Interesting…all of it? I’m in Ontario but my hub/ISP is in Quebec so all my random advertising is in French.

Somehow it knows to target advertising to you in English…maybe you need to work on your privacy?

Heh. I’m in Ontario, but I guess my DNS is outta Quebec…so most of my banner/insert advertising is in French. It’s fucking awesome because I have no idea what they’re saying or advertising to me most of the time. Highly recommend.

Welp, now I’m off to XHamster. Thank a ton >B|

I mean…I’m sure Che said that tho…

I hate Costco…but I’m more likely to go now :)

I don’t agree at all that the electorate moved right. Elections are about voter suppression, voter activation, and holding your nose before you vote. This election happened to feature a giant swath of socialist voters abandoning the NDP for the LPC or being suppressed entirely: they didn’t “move right”, they were just swayed by the allure of strategic voting - or turned off entirely.

Then there’s other factors like the chunk of traditional non-voters who were activated by the pandemic…the poor right…maple MAGA. Then there’s the traditional conservative voters (a small group) that stayed home because Pollivre is a bridge too far. Then there’s the armchair liberals that got of their asses and voted for once. On and on. Mash all that together and you have like 70% of Canadians voting…very high, but not great in context. My point is that the same people don’t vote in every election.

You’re just not accurately describing American libertarianism…it does, indeed, have wealthy people behind it, because American libertarians also loves a strong state that can fix regulations in their favour. Peter Thiel and some of the Koch’s are “libertarians”, ffs. “Freedom for me but not thee”, etc. American libertarianism is synonymous with hypocritical.

I think what’s happening here is you’re describing the Dave Smith party/partisan type libertarians, and not the movement at large. The niche that runs a presidential candidate and puts small business owners on stage at the convention is a “boutique” brand of libertarianism, and doesn’t represent the much larger group of people who, for example, Donald Trump shows up and tries to woo: yeah, he got bood in the building…but he was talking to the broader libertarian movement, some of whom were threatening to abandon his coalition - and it appears to have worked.

I mean…I stand by what I said…your definitions weren’t accurate…but knowing that you’re a Marxist now means this is likely just an “academic” issue. Your leftist definition was confusing without that context. I don’t call myself a Marxist because I don’t look at Marxism as a template for a political system, but rather an effective way to moderate capitalism. But I also think everybody who talks about economics is a Marxist to one degree or another. I’m likely preaching to the choir here…but the genius of Marx isn’t that he outlined a functioning communist state…but rather that he gave us a philosophical foundation for why capitalism cannot work, and how socialism can - full stop, end of story.

I don’t care for anarchists, really…even tho I occasionally caucus with them. I used to hate them as much as right libertarians - horse shoe theory and all - but I’ve softened because it’s time to coalesce…strategy almost doesn’t matter any more…we need action. I am super thankful they haven’t been polluting “our” protests to the degree they used to.

“…minimum state intervention…” isn’t part of the definition. That’s a value judgement and a concept that gets thrown around by the idealists. The concept of libertarianism was invented to moderate a necessary and ubiquitous state, and can’t exist without one.

You defined classical libertarianism or right libertarianism, which grew up to be what we see as The Libertarian Party in the USA today, for example. It was “rebranded” specifically to add the notion of “minimal state intervention” - to make themselves distinct from libertarians (who functionally existed, at that time). Much like classical liberals, classical libertarians are antithetical to the definition of their namesake.

I mean…thinking about the Democratic Party in terms of “they” is a little strange. Seem like anybody so steering that ship, to you?

But, for what’s left of their functioning and coherent apparatus…he’s certainly trying to make it impossible for them to not choose him.

He’s directly making fun of/satirizing Trump.

I mean…that says it all.

Sure, the seemingly benevolent small business owners feature heavily at the conventions…but behind the curtains it’s really a coalition of rich guys, gun nuts, NAMBLAs, zoophiles, etc. in a stuffed cheap suit.

…also acting.

but he likely just took the photo…looks early.

I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state. It’s isn’t/wasn’t. The state plays an essential role in functional libertarianism, for what should be obvious reasons: libertarianism requires a mechanism, aside from power, to resolve tension between competing freedoms.

See The first “definition” doesn’t fit the group you’re trying to define. If you’re talking about American (using the US as shorthand)…they are by no means restricted to or feature small business owners, that’s but a small (albeit with outsized power) enclave in the “coalition”. ie you can’t mention small business owners without also mentioning that the largest business owners also may be “libertarians”. Their policy ideologically and thus empirically opposes the working class.

