Ayn Rand style, “Don’t tread on me” objectivists, no. But they just co-opted the term. Libertarianism is pretty much anarchism, which is incomoatible with right wing beliefs, no matter what an-caps try and tell you. A right wing social order necessitates hierarchy, which anarchism is diametrically opposed to.
Libertarians promote “natural” hierarchy; the ones based on slavery, inheritance, and other mechanisms of white supremacy. And ultimately, the hierarchy of money which translates to power. To say they don’t believe in hierarchy when they’re the party of the robber baron who believe the bosses have the right to murder striking workers, even child workers, is frankly silly.
It’s not on anarchist ideology really because of this and only appeals to disinfranchised people if they haven’t bothered to do the math.
It’s like you only read two words of my comment. The dickhead rightoidswho call themselves libertarian are NOT libertarian. It is a left wing ideology. You cannot have a society that is both right wing and libertarian. It is impossible.
That is exactly why those fuckheads bring in bullshit like “natural hierarchy”, to jam their square beliefs into the round hole that is a classless ideology.
They took a word that already had a meaning, and tried to invert it.
Yes, it is beyond bonkers to suggest that crypto fascists want to flatten hierarchies. That is why it’s maddeningly stupid for them to call themselves libertarians. Agreeing with them and calling them libertarians is just feeding their lie.
My point was that anarchism is not compatible with capitalism because capital is a form of hierarchy.
And I read your post. Yes, tea party libertarians ultimately lean more big government authoritarian than strict libertarians should.
But libertarians aren’t anarchist because they ultimately use the power of money and privilege to create hierarchy and control others. They just don’t want democracy (i.e. governments) interfering in that power.
While yes, libertarian is originally a leftist term, that’s not what I meant.
I meant the first comment saying most people on new tech are leftists is wrong. Most people who are technophilic are liberals. As in US style Democrat liberals. Which are NOT leftists. At all.
Ayn Rand style, “Don’t tread on me” objectivists, no. But they just co-opted the term. Libertarianism is pretty much anarchism, which is incomoatible with right wing beliefs, no matter what an-caps try and tell you. A right wing social order necessitates hierarchy, which anarchism is diametrically opposed to.
Libertarians promote “natural” hierarchy; the ones based on slavery, inheritance, and other mechanisms of white supremacy. And ultimately, the hierarchy of money which translates to power. To say they don’t believe in hierarchy when they’re the party of the robber baron who believe the bosses have the right to murder striking workers, even child workers, is frankly silly.
It’s not on anarchist ideology really because of this and only appeals to disinfranchised people if they haven’t bothered to do the math.
It’s like you only read two words of my comment. The dickhead rightoidswho call themselves libertarian are NOT libertarian. It is a left wing ideology. You cannot have a society that is both right wing and libertarian. It is impossible.
That is exactly why those fuckheads bring in bullshit like “natural hierarchy”, to jam their square beliefs into the round hole that is a classless ideology.
They took a word that already had a meaning, and tried to invert it.
Yes, it is beyond bonkers to suggest that crypto fascists want to flatten hierarchies. That is why it’s maddeningly stupid for them to call themselves libertarians. Agreeing with them and calling them libertarians is just feeding their lie.
My point was that anarchism is not compatible with capitalism because capital is a form of hierarchy.
And I read your post. Yes, tea party libertarians ultimately lean more big government authoritarian than strict libertarians should.
But libertarians aren’t anarchist because they ultimately use the power of money and privilege to create hierarchy and control others. They just don’t want democracy (i.e. governments) interfering in that power.
That’s not anarchy but feudalism.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying… that is why they cannot call themselves libertarians. It’s a corruption of what the term means.
While yes, libertarian is originally a leftist term, that’s not what I meant.
I meant the first comment saying most people on new tech are leftists is wrong. Most people who are technophilic are liberals. As in US style Democrat liberals. Which are NOT leftists. At all.
Why on earth would you say most tech heads are liberal?
Why would you say they aren’t ? They all buy in hard into capitalism.
Where are all these leftist techies?
You think every tech enthusiast “buys hard into capitalism”?
Hyperbole my friend. Exaggeration.
But to be much more precise and literal: a good amount of them. Likely even a majority, do.