• lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      They are socially apathetic. To them, they think all social issues and prejudice just magically resolve. They won’t necessarily condone the persecution of, say, lgbtq+ or various other minorities… But they also won’t lift a finger to stop it either. Their goal is to externalize guilt and responsibility.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Generically corporate-regulation apathetic, too. They think corporations will magically do the right thing, as in not monopolize, pollute, depress wages and benefits, etc.

        They want their utopia and modern conveniences but refuse to pay for any of it.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Oh yeah they don’t even care about negative market externalities. In their utopia they think corporations in the beeline pursuit of profit will just naturally be compelled

          To that I always ask them who would’ve voluntarily promoted EPA regulations on vehicles or safety regulations in such a society? Automobile manufacturers didn’t want to incorporate them as that changes their bottom-line, requires them to re-tool, and raise prices. Consumers didn’t want it either because it would again raise prices while those emission devices reduced vehicle power (my grandpa ripped them off in those early years…).

          The only people advocating for such things were scientists and health experts who had the foresight to understand the consequences. That then only came from Democratic institutions mandating such requirements.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Libertarians: create a regulation to stop systemic bigotry? No, the Invisible Hand will fix that. Obviously stores that do want those customers will open.

        People with functioning brains: looking at history and blinking.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          No you see, it’s those evil regulations that stifle competition. Monopolies definitely wouldn’t form and block out any potential competition.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, I’m a libertarian who was for gay marriage long before it actually became reality

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s great but I don’t believe that changes my overarching point.

          Interestingly by the core tenents of Libertarianism, segregation to colored bathrooms would still be alive and well, since private property and individual freedom reign supreme. There’d be a similar recognition or lack thereof for things like same-sex marriage or Trans rights.

          Taken to its logical conclusion, such a libertarian utopia would be a hodgepodge of private properties with arbitrary and often draconian local laws dictated by landlords. In effect it would probably devolve into something of a feudal system.

          Can’t simultaneously have a small toothless government and at the same time one with enough authority to ensure equal rights and counteract discrimination. There’s a reason the biggest proponents of Individual Freedom and states rights tend to be the most backwards, socially.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t personally believe in segregating bathrooms by gender either. Just go into your stall and do your business. If you want to stand up to pee, that can be in a different compartment

            But if a business wanted segregated bathrooms for different races, they would get protested so hard they would go out of business. This would be a good outcome since the racist business owner would be ruined.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The problem is it doesn’t matter if you don’t personally believe that. What matters is that a vast swath of the dipshit Southern Confederate culture does, and it would be entirely unenforceable to suggest otherwise under such a Libertarian system where private property reigns supreme.

              they would get protested so hard they would go out of business. This would be a good outcome since the racist business owner would be ruined.

              If that was the case, then the Civil Rights Act or Emancipation Proclamation wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. Unfortunately you’d find vast swaths of geographical cesspools where people too unfortunate to be born in that area would be subject to great discrimination.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      And are generally ok with LGBTQIA+, I think it’s important to note.

      • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Generally okay with, but are they generally OK with legislation protecting those individuals/recognizing them as protected under the same laws that protect for factors of sex and race?

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well, we think bigots should be allowed to come out as bigoted so we can cancel them. If they generally hide and still do it sneaky-like, a law wouldn’t stop them

        • quindraco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes, with the caveat that libertarianism is opposed to some of those laws for any group.

          For example, libertarianism strongly condemns murder, but does not support hate crime laws whereby the murderer’s motive becomes a separate crime provided it interacts with a protected class, such as murdering someone based on sex or race.

        • vga@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Probably yes and no: yes insofar that they are for identical rights for everyone, no insofar that they are for identical rights for everyone.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “Okay” with their existence. Not with protecting them from abuse and persecution.

        Which about sums up the fundamental flaw with libertarians and why they are basically chickenshit republicans.

        Everyone has a right to exist. But you are on your own because I am not paying for that since I don’t personally care about it

        It is why the silver bullet is, and always will be, “explain how orphanages work under libertarianism”

        At which point you just have people vaguely saying they support other people’s rights while still wanting to pay no taxes, offer no help to anyone who doesn’t directly impact them, and still want to get everything they want.

        Libertarianism as a personal philosophy? You are an asshole. Libertarianism as a government? You are basically advocating for all the same shit republicans are but are too cowardly to admit what you actually want.

        • vga@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          “Okay” with their existence. Not with protecting them from abuse and persecution.

          I guess it depends on what kind of abuse we’re talking about… but in many places I believe just the cessation of abuse and persecution from the direction of the government would be a pretty big positive change.

          Or perhaps I don’t have enough imagination. Can you tell me what kinds of protection LGBT people need that other people don’t need?

          It is why the silver bullet is, and always will be, “explain how orphanages work under libertarianism”

          Can you elaborate? I don’t get what this is implying.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Libertarians are mostly pro choice, against restricting gambling, against censorship, against mass government surveillance, against NIMBYism, for gay marriage, and trans rights. Find me a conservative that checks even half of those boxes