This topic is inspired by something DNS said in another recent topic...
... and whilst I think there's agreement that "social liberties are good", some people appear more willing to trade them off than others.DNS wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:00 amIt's interesting that whenever the topic of the political compass comes up (here and also at DWT and DWM), most of us come out strongly on the libertarian scale (small l). We have our differences on the economic scale, but we all tend to agree that social liberties are good.
Whilst there's small pockets of "activism" which relate to the fulfillment of liberties (e.g. campaigns to release Julian Assange and other political prisoners), most "activism" in the West seems to be focused on demanding greater levels of state interference and involvement in our daily affairs.
For example, environmental activists often pursue tighter regulations and legislation, bans on plastic bags, and pushes for global governance, targets and quotas.
Social activists focused on "identity" issues often pursue tighter legislative controls over "hate speech", entrenchment of "reverse discrimination" policies, access to reproductive health, reparations... and again, more centrally administered targets and quotas.
Social activists focused on "economic" issues often pursue tighter legislation regarding minimum wages, living wages, unemployment benefits, more spending on public schools and public hospitals, the rights of renters, job creation through increased spending... and again, more centrally administered targets and quotas.
If we take the craving for increased authoritarianism as reflective of the "authoritarian" half of the political compass... is there scope for activism on the "libertarian half" of the political compass, whether left or right, and what exactly does it look like?