Discussing - but you did say: "Right-wing people support eco…

“ but you did say: "Right-wing people support economic liberty but are in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police. Left-wing people support economic tyranny with a massive regulatory bureaucracy but are in general less willing to see the government spy on its civilians, and originally many supported a policy of peace and non-intervention, though sadly this has wavered away in recent years, especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House..." which is also wildly incorrect and is the thing I was arguing against.”

Again, I was making a generalisation that does not hold true 100% of the time. I have explained to you what I meant by "economic liberty" so there's no fallacy there, as I have defined my terms and you have defined yours. The true debate should be over why we believe economic liberty is what it is.

“ ...they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party because it sounded positive to the working class voter base, NOT because they were, or had any intentions of being, left-wing. Another easy example is the North Korean state, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; just because a state/party calls themselves something, does NOT mean they actually ARE that thing.”

My point exactly. If so many people have been fooled so many times by authoritarians advocating for things that sound good to time, why should we not be more skeptical of those who promise the very things Hitler did? Historically, these people have a horrible track record of tyranny once they come into office, and it would be presumptuous to assume that's changed now...

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree React Context •••Tell me more Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

2 Replies

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

I have explained to you what I meant by "economic liberty" so there's no fallacy there, as I have defined my terms and you have defined yours. The true debate should be over why we believe economic liberty is what it is.

Yes that is quite literally the entire point I have been trying to make: our own interpretations of "economic liberty" are entirely subjective, and even largely antithetical to each other's, hence why it is not a useful term to claim categorizes left and right-wing ideological thought. We could both have logically sound reasons as to why we believ… Read moree the definitions and categorical metrics that we hold true, while still ultimately having two different conclusions, because we clearly each have differing core values with which we premise our entire perception of reason and morality.

If you want to explain WHY you believe "economic liberty" should be defined by the extensive policy list you gave,

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency, no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts.

then by all means feel free. Personally, I think your description has excessively turned a basic concept into a hyper-specific set of rules and organizational means for structuring an economic/political system. I mean, you're even describing a specific monetary system that requires "gold-backed, uniflatable currency", which is an entirely unrelated thing to the concept of economic liberty. Like, are you implying that economic liberty is impossible under a monetary system backed by silver? Why is that relevant? Why does having economic liberty rely on whether your system has a central bank or not? Your criteria for "economic liberty" just seems ridiculously over-exaggerated for what is supposed to be an intangible concept. So yes, I am very curious as to why your interpretation is what it is.

My point exactly. If so many people have been fooled so many times by authoritarians advocating for things that sound good to time, why should we not be more skeptical of those who promise the very things Hitler did? Historically, these people have a horrible track record of tyranny once they come into office, and it would be presumptuous to assume that's changed now...

No I understand that we agree that politicians absolutely will lie about believing in nice things in order to take power, my disagreement was simply in the claim that lying about a belief somehow actually makes you that thing. Saying "Hitler was a leftist" or "the nazis were socialist", while simultaneously recognizing and acknowledging that they were only ever lying about believing in any of the remotely progressive things they claimed, should be enough to prove the ridiculous falsehood of those kinds of claims. You aren't defined by the beliefs you lie about, you're defined by the beliefs you actually hold and act on.

In terms of trusting political leaders, I agree. In fact, I think you should inherently be critical of ALL political leaders ("authoritarian" or otherwise) because I am fundamentally anti-hierarchy to begin with. I do not believe that ANY person should hold a structural position of hierarchical power over others, at all, ever. I do not think politicians should exist. I am against all hierarchical, including representative, forms of government. I think republics/"representative democracies" are blatant oligarchies. So yes, I agree, I think all people should be critical of all leaders...because I think leaders are inherently bad and that they should not exist in the first place.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Disagree 1 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow 1

@8ZN3PC2Capitalism from Oregon disagreed…7mos7MO

Expert Economic policy Expert economy

Here’s the thing: if economic liberty is as subjective as you claim, how can we ever have any coherent economic policy? What you’re describing is pure relativism applied to economics, which leads to chaos. If two people can define "economic liberty" in entirely opposite ways, then what stops them from defining "freedom" or “rights” in equally contradictory terms? And where does that leave us? In a world where words lose meaning and decisions become arbitrary. That’s dangerous, especially when it comes to policy-making. Society functions on sha… Read morered definitions; otherwise, you’re left with a cacophony of incompatible interpretations, which leads to gridlock or, worse, authoritarianism under the guise of "just another interpretation."

Let’s take an example: the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before that, the Soviet leadership could have argued, "Hey, we believe in economic liberty too, but in our own way!" But their version of economic liberty—state control over production and distribution, in the name of 'the people'—ended up bankrupting the nation and stifling individual initiative. Why? Because their "interpretation" went against the grain of human nature: people generally thrive when they can innovate, trade, and keep the fruits of their labor.

And to your point about my definition of economic liberty being "hyper-specific"—that’s not a flaw; it’s a strength. A gold-backed currency, for example, reins in inflation and government overreach. Look at the hyperinflation in 1920s Weimar Germany or present-day Venezuela, where unchecked fiat currencies led to people needing wheelbarrows of cash just to buy bread. Do you really think economic liberty exists when your savings lose value overnight due to government manipulation of the currency? Central banks, inflationary policies—all of these are mechanisms of control that strip real economic freedom from individuals. That’s why I advocate for something like a gold standard. It’s not about silver vs. gold; it’s about limiting government power over money itself.

Here’s something to chew on: If you argue that "representative democracy is a blatant oligarchy," what’s your alternative? How do you propose we manage a complex, interconnected modern society without leaders or representatives? Direct democracy in large-scale nations has historically been a logistical nightmare. And if you’re truly anti-hierarchy, what do you do when people *voluntarily* choose leaders or experts to guide them? Are you going to tell them they can’t do that because it violates your principle of anti-hierarchy, even if they want to?

I'd love to hear your solution for scaling leadership-free governance to a global economy. How would you prevent the inevitable power vacuums that arise in "leaderless" systems from being filled by opportunists or demagogues?