• porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1日前

    For leftists that’s exactly who we’re talking about when we say liberals. The right to private property and equality and the consent of the governed are logically incompatible. Right liberals (e.g. US Republican party) emphasise the former, and moderate liberals (e.g. US Democratic party) pay lip service to the latter while only actually protecting the former. It’s really only about property in the end.

    • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5時間前

      They are not logically incompatible, but we will have to make clear and specific decisions about where one ends and the other begins.

      Unless you are asking me to live in a society where I must share my toothbrush with others because I am not allowed to keep any private property.

      I do believe in private property: with modest, reasonable limits. Which we can and will discuss the details of over time, and I understand that will likely become a heated discussion at times, but I believe it is an inevitable and necessary one. Does that disqualify me from being a leftist? Does it make me a liberal too? Let me know.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        43分前

        Private property in this context means things which generate/are used to generate capital, not just any kind of object which people might have and use. The important distinction is that capital is social, it is a means of coercing others to do work for you. That’s true for a factory, where people work for the owner, or for a rented property where the tenant must work to pay the owner. It’s true in a way even for wages - when you spend money you are buying the products of people’s labour (which under capitalism was not produced in a just way). It’s not the case for your toothbrush.

        The distinction that liberalism made was that everyone should in theory be allowed to own private property rather than royals appointed by divine right and hereditary nobility they delegated some power to. Not that in the 1700s we were suddenly allowed to have our own clothes for the first time in history.

    • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7時間前

      I wouldn’t say those three things are inherently logically incompatible, but there would be a lot of grey areas.

      The power structure of the federal government doesn’t make it any easier to actually exercise the federal government to accomplish helpful objectives, but making things worse is a relatively easy exercise.

      The focus on state level politics seems much more meaningful to actually accomplish any goals, since at least there is not as big of a hurdle where land and money have more power/representation than real people.