Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Big L little l.
Big L is the party - and yeah, it's just Republicans in a different T-shirt.
Little l is the ideology, which in many ways matches up with what I think, but to get there you need so many social programs to put people on even ground that we should have but don't. Universal healthcare being only one of so, so, so many.
Edit: And just to add, I think Rand was just a precursor to the Big L Libertarians, and little to nothing to do with the little l. You can have true individual liberty without the protections and support to enable those liberties.
What's your definition of liberty here? Just the absence of constraints? As in to be free from sth., opposed to being free to do sth.?
If it is, then sure you can have individual liberty. It's just (almost) utterly useless. Or do I not get your point here?
I think you're missing my point, yes.
Equality in the law, freedom of association, civil liberties, etc., etc. while technically in the US we "have" these freedoms, in reality we do not - we are subject to capitalism with regulatory capture, fines that unfairly punish the poor, so on. I'm on a phone, so I'm not typing out a dissertation.
Probably the best reference would be libertarian socialism or libertarian communism. The right wing Libertarian movement (which is dominant in the US) is really anarchi-capitalism, which is the complete opposite direction of left libertarianism (which is anti-capitalist).
Anyway, yes, there are a variety of ways freedoms are limited by simply being unable to afford things, or even being put into a position where you don't have the time to dedicate to those things. To me, that's fundamentally wrong.
That's what I summarised, aside from the us-centric references. I still don't quite understand the emphasis on "true individual liberty", what that should entail and the meaning of it for the discussion. I agree with everything else you said, that part just isn't clear to me.