideals in opposition to traditional power imbalances serve as well to oppose authoritarianism in general.
Legitimate leftism should oppose authoritarianism due to the power imbalances. Liberal socialism is a valid approach to socialism. The social democracies in Europe are another approach to socialism in liberal democracies. All of these are antiauthoritarian leftism.
kink-shaming
Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism
There’s nothing to teach: you’re just wrong. An impure economy doesn’t make their philosophy non-socialist. It promotes a welfare state with a corporatist system of collective bargaining. It’s a gradualist, reformist, democratic approach to socialism.
The US economy is also impure: firms don’t own public services, run welfare, or regulate the markets. By your reasoning, “having characteristics of capitalism” doesn’t “make it capitalist”.
Even economies of USSR & China were/are state capitalist according to communists.
Most current communist groups descended from the Maoist ideological tradition still adopt the description of both China and the Soviet Union as being state capitalist from a certain point in their history onwards—most commonly, the Soviet Union from 1956 to its collapse in 1991 and China from 1976 to the present.
Did they fulfill their civic duty? Did they meaningfully fight to defend their cause?
If they fell short of their own expectations, they’ll feel shame.
The ones that didn’t give up & dismantle themselves, because they couldn’t deliver on their promises[1] or beat the west even on their own terms & measures of success[2]?
Other communist states still exist: Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea. China is a strong contender. However, it achieved its economic edge by liberalizing its state capitalist economy. Its economic inequality is worse than that of liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients. Its civil & political rights are difficult to understate & its recent campaign to repress its LGBT+ population is only the latest episode. Nonetheless, it’s credibly a “more successful iteration of socialism”.
Beyond communist states, social democracies in the West are “successful iteration[s] of socialism” with lower economic inequality.
The Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn’t realize.
- labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
- continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
- steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).
It never fulfilled its founding promise of a communist society. ↩︎
Forced labor camps/Gulags are the opposite of labor free from exploitation.
When the wall fell, East Germany was significantly poorer than West Germany: GDP per capita less than half with lagging living standards. Other economies that started poorer than East Germany beat it or caught up to West Germany.
Chronic shortages increasingly led people to the second economy with its blat (favors) network. They were unable to sustain economic growth to increase living standards.
The Soviet experience of socialist ownership and the concomitant centrally planned character of the economy showed the difficulties of realizing economic growth in order to ensure an increasing standard of living. Growth in the Soviet Union had been high in the nineteen thirties and early fifties, but had been deteriorating ever since.
Eventually, the last Soviet leaders, conceding failure by their own standards (economic, social, & cultural rights) & western standards (civil & political rights), dismantled the system from within: Western governments had exceeded their communist state by all standards.
↩︎The end of the Cold War has changed the focus of the debate on human rights. The West, with its focus on civil and political rights, no longer opposed the Soviet states, with their emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights. The demise of the communist systems gave rise to a certain extent of triumphalism in the West, which had proven to be not only superior in political and civil rights, but also in economic and social rights. The economies of the western countries produced much more income and the material welfare of their populations was much higher than that of those living in Eastern Europe.
You’re basically admitting to poor reading comprehension & ignorance of references cited in the articles.
Any dipshit knows that an ideology that is pro-capitalism can’t be leftist. That’s just basic politics really.
Not talking about capitalism, talking about liberalism: liberal leftists exist. Some are socialist. Political scientists recognize them as leftist. Deal with it.
As the article you mischaracterize states
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy
not an economic one.
liberalism is about liberty from unlimited authority
As the name indicates, liberalism concerns liberty: it’s essentially the position that
- governments exist for the people
- individual human rights & liberties are fundamental
- authority is legitimate only when it protects those fundamental rights & liberties
- the people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority.
In particular, when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty to replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy. Such a government prohibits unlimited authority, so it’s mutually exclusive with authoritarianism.
The article continues that liberalism is
based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law
which reaffirms earlier points & then some. It emerged from the Enlightenment when the authoritarianism of its time was the exclusive power & social hierarchy of feudal, absolute monarchy & aristocracy.
Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law.
Anyone who read history or philosophy & thought seriously would know this.
Irrelevant, because again
-
Justice is not a 0-sum game: generalizing the increase in penalties to any gender hatred accomplishes the same without gender discrimination.
-
Did you know there are other genders in the world? Your bias is showing.
Maybe bring that up with the Italian government.
Not arguing with them, arguing with your immoral defense.
I’m not continuing this conversation with you though.
As if anyone should care? Abandon your argument: it’s clearly not worth defending.
-
Liberalism is not strictly left or right. It’s anti-authoritarian, and authoritarianism is a type of political inequality maintained by a social hierarchy of political subjugation.
Political scientists recognize leftist liberals
Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.
Modern US liberalism consists of progressives & social liberals. Liberal socialism is a liberal variety of socialism. Social democracy is a form of socialism within liberal democracy. All these ideologies are liberal & leftist, and some are even socialist.
Maybe you should pick up that book.
3·8 days agoI like pretending to be a bot for the extra charm: beep boop.
What does that even mean?
That all still seems like catastrophizing over videos, images, text on a screen that can’t compel action or credible harm. I expect that lawsuit to go nowhere.