I looked at Wikipedia and there seem to be no socialist representation.
Like, from an European perspective hearing that is ludicrous.
I'm glad I live in Norway, where state TV shows boobs and does offensive jokes without anyone really caring.
If by prudish you mean intolerant of hate speech, sure. But generally few will freak out over some nudity here.
College here is free. We also have free healthcare here, as limited as it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_San_Francisco
Not sure what you mean by "offensive jokes", that could mean a lot of things...
> He wanted to replace public transport with a system where you don't have to ride the public transport with the plebs
I don't think this is any more libertarian than kings and aristocrats of days past were. I know a bunch of people who ride public transit in New York and San Francisco who would readily agree with this, and they are definitely not libertarian. If anything it seems a lot more democratic since he wants it to be available to everyone
> he want's to colonize mars with the best minds (equal most money for him)
This doesn't seem particularly "libertarian" either, excepting maybe the aspect of it that is highly capitalistic. That point I would grant. But you could easily be socialist and still support the idea of colonizing something with the best minds.
> he built a tank for urban areas.
I admit I don't know anything about this one
> He promotes free speech even if it incites hate
This is a social libertarian position, although it's completely disconnected from economic libertarianism. I have a good friend who is a socialist (as in wants to outgrow capitalism such as marx advocated) who supports using the state to suppress capitalist activity/"exploitation", and he also is a free speech absolutist.
> he likes ayn rand
That's a reasonable point, although I think it's worth noting that there are plenty of hardcore libertarians who hate ayn rand.
> he implies government programs calling for united solutions is either communism, orwell or basically hitler.
Eh, lots of republicans including Trump do the same thing, and they're not libertarian. Certainly not "hardcore libertarian"
> He actively promotes the opinion of those that pay above others on X.
This could be a good one, although Google, Meta, Reddit, Youtube, and any other company that runs ads or has "sponsored content" is doing the same thing, so we would have to define all the big tech companies as "hardcore libertarian" to stay consistent.
Overall I definitely think this is a hard debate to have because "hardcore libertarian" can mean different things to different people, and there's a perpetual risk of "no true scotsman" fallacy. I've responded above with how I think most people would imagine libertarianism, but depending on when in history you use it, many anarcho-socialists used the label for themselves yet today "libertarian" is a party that supports free market economics and social liberty. But regardless the challenges inherent, I appreciate the exchange
>If anything it seems a lot more democratic since he wants it to be available to everyone No, he want's a solution that minimizes contact to other people and let you live in your bubble. This minimizes exposure to others from the same city and is a commercial system, not a publicly created one. Democratization would be a cheap public transport where you don't get mugged, proven to work in every european and most asian cities.
> I admit I don't know anything about this one The cybertruck. Again a vehicle to isolate you from everyday life being supposed bulletproof and all.
> lots of republicans including Trump do the same thing, and they're not libertarian They are all "little government, individual choice" - of course they feed their masters, but the kochs and co want exactly this.
Appreciate the exchange too, thanks for factbased formulation of opinions.
I assume by far left, you mean progressive on social issues, which is not really a leftist thing but the groups are related enough that I'll give you a pass.
Silicon valley techies are also not socially progressive. Read this thread or anything published by Paul Graham or any of the AI leaders for proof of that.
However most normal city people are. A large enough percent of the country that big companies that want to make money feel the need to appeal to them.
Funnily enough, what is a uniquely Silicon Valley political opinion is valuing the progress of AI over everything else
I find them in general to not be Republican and all the baggage that entails but the typical techie I meet is less concerned with social issues than the typical city Democrat.
If I can speculate wildly, I think it is because tech has this veneer of being an alternative solution to the worlds problems, so a lot of techies believe that advancing of tech is both the most important goal and also politically neutral. And also, now that tech is a uniquely profitable career, the types of people that would be in business majors are now CS majors. Ie. those that are mainly interested in getting as much money as possible for themselves.
I mean, if you compare them to people who live in bigger cities and only the people who belong to the left-er party, then yeah maybe. It's like saying a group isn't socially conservative because they're not as socially conservative as rural Republicans.
The implication I got was that techies are more left than normal, and it's the opposite. If I meet someone in my city and they're in tech they tend to be less progressive than the people I meet who are not. The people in this thread are fairly representative of what I see in real life and its not particularly inspiring.