/liberty/ - Liberty

>>65052

To be fair, there are a lot more younger people using reddit and even imageboards than 30+ year olds.

>>65052

Young people have a lot more free time than proper adults.

>>65075

The 21% is for the 17 or younger category, not the 41+. I also made this confusion at first.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/6v30cw/rsocialism_survey_results_are_in_48_are/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/6uyqiu/rsocialism_survey_results_are_in_48_are/

The day of the helicopter can't come soon enough.

>>65052

So basically the vast majority of them are white, straight, atheist, english-speaking men, living in America, either attending college or still in high-school. They have no job, are still living with their parents and apparently over half have either been unable to afford education or afraid of loosing it(proof that you don't need universities to indoctrinate people). Most interesting of all is that the majority of them(30.7%) identify as libertarian-socialist, and I would like to ask the residential /leftypol/ shitposter how do they define the terms "libertarian" and "socialist". Number two(26.8%) is ancom and number three(25%) is demsoc. Over half of them don't belong to a party, probably because they are minors, and three quarters don't belong to any union. Of course they are against free speech, want to dispose of the fascists anybody on the right, but are surprisingly pro guns(well as long as the guns are in their hands, and not in the hands of fascists)

Final grade pathethic/10.

There I gave you a tl;dr of the survey posted by OP.

>>65103

>and I would like to ask the residential /leftypol/ shitposter how do they define the terms "libertarian" and "socialist".

I never usually post here and I disagree with most of /leftypol/ (and all of reddit) (mainly on issues of censorship and authoritarianism), but here's my take on it:

"Libertarian" basically means the freedom to do what you like without coercion. Being told "work or starve" is coercion when food is as abundant as it is today. The idea that people only work because the alternative is starvation is a complete myth. It's incompatible with the idea that people who earn $million+ wages work much harder than people who only earn enough to afford basic comfort.

"Socialist" encompasses a vast array of different ideologies, but usually gets defined as worker/democratic control over the means of production.

Personally I wouldn't really call myself a socialist because it's poorly defined and most of the common definitions sound like a bad idea. The ideal system would a benevolent dictatorship which guarantees liberty for the people, but I don't trust humans to actually be benevolent. Honestly I don't think there's any governmental or non-governmental system which can save us from the ever increasing effectiveness and ease of use of propaganda tools.

>>65103

Do you have something against white, straight, English-speaking men?

Is there something about young, economically disadvantaged men living with their parents that annoys you?

I don't think it means their political opinions are ill-formed. A politically engaged young person in this generation will know a lot more than an older person who is not politically engaged.

>overwhelmingly atheist

unsuprising

They're also very un/fit/ and small. The real question is if there are specific genes causing this illmess or it's a survival mechanism consciously chosen.

>>65104

>"work or starve" is coercive

I feel like we've debunked this use of 'coercion' every two weeks since the board began

>>65113

>I feel like we've debunked this use of 'coercion' every two weeks since the board began

I can actually see where he's coming from. What really rustles my jimmies is how people these days confuse different goods. Why call prosperity freedom, or justice? Why not call it prosperity? You can make a case for a more equitable distribution of wealth or for helping the starving without invoking freedom.

>>65120

That and food isn't "abundant" just because. Someone had to make it abundant. The same someone that will and can shrug, and walk away as soon as they no longer gain from it.

>>65109

I can't tell if you are ironic or not, but I don't have a problem with white, straight, English-speaking men, but I always found it funny how this group of people are almost always the ones that fight for the rights privileges of other groups, plus it was just a lt;dr of some of the statistics linked by OP.

>>65130

Well you said 'pathetic / 10'

I thought you were like the progressives who think straight white men shouldn't have opinions