No. Liberalism is a center-right to right wing ideology that’s inherently capitalistic and permissive towards business. If Rupert Murdoch was still in Australia, he’d be supporting the Liberal Party.
Libertarian is liberal right on that compass.
Only the ahistorical and deliberately misleading US definition.
I’m not in the US, no, but am intimately familiar with most of the terms, themes and national level events as I’ve been following and debating thoroughly for half my so far 40 years lol, so you don’t have to worry about me not getting it 🙂
That’s not what I mean, I know you will get it. But US politics has a lot of misinformation going on, mixing up terms the US uses for certain things can make the misinformation thrive. In US terms, you sound like a liberal. You don’t want a nanny state, you want a government owned by the people.
Ah ok, sorry about that. I get a lot of people assuming that, so I was the one making an ass out of you and me this time 😁
As for the rest, I think I’m just going to leave it be since I’ve described the broad strokes pretty accurately already and it’s semi-late here so I’m gonna go catch some Zs if I can. Sleep tight yourself when you get that far!
I will never understand that version of what you’re talking about. They should just buy out some land and build their own town, but watch out for bears.
They aren’t confusing the terms. It’s just that “libertarians” in the US are largely viewed as right-wing anti-authority, whereas on the global stage, they’re kindof like normal anarchist-lite. If you say, “well that’s not very specific”, then yes that’s correct.
It’s kind of like when the UK says fanny, they mean vagina and the US means butt. It does and will cause misinformation to thrive. Just because we have 2 different meanings, that doesn’t mean either is wrong.
Libertarian in the US party sense is “Libertarian-Right” whereas Conservatives in America are “Authoritarian-Right.”
Authoritarian-Left and Libertarian-Left essentially share a party in the US with varying degrees of “it’s not left enough” based on their personal feelings toward capitalism/socialism and how much social control the government should apply to make people conform.
Essentially, do you want a nanny state that requires everyone to tow whatever party line and makes all business grossly inefficient as well as corrupt? Or just a government that primarily serves the working class instead of having their hands tied by the owner class through bribes, superPACs, and lobbying in general?
Isn’t that left liberal? Libertarian is liberal right on that compass.
Right goes to laissez Faire markets and liberal is the opposite dimension of authoritarian.
One shame less in your life: you are not reading Ayn Rand.
No. Liberalism is a center-right to right wing ideology that’s inherently capitalistic and permissive towards business. If Rupert Murdoch was still in Australia, he’d be supporting the Liberal Party.
Only the ahistorical and deliberately misleading US definition.
Rupert Murdoch (through his media companies) still very much does support the Liberal party.
Good point. I meant he’d be supporting ONLY the Liberal Party but might as well be accurate 😁
So you’re not in the US? Confusing the terms makes it harder for the US, but probably easier for others ig.
I’m not in the US, no, but am intimately familiar with most of the terms, themes and national level events as I’ve been following and debating thoroughly for half my so far 40 years lol, so you don’t have to worry about me not getting it 🙂
That’s not what I mean, I know you will get it. But US politics has a lot of misinformation going on, mixing up terms the US uses for certain things can make the misinformation thrive. In US terms, you sound like a liberal. You don’t want a nanny state, you want a government owned by the people.
Ah ok, sorry about that. I get a lot of people assuming that, so I was the one making an ass out of you and me this time 😁
As for the rest, I think I’m just going to leave it be since I’ve described the broad strokes pretty accurately already and it’s semi-late here so I’m gonna go catch some Zs if I can. Sleep tight yourself when you get that far!
Thanks for explaining, I think I understand how I feel about things better now too.
You’re very welcome and I’m very happy if you do!
Unless you understand better that you love Ayn Rand now, of course 😛😆
I will never understand that version of what you’re talking about. They should just buy out some land and build their own town, but watch out for bears.
They aren’t confusing the terms. It’s just that “libertarians” in the US are largely viewed as right-wing anti-authority, whereas on the global stage, they’re kindof like normal anarchist-lite. If you say, “well that’s not very specific”, then yes that’s correct.
It’s kind of like when the UK says fanny, they mean vagina and the US means butt. It does and will cause misinformation to thrive. Just because we have 2 different meanings, that doesn’t mean either is wrong.
They still aren’t confusing the terms. They made it very clear where they were coming from and now it’s been clarified further.
Do not demand that the discussion be as ignorant as you were at the start of it. That’s pathetic.
No that’s incorrect. The are right wing as in market liberal but also anti-authorian.
I get the impression that people write different things on their compass but mean the same thing.
Libertarian in the US party sense is “Libertarian-Right” whereas Conservatives in America are “Authoritarian-Right.”
Authoritarian-Left and Libertarian-Left essentially share a party in the US with varying degrees of “it’s not left enough” based on their personal feelings toward capitalism/socialism and how much social control the government should apply to make people conform.
Essentially, do you want a nanny state that requires everyone to tow whatever party line and makes all business grossly inefficient as well as corrupt? Or just a government that primarily serves the working class instead of having their hands tied by the owner class through bribes, superPACs, and lobbying in general?