If rights to one person contradict the rights of another, resulting in loss and harm then guess what? Individual rights aren’t being mandated and upheld and that’s not Liberalism
I dont think you’re getting it, honestly. There are a ton of examples where liberalism exposes tensions between individual and collective rights, and most of them revolve around the right to property. Liberal democracies are constantly having to enforce new regulations because capital owners are constantly finding new ways to abuse their ownership of property in ways that harm others. You can say all you want that isn’t ‘true liberalism’, but then what democracy would qualify then? What happens when the accumulation of wealth under liberal democracy leads to such a disparity of power that government can no longer function as a regulating body? hint, you’re living it, bud
No, they don’t, because that has never existed
Are you sure? There have been no examples of socialized systems of production?
I think you’re confusing socialist and communist states with socialist and communist systems.
Liberal democracies are constantly having to enforce new regulations because capital owners are constantly finding new ways to abuse their ownership of property in ways that harm others.
I think you accidentally just said the antithesis to your entire argument by claiming liberals are protecting individual rights from those who would take advantage of them.
Personally I think a much bigger issue is that no rights are being protected and we’re devolving into a white nationalist militaristic dictatorship which refuses to tax the rich.
But keep wingeing about the horrors of copyright laws and small scale landlords.
Nah, I can just see past the noise of nationalism to what systemic conditions gave rise to it. Thinking we can return to liberal democracy without seizing some portion of our means of production away from private ownership is nothing more than naivete.
I dont think you’re getting it, honestly. There are a ton of examples where liberalism exposes tensions between individual and collective rights, and most of them revolve around the right to property. Liberal democracies are constantly having to enforce new regulations because capital owners are constantly finding new ways to abuse their ownership of property in ways that harm others. You can say all you want that isn’t ‘true liberalism’, but then what democracy would qualify then? What happens when the accumulation of wealth under liberal democracy leads to such a disparity of power that government can no longer function as a regulating body? hint, you’re living it, bud
Are you sure? There have been no examples of socialized systems of production?
I think you’re confusing socialist and communist states with socialist and communist systems.
I think you accidentally just said the antithesis to your entire argument by claiming liberals are protecting individual rights from those who would take advantage of them.
Yes, they are protecting individual rights to property, and that’s a huge issue.
Personally I think a much bigger issue is that no rights are being protected and we’re devolving into a white nationalist militaristic dictatorship which refuses to tax the rich.
But keep wingeing about the horrors of copyright laws and small scale landlords.
Nah, I can just see past the noise of nationalism to what systemic conditions gave rise to it. Thinking we can return to liberal democracy without seizing some portion of our means of production away from private ownership is nothing more than naivete.
But keep winging about the horrors of socialism.
Lmfao, Tankies talking about nationalism and the conditions that give rise to authoritarianism. What a fucking joke.
Lmao, liberals deluding themselves thinking authoritarianism just pops into existence out of happenstance