There’s no left wing version of the word, or rather, the proper definition is leftist. What you’re describing seems to be an ideological axe you have to grind with Marxism, or socialism something. Actual libertarianism is simply a school of thought - a collection of philosophies - that prioritize individual liberty (freedom). In other words…it’s a criticism - a way to moderate - a necessary capitalist system. Generally these philosophies aren’t related to American libertarianism/freedom…it’s more of a freedom from rather than a freedom to thing…to oversimplify: leftist (real) libertarians believe power structures shouldn’t impede the (not obstructive and lawful) acts of the people - it’s very conscious of power differentials, while American libertarians believe in an absolute right to individual freedom that may or may not conflict with other peoples’ freedoms - after that point of tension it comes down to functional power (thus it’s antithetical to the proper definition and why the prioritization of power pairs so well with - rather than moderates - capitalism and even fascism). Some of the groups that American libertarians welcome into their coalition are grotesque perversions of the concept - even if they put the small business owners on stage at the convention.

It’s depends on what you mean…it’s a fraught term, to say the least.

Actual definition of the word…or the Ron Paul (etc) nuts?

You just watch Mr. Robot…?

Well, there is a large difference between running national economies and running actual banks.

…but what you said is an apt criticism because Carney is a Stephen Harper era conservative banker…and his interim job was working in the ultra capitalist banking system. His economic policy, very broadly speaking, is designed to promote the private banking system…rather than increase social health…like a Yanis Veroufakis type economist from the same era.

Where’s Terry Gilliam?

I’m not sure what you mean by “just public servants”. I mean…that’s not true…but, yes, austerity governments tend to salivate when they look at salaries as a line-item, and cut labour…because it’s the biggest and bluntest instrument you can show cuts with. But less people means less services - as well as less citizens making a decent wage means a lower bar for the industry. Just take housing…promises promises on units…but actual cuts to the ministry of housing…and his plan, by all appearance, is to infuse the private sector with tax dollars, offload services to the private sector, and provide bubble protection to its investors: when these government jobs are transferred to the private sector, they will come with wage reductions, reduced labour protections, much less transparency and accountability, less customer service, and more AI & automation. With additional cuts to veterans affairs and the CRA (all seeing the same effect as staff cuts do Canadian labour health)…this budget would be indistinguishable from a conservative budget…if it weren’t for the deep 10-15% cuts (I predict those will expand as they get drunk on how it makes their budgets look), which sets it “above” (below!) conservative budgets.

When I said you were speaking like a liberal it was in response to “tricking” Alberta into increasing the carbon tax. The only time I’ve seen the lead buried that deeply is in LPC press material and from its surrogates. Because, as we’ve seen in conservative projects, the perversely named “Build Canada Act” is an “abundance” act that removes environmental/indigenous consultation and regional sovereignty….all while privatizing the project. Yes, there’s lip service and no concrete plan to share royalties with the indigenous lands they pillage - an excellent way to drive a wedge between the IA councils and hereditary councils. There’s always been a form of taxation on tar sands exports…so describing the deal that they worked out (what amounts to an updated royalties deal - it’s dubious the math will math into an increase for Canada) as “tricking” Alberta is just incorrect. Canada is paying for a gift to Alberta and the private sector, for very little return…is the accurate headline.

Trudeau, for as much of a neoliberal as he was, traded boutique service expansions off with his private-public partnerships. Trudeau wanted to increase the capital gains tax and nationalize a pipeline. Trudeau had pet projects like equity and safe drinking water. Trudeau was still nudging Canada right, at large - but at least it wasn’t a disaster. Describing Carney as moving Canada toward the centre is absurd, considering what he’s actually doing. All of Trudeaus trade-offs and pet projects are gone…and it’s all austerity and cynicism now. If these are our supposed liberals…wait til we see how the party in waiting has to reposition themselves to the right of them: yea, what Pollievre is currently virtue signalling to his Rebel News subscribers is absolutely terrifying…but it’s only possible because Carney made many of his previous election promises come true.

“Hasn’t cut much?” He’s cut everything. Of course the conservatives have been forced to promise deeper cuts than the Liberals because the Liberals occupied all their policy positions.

No, cancelling taxes, cutting government across the board, putting the private sector in charge of housing and privatizing pipelines isn’t “moving to the centre”.

Guessing you’re a Liberal…because you’re repeating their PR.