Oh I’m fully aware. I’m not a socialist though. I still think capitalism is the best model for innovation it’s just the current system is geared to fuck the small mom and pop and only benefit massive conglomerations. If I was hypothetically in charge I would fully cut corporate welfare and redirect all of that directly to proper funding of essential services and safety nets and infrastructure. If your company requires government handout money to run, it should go under. That’s the capitalism I want to see.
I still think capitalism is the best model for innovation
I disagree. Ever heard a Youtuber saying “I can take the risk of doing something outside my usual videos because of my Patreons” or “my really experimental stuff is on nebualar”? Many scientific innovations stem from state funded projects like the internet or RNA vaccines. The market actually hems innovations because the best way to know that something works is that it worked before. Mark Fisher gets that very well in “Capitalist Realism”.
I’m not trying to be argumentative friend but historically capitalism has led to far more innovation than markets and policies led by State planned production of goods and services. Small independent thinkers and movers have always been able to shake things up far better than the large unwieldedly fist of the state. You are 100% correct though that the major failing factor of this system is convincing other people to fund your ideas. And more intrensically the lack of a safety net to allow creatives to flourish. But I will say if somebody’s life work is to produce media on a platform like YouTube and nobody finds their content moving enough to support it thats a them problem. But if they had the safety nets that I mentioned in my prior comments, then that wouldn’t really be an issue if they didn’t have to worry about starving and going homeless. They may not live very well or be able to fund their side projects very well, but I’d be totally happy with that system.
I don’t understand why you think that is a contradiction. You both agree there’s a spectrum between the two. Technically, if you’re not 100% authoritarian you have a greater-than-zero alignment with libertarianism.
Now, if you’re trying to say landing somewhere in the middle of the spectrum means you’re neither, then I tend to agree with you (labels suck). However, I’d take it a step further and say that nobody is going to be the 100% perfect embodiment of either end of the spectrum, and therefore, no true authoritarian or libertarian exists. I think, to say either one of you is wrong is just arguing semantics.
Do you not understand what a spectrum is? It cannot be both binary AND a spectrum. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Bimodal perhaps (though I don’t think it is in this case), but not binary.
How do you define libertarian?
Also, are you from the USA?
I’m not him, but technically anybody who isn’t an authoritarian is a libertarian. Economic theory is Left Right. Freedom is up down. It’s a spectrum.
Though apparently I’m one of the minority libertarians as I believe in egotistical altruism. Caring about the planet etc.
You should look into Libertarian Socialism or Anarchism. Maybe starting with this video
Oh I’m fully aware. I’m not a socialist though. I still think capitalism is the best model for innovation it’s just the current system is geared to fuck the small mom and pop and only benefit massive conglomerations. If I was hypothetically in charge I would fully cut corporate welfare and redirect all of that directly to proper funding of essential services and safety nets and infrastructure. If your company requires government handout money to run, it should go under. That’s the capitalism I want to see.
Sounds like you might like agorism. (Free Market anarchism).
I disagree. Ever heard a Youtuber saying “I can take the risk of doing something outside my usual videos because of my Patreons” or “my really experimental stuff is on nebualar”? Many scientific innovations stem from state funded projects like the internet or RNA vaccines. The market actually hems innovations because the best way to know that something works is that it worked before. Mark Fisher gets that very well in “Capitalist Realism”.
I’m not trying to be argumentative friend but historically capitalism has led to far more innovation than markets and policies led by State planned production of goods and services. Small independent thinkers and movers have always been able to shake things up far better than the large unwieldedly fist of the state. You are 100% correct though that the major failing factor of this system is convincing other people to fund your ideas. And more intrensically the lack of a safety net to allow creatives to flourish. But I will say if somebody’s life work is to produce media on a platform like YouTube and nobody finds their content moving enough to support it thats a them problem. But if they had the safety nets that I mentioned in my prior comments, then that wouldn’t really be an issue if they didn’t have to worry about starving and going homeless. They may not live very well or be able to fund their side projects very well, but I’d be totally happy with that system.
So libertarian equals extremism?
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
You contradict yourself in the first paragraph.
It is a spectrum, which is why “anybody who isn’t an authoritarian is a libertarian” is not true.
I don’t understand why you think that is a contradiction. You both agree there’s a spectrum between the two. Technically, if you’re not 100% authoritarian you have a greater-than-zero alignment with libertarianism.
Now, if you’re trying to say landing somewhere in the middle of the spectrum means you’re neither, then I tend to agree with you (labels suck). However, I’d take it a step further and say that nobody is going to be the 100% perfect embodiment of either end of the spectrum, and therefore, no true authoritarian or libertarian exists. I think, to say either one of you is wrong is just arguing semantics.
My guy look at the chart
https://images.app.goo.gl/TNe8T87VnGL8mMxR7![https://images.app.goo.gl/TNe8T87VnGL8mMxR7]()
I’m aware of the chart. You are saying that only the two very extremes exist. That’s silly.
You either like authority or you don’t. That’s binary. How much you like or dislike it is the spectrum.
Do you not understand what a spectrum is? It cannot be both binary AND a spectrum. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Bimodal perhaps (though I don’t think it is in this case), but not binary.
Numbers are negative or positive unless they are zero
Gender is also a spectrum, do you agree? So are you saying that means that if you’re not a man, then you’re a woman?