• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    You contradict yourself in the first paragraph.

    It is a spectrum, which is why “anybody who isn’t an authoritarian is a libertarian” is not true.

    • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t understand why you think that’s a contradiction. You both agree that there’s a spectrum between the two. Technically, if if you’re not 100% authoritarian, you have a greater-than-zero alignment with libertarianism.

      Now, if you’re trying to say landing somewhere in the middle of the spectrum means you’re neither, then I tend to agree with you (labels suck). However, then I’d take it a step further and say nobody is going to be the 100% perfect embodiment of either end of the spectrum, and therefore, no true authoritarian or libertarian exists. I think that to say either one of you is wrong is just arguing semantics.

        • Forester@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          54 minutes ago

          You either like authority or you don’t. That’s binary. How much you like or dislike it is the spectrum.

      • silasmariner@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        31 minutes ago

        Any assertion in chart form must be true!

        Edit: ok now that I’m getting downvotes I feel I need to explain: the conventional usage of the word libertarian is not commensurate with it covering such a wide range of the political spectrum. Usually we mean people who favour mildly anarchistic views (minimal governmental institutions, low taxation, low intervention). Representing that niche as half of the political spectrum is highly disingenuous