• ESC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    True. But it is both liberalism and a con. The con is in branding it as something other than liberalism, which he was able to do by conflating positive and negative freedoms.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well it’s definitely not liberalism. It’s such an extreme, it’s well past what liberals would consider effective policy. It’s way beyond laissez-faire capitalism, which is typically the rightmost edge of liberalism. Dunno what you’d call that, but liberalism it ain’t.

      • ESC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        To me laws establishing private property rights in a capitalist framework are the NAP in actual practice, so I think we can agree to disagree.