56
Tankies can't understand why they're losing members
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
56 points (86.8% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1299 readers
196 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not sure what people call libertarianism here. For me it's the american mad child of anarchism, individualism and far right capitalism. Certainly not something I would support !
my local libertarians unironically said that people shouldn't pay for roads. They also ranted about drag queens despite them not existing in my area.
Libertarian just screams to me, 'remove minimum wage! more power to corporations! sell your health!'
Well, there are those. But libertarianism is a big tent, with everything from socialism to anarcho-capitalism underneath it.
I went into detail on my personal ideology using specific issues as examples. I think drag queens are great, and I'd love to take my kids to a drag queen story telling session (provided the show was intended for kids). I think road users should pay for roads, and they should pay roughly proportional to their destruction of the roads (i.e. trucking companies should pay much more than regular cars), and we should be investing in alternatives to using roads (so trains, cycle paths, etc) because that should reduce overall costs.
I do believe in eliminating the minimum wage, but that's because I believe in the NIT (Negative Income Tax), so if you make under a certain amount, you'd receive a check in the mail, which would replace the minimum wage (i.e. it would guarantee everyone makes at least $7.5-15/hour, adjusted to local cost of living). I also believe in less power to corporations, and we get there by making it easier for small companies to compete against large orgs (i.e. remove liability protections for larger orgs).
No minimum wage is fucking stupid
Why? All a minimum wage does is prevent people from taking jobs that would otherwise go to automated systems. If someone wants to work for $5/hr, who am I to say that's wrong?
The real concern here, I think, is that the minimum wage isn't enough to sustain an individual or a family. The solution there isn't to raise the minimum wage, but to ensure everyone has enough, regardless of wage. So hand out cash so everyone has enough, and then let people work for whatever price they want. Cash handouts should only go to citizens or permanent residents IMO, but everyone is free to compete for whatever wage they feel is fair, and wealthy people can pay the difference.
Without minimum wage, companies will pay their workers the absolute least. That's why there's a minimum wage!
And that's irrelevant if we have other mechanisms to ensure everyone has a minimum standard of living. If you are above the poverty line regardless, you wouldn't have to take poorly paying jobs if you didn't want to, but that shouldn't restrict others from choosing to take that job.
Once you start talking about other mechanisms that don't exist, then your ideology is a fairy tale. Libertarianism is stupid, it won't ever work.
So, proposing policy changes makes an ideology "a fairy tale"? How else are we supposed to actually make changes?
I would never support eliminating the minimum wage w/o some kind of replacement. But I also won't support increasing the minimum wage in lieu of a replacement, because increasing the minimum wage often does more harm than good in the short and medium terms (kills jobs and encourages longer-term replacement of those jobs w/ AI).
Some hardcore libertarians say "no welfare and no minimum wage," but most serious libertarians take a more moderate approach. So ignore the crazies that say we should radically change the entire economy "because principles" and listen mostly to those who want to make smaller changes to reduce initiation of force.
What will stop manufacturers from putting cheap carcinogens in their products?
What stops monopolies from suddenly deciding to pay as little as they can?
What stops corporations from paying as little as they want?
What happens to consumer standards and laws?
How will you assist the impoverished?
How will you stop poverty?
How about taxes?
Social services?
Where even is your evidence that removing minimum wage increases job growth? Ridiculous line of 'thinking'
In fact, I don't even care. Libertarianism is fucking stupid and will always be stupid and will always fail because it is inherently stupid.
The same thing that stops them today... public outcry and lawsuits after the fact. Regulations are generally reactionary.
Likewise for monopolies et al. They happen with strict regulations, and it's pretty clear that corporations lean on regulations to protect them from what would otherwise be a lawsuit. Look at how ineffective fines are for violating regulations, they're largely a cost of doing business at this point and are almost never enough to actually compensate those injured.
The general libertarian position is that we can reduce a lot of them to fraud. Right now, companies can cover for their lies in the fine print, whereas a reasonable person would consider that to be misleading and fraudulent. If there was a real risk of that corporation going under and the owners getting sued personally for fraud, companies would likely act a lot more reasonably.
One change here could make a ton of difference: remove limited liability protections for corporations over a certain size. If Boeing fails to ensure their airplanes are safe, those in charge of cutting QC spending should be held liable for criminal negligence. If your local mom and pop restaurant has an ecoli outbreak, they probably shouldn't go to jail, but they may need to go out of business if they were negligent.
The more laws we have, the more having expensive lawyers can protect the wealthy from consequences by finding loopholes and whatnot. I'm not saying we should eliminate all laws, but we should certainly reevaluate the ones we have to determine if they're actually protecting people equitably, or if they unfairly protect the rich.
