Comment on Anon judges Karl

• frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The terms are not mutually exclusive, you can want more things to be publicly owned or operated but still want some forms of private ownership such as in the case of owning a home.

  Do I think corporations should own the land for corporate enterprises or even for apartment buildings? Fuck no, that should be public since the land owners are incompetent and will try to generate a profit on things like hospitals, low income housing, or forcing out all of the good restaurants in the community.

  Individual ownership for private use I don’t see a problem with though, such as home ownership, at least for one house. Although I see that as an incentive that should be there to encourage and reward work. Transportation could be mostly solved by a better public transit system that was connected.

  Medical care, insurance, social security, childcare expenses, and many more could be covered by taxes, at least taxes on corporations. Yet alone having something like a Universal Basic Income to cover people’s daily expenses. There could be better union protections and such but I feel that’s branching the conversation off a bit much.

  source

  • ddplf@szmer.info ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’m sorry but you completelly misunderstand the idea of liberalism.

    No, ‘wanting to have some stuff privatized’ is not liberal. If we’re going that route of thinking and we only focus on privatization, then being a liberal starts at “I’m extremely fucking enthusiastic about privatizing EVERYTHING”, not “yeah, it’s ok to have some things private i guess idk”

    Do I think corporations should own the land for corporate enterprises or even for apartment buildings? Fuck no, that should be public since the land owners are incompetent and will try to generate a profit on things like hospitals, low income housing, or forcing out all of the good restaurants in the community.

    Congrats, you are most likely NOT a liberal.

    Individual ownership for private use I don’t see a problem with though, such as home ownership, at least for one house. Although I see that as an incentive that should be there to encourage and reward work. Transportation could be mostly solved by a better public transit system that was connected.

    Oh yeah, such a disagreeable thing for non-liberals, huh? Very controversial, we socialists want to have EVERYTHING public, NO EXCEPTIONS! No, actually no.

    Medical care, insurance, social security, childcare expenses, and many more could be covered by taxes, at least taxes on corporations. Yet alone having something like a Universal Basic Income to cover people’s daily expenses. There could be better union protections and such but I feel that’s branching the conversation off a bit much.

    Yup, that’s definitely not a thing a liberal would say.

    source

    • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Black and white thinking doesn’t make sense here. The initial premise you give that liberals really only want private ownership for everything all of the time doesn’t line up with reality, especially in regards to younger people that are more liberal and left leaning.

      I believe there are more people that can look around at their local community and see “yeah maybe that wasn’t such a good idea that we let private equity bankrupt X local chain to offload their debts”.

      Many people can see there is some nuance of “okay maybe this specific situation we should have had more barriers to prevent”. Less or no corporate landownership is a direct fix to corporate landlords, imo.

      Congrats, you are most likely NOT a liberal.

      I believe you, or perhaps your peers, would still call me a liberal for several reasons. Certainly people on the completely opposite side of the aisle would label me a liberal. The first is that I’m not against the premise of capitalism, the an incentive based economic structure, but moreso the implementation and near-complete disregard of any sort of balancing mechanism. I don’t believe in the nonsense that is spouted as “free market capitalism”, but instead a form of modified capitalism with UBI and unions to put power back into the hands of workers instead of the corporate owners.

      Oh yeah, such a disagreeable thing for non-liberals, huh? Very controversial, we socialists want to have EVERYTHING public, NO EXCEPTIONS! No, actually no.

      Many of your peers differ from your view. Many people I’ve spoken with wanted no forms of private control and no private businesses. I’ve heard many variations of “You lease from the government and then your lease is up”.

      Yup, that’s definitely not a thing a liberal would say.

      I’m a left-leaning liberal, it’s not mutually exclusive. Someone that’s strictly pro-corporate and no government intervention, (e.g., someone right leaning) might be opposed to those things.

      I think you’ll find that the biggest difference between me and someone else that wants the same things for people (UBI, childcare, housing, etc.) is the means in which those goals are achieved. I believe in a multifaceted approach of promoting unionization, working towards collective bargaining agreements, promoting left-leaning politicians at all levels of government, and voting for incremental change along the way as well.

      Some people, online specifically, would rather people check out from all or any of those steps of working towards bringing positive change.

      source