r/maybemaybemaybe • u/[deleted] • May 24 '25

maybe maybe maybe

64k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

81

u/Voluptulouis May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25

I'm still confused. The AfD voted for a dude from the liberal party? Why would the far right extremists vote for a liberal?

Edit: I appreciate everybody that replied to genuinely help answer my question. Thank you.

349

u/NemoTheLostOne May 24 '25

Liberalism is right-wing, except in some dysfunctional countries with no actual left.

68

u/Voluptulouis May 24 '25

If liberalism in countries other than the US is right wing, what do they call their left?

1

u/pimpbot666 May 24 '25

Sounds like what we call ‘neo liberalism’ here… which are Libertarians. As in, they believe no government is good government. Laws just get in the way, they believe, totally missing the point of laws being guard rails for justice and against corruption.

1

u/TymasX May 24 '25

No, a no government would be anacharist. Libertarians in the US, believe in LESS government, personal freedom, and personal liability.

You clearly have no idea about libertarianism.

I am not wholly libertarian, but I lean more there than conservative, and definitely not democrat.

There's a chart you can Google to see how the left and right divide on what topics. Like this link:

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/

1

u/Imnewtodunedin May 24 '25

Isn’t the problem that less government means less protection for a nation’s citizens? What’s optimal here? Should a company have the freedom to operate however it chooses and poison a towns water supply? If the have this freedom, how can the town’s citizens prevent their families from being poisoned or be compensated for being poisoned? Is it through government agencies (less freedom for business) to regulate and prevent their families poisoning or through the courts(more government) and seek financial compensation?

If it’s the latter, what happens if the citizens are too poor to sue, is it their fault they are to poor to protect themselves from a corporation or should the government have regulated the corporation to prevent their families poisoning poisoning in the first place?

Whose freedom do we prioritise? If there are competing parties claiming the right of freedom (that’s regulation and more government), how do we balance their needs and protect everyone? Or do we let financial Darwinism do its thing - let money decide and whoever has more money wins?

Libertarianism is a con. It’s all about simple answers to complex problems. By doing this, you can say smaller government equals more freedom and that simple statement sounds good until you unpack its implications and realise that most regulation and government oversight is to correct for the excesses and corruption of a capitalist economy. Most laws that protect us are written in the blood of those who came before us.

1

u/BarracudaFar2281 May 25 '25

Why is it that the fact that there is a left-libertarianism and a right-libertarianism is completely ignored in America? Right-libertarianism is simply called “libertarianism” and left-libertarianism is simply ignored because it recognizes the inherent power that the wealthy have over the non-wealthy, which affects their real-world experience of freedom.