Libertarianism isn't an end goal, it's a general direction, so everyone is going to disagree on the exact policies here.
My personal opinion is to do something like UBI, more specifically a Negative Income Tax (NIT). If you earn less than some amount, you should be a net receiver of tax dollars, and that should scale back the more you make.
We could probably get this today by switching Social Security to this NIT program without increasing taxes. Basically, we'd ensure everyone eligible is above the poverty line, and nobody over a "living wage" (say, 2-3x the poverty line) gets benefits. That would turn SS into an actual safety net instead of a retirement program, and some back-of-the-napkin math says the current SS tax rates should be enough. I don't think we should switch to it overnight, but phasing it in while phasing out other welfare systems is certainly something I'd be in favor of.
This isn't consistent with the "ideal" libertarian policy of no public welfare, but it is consistent with the direction libertarians would like to go, which is simpler government. Making government less subjective is a good thing, and welfare programs are absolutely subjective and unfairly distributed (many don't bother applying when they'd totally qualify). A Negative Income Tax is automatic, you file taxes, and if you qualify, you get benefits. It's similar to the EITC, but removes the requirement to earn an income.
It's simple supply and demand. If you reduce the costs of supply, businesses will create more jobs. That's why reducing the Fed rates works to stimulate the economy, lower borrowing rates means fewer impediments to expansion, which leads to more jobs. That's the foundation of fiat monetary policy, and cutting the minimum wage is simply another way to accomplish the same thing.
I can also point to numerous examples where increasing the minimum wage, especially rapidly, results in fewer jobs. Yes, those jobs tend to be better, but that doesn't matter if you're not one of the lucky few who get it. Here's an article about just that.
Libertariansism is just edgy facism. They pretend to have different ideals but in reality they only care about stomping on others.
Then I guess I'll describe a few policies I believe in and how that fits into my personal ideology. In general, libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, meaning if it requires an initiation of force to achieve some ends, it's immoral. Many libertarians are willing to throw some asterisks on there for pragmatism, so I'm more interested in libertarianism as a direction, not an end goal.
Welfare
I support a UBI-like program called NIT. Basically (FPL = federal poverty line, LW = living wage):I want to eventually replace current welfare programs, but I'd start with Social Security, which rewards based on how much you put in, instead of how much you need. I think we should flip that on its head and give more to people with less saved, and nothing to people above a certain retirement income (they don't need it), so it would be an actual safety net instead of a retirement plan. Benefits would be adjusted based on local cost of living.
Justification:
I find redistribution of wealth to technically go against the NAP (i.e. take from one to give to another), but welfare programs are worse because it generally rewards those with the time to navigate the welfare system. This would be automatic, when you file your taxes, if you're below a certain income limit, you start getting payments.
Immigration
I'd like to move toward open borders, and make the immigration process as easy as possible. I'd make a one-time offer to currently undocumented immigrants to become documented; if they currently have a job or means to support themselves, they can stay, with some contingencies (i.e. start filing taxes, etc). I'd also increase the quotas for legal immigration, and work visas would constitute a 5-minute form, monthly digital reports for the first year to document your job situation, and if you get a stable job, this temporary visa would transform into a permanent one.Justification:
Restricting free movement is immoral and against the NAP, unless there's a legitimate reason to believe you're moving with malicious intent (i.e. you'll likely hurt someone).
Taxes
We should require a balanced budget on average (say, over 10-years, tax revenue should match spending). A big part of this is spending cuts, primarily on our ridiculous defense spending.
Justification:
Taxes should be progressive, simple, and sufficient to fund the government. Taxes are a larger aggression against the poor than the wealthy. We should lean on Pigouvian taxes before resorting to regulations.
Social Issues
Justification:
In general, if doing X doesn't impact others, X should be allowed. If doing X hurts yourself, doing X should be allowed, but controlled such that those selling it would have a duty of care (can't provide to those they believe it would hurt). This would be broad enough to apply to things like credit cards, gambling, and microtransactions in games.
For abortion, the rights of the mother and fetus need to be protected. To do that:
IP Law
Justification:
IP law in general is illegitimate, but smaller creators need some protection from larger orgs that can beat them in production and marketing. IP law has been abused by large orgs against smaller creators, so it needs to be rolled back, but I think eliminating it entirely is also irresponsible.
Foreign Policy
In general, I believe in:
So I generally agree with Democrat rhetoric about social policy, Republican rhetoric about fiscal policy, and I disagree with both about most of what they actually do.