Well, what they're supporting isn't liberalism, it's socialism. Liberalism requires free speech. Socialism does not. The nanny-state aspect of socialism espouses that the masses are sheep which must be protected from propaganda and sugary drinks. Notwithstanding, I don't think most people believe in socialism or liberalism. I don't think most people believe in freedom. People believe in their freedom. Write a controversial article supporting their beliefs and they cry 'free speech.' Write an article contradicting their beliefs and they cry 'think of the children' and 'national security.'
"sane libertarianism". As opposed to "the state is evil" anarchist libertarianism. People who think that freedom is more than just "everyone does whatever they want", but also think that freedom is not "you must work, you will get paid X, you must not eat X".
libertarianism isn't about unrestrained greed. It's the core ideal that a person should be as free form outside influence as possible, without sacrificing the integrity of society. It all falls down to your definition of free. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and find myself very much in support in things like basic income, road building, and so on. I do not support any fiscal regulation on people, such as demanding they cannot make more than X money, or anything else of that sort. Freedom isn't "government has no say" it is "government takes action to ensure everyone is free to do as they want". Things like basic income are pillars of such things, where a person is free to decide a job is worth the time while knowing they aren't going to starve. Forcing companies to pay good wages, without requiring a minimum, and allowing people to work for whatever they want to, while making sure nobody gets screwed over for doing so.
It hasn't become a pattern, it is one, so far as I have observed. However, it is a better condition on hubski than reddit, because likes are inhrenetly shares, so if one person gets severely upvoted in a conversation, the person arguing against them also gets seen just as much, and not getting shares doesn't hide a person. The real danger is muting, in that aspect, and you will never know how many people are muted, and prevented from speaking in a conversation, while you can see the vote disparity.
Don't apologize for people agreeing with me. Not every opinion deserves respect for being expressed, least of all due to how long it took to write. The Turner Diaries took a long time to write, that doesn't make it a good book. I have like no idea what this guy is trying to say so I'm not going to be able to refute poorly made arguments
Why don't you both stop for a moment and think about the things that you are saying. Voting doesn't ruin a conversation more than treating the other person poorly. Try to remember that the other person is real. If this is how you both treat real people you don't agree with, try to get rid of that as well. It's not good for your health.
The worst part about this site is the haughty opinion of some users that it's more than a link aggregator. Reddit was supposed to be better than digg and it didn't fall off because people weren't making thoughtful comments, reddit got inundated by idiots. Guess what? Reddit, hubski and digg are all link aggregators. If you want to act like every opinion needs to be respected because there's a person behind it then fine but I will call bullshit on it if I think I need to. I'd do it in person too if it didn't cause social friction with people I see every day. I'm depressed and cranky but I mean everything. If you don't drive certain people away from a community it's going to suffer. There are bad ideas. I don't want to hear them.
Then please mute, filter, ignore instead of polluting the discussion with snarky insults. Right now you are the person who is being insulting and disruptive in this conversation. The nice thing about Hubski is that it allows you to neglect your own sense of self control by removing the people you dislike. Or alternatively you could keep it in your own mind. There isn't a point to add-ons like this. All they do is antagonize other people. "Calling bullshit" isn't an appropriate outlook towards social interaction. I don't care about anything in this argument. I do care about how it is conducted.There are bad ideas. I don't want to hear them.
I'm not going to be able to refute poorly made arguments
self serious joy vacuum
Not to defend Hubski but to get your thinking cap on: It's my considered opinion that there was nothing about Digg or Reddit that gave any advantage to thoughtful discussion over thoughtless discussion. I do think that Hubski has a tiny leg up: the fact that you can't vote past 8 and can't downvote at all eliminates most of the magnifiers that refine Reddit and Digg comments to the point of circlejerking. However, architecture only goes so far. At some level, if we want this place to keep from becoming a smaller Reddit we need to pay attention to what works and what doesn't.
once more with feeling: I've got most of these people ignored so I can just sort of go "libertarian circlejerk" and move on. I'm all about libertarians having their place to circlejerk and if they want to encourage and discourage and debate and disseminate and cheer on and shout down that's entirely their prerogative. What you've got here is a viable mechanism whereby it doesn't impact me. The system works. Don't fuck with it without a damn good reason.
Every time you share a post or comment, you are instead linked to a lengthy remonstration reminding you that even the smallest actions have far-reaching moral consequences. And a warning that upvoting a comment has the same legal repercussions that being accomplice to a crime carries. Or just this.
You're the first Libertarian I've met with such opinions. 'Libertarian' is a nebulous term. I prefer the more concrete 'classical liberal.' Whereas you sound closer to a social liberal. Or maybe Left-Libertarianism, another nebulous term. Maybe my confusion is because most self-identified Libertarians are 'Right Libertarians.'It all falls down to your definition of free. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and find myself very much in support in things like basic income, road building, and so on.
Except I did answer your question. Financial regulation, when direct and applied to stopping a person from doing something, does limit personal freedom. When it is taxes, regulations on industry that aren't hard bans on products, and instead forcing them to give information or use certain packaging, and so on, it does not limit personal freedom. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and find myself very much in support in things like basic income, road building, and so on. I do not support any fiscal regulation on people, such as demanding they cannot make more than X money, or anything else of that sort.