Combine Trump's bullshit with the attitude and ideologies from your average libertarian teenager on the internet: Javier Milei (Argentina).
From Wikipedia in Spanish:
He is a follower of the postulates formulated by economists of the Austrian school, and calls himself "anarcho-capitalist in theory", "liberal libertarian" and "minarchist in real life", although several of his political positions have been described as conservative or ultra-conservative and as fascist or neo-fascist.
From Wikipedia in English:
He criticizes comprehensive sex education in schools as a form of brainwashing, expressed skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines, supports civilian firearm ownership, proposes to legalize the sale of human organs, promotes the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, engages in climate change denial, and wants to restrict immigration of criminals.
Also:
Milei strongly opposes abortion, even in cases of rape, and has suggested a referendum to reconsider the 2020 law (Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill) that legalized it.
He also opposes euthanasia. Great libertarian, huh?
Basically, he was elected because he's promising fantastic changes for Argentina.
How is called when a politician wants to do something that is already in place? I emigrated to Argentina in 2007 and had to show police papers from my country of origin showing that I had no funny business to resolve.
In favor of Austrian school of economics - Wants to remove the central bank
Adopt the US dollar
Homosexuality is a personal choice and compares it to zoophilia
Wants to freeze relationships with China, Russia, Brazil because they're communists.
Wants to align with the US, particularly Trump's party.
Against the Pope because he represents evil on Earth, and because it promotes communism which goes against the holy scriptures.
In favor of animal cloning
[...]
Almost everything is here: https://www.larazon.es/internacional/america/asi-piensa-milei-aborto-papa-corrupcion-comunismo_20230820655b13fab276150001c04e6f.html
The homosexuality one is trickier because he was explaining his libertarian views, and said: "What do I care what your sexual election is? If you want to be with an elephant—, well, if you have an elephant's consent, it is your and the elephant's problem". So... yes, he is comparing it to zoophilia, but not in the condemning tone I was imagining. It is, still, ridiculous.
“anarcho-capitalist in theory”, “liberal libertarian” and “minarchist in real life”, although several of his political positions have been described as conservative or ultra-conservative and as fascist or neo-fascist.
Perhaps, but my point was that he claims he is a libertarian and then acts incoherently with topics such as euthanasia. I guess it has to do with his Catholicism. Still, I don't like his hypocrisy/incongruity.
Claiming g to be libertarian and then innediatly espousing authoritarian views about personal liberties you don't agree with is about as Libertarian as it gets.
I think you could put in a credible libertarian anti-euthanasia position by pointing to euthanasia's history of being coerced. I have very little sympathy for American pro-euthanasia positions as they resulted in the nazi policies of gassing the disabled being continued in the American portion of west Germany years after the war
Hard not to get the impression that euthanasia advocates may view me as life unworthy of life
That’s not what euthanasia advocates are asking for. That’s greedy fucking capitalists that see a quick way to get rid of you and save some money.
Euthanasia advocates want their terminally ill grandmother with cancer that’s hooked up to and only being kept alive by 6 machines; to be able to request a doctor give them a sedative and a medically lethal amount of medication so they can pass away painlessly in their sleep and stop their suffering.
Something doctors are not legally allowed to do. Putting people through endless suffering and humiliation in the final weeks, days, and hours.
yes which is how the kinder euthanasia program initially got off the ground. To start with it was about people who were chronically ill requesting to die, then the parents of chronically ill children could request it, then people could decide for people deemed mentally disabled on their behalf that they should die, then things snowballed rapidly and disabled people started being sent to gas chambers.
I am deeply uncomfortable with advocacy asking for that first step because death is then often seen as a cheaper alternative to treatment. Like that Canadian woman who was euthanised because she couldn't afford disabled accessible housing.
As a disabled person I have deep concerns that the begining of such policies could ultimately result in a threat to my life which the history of their adoption bears out
I agree that those possibilities are horrible, but this slippery slope argument just doesn’t really work. It just doesn’t address that initial point of, what do you do then with those terminally ill suffering people? There is no treatment, and any treatment you can use will only prolong the suffering. Many people incur over 70% of the medical costs over the course of their entire life in their final month alive, all to die a humiliating horrible death because doctors are legally not allowed to let the person request to be humanely put out of their misery.
I never said anything about the person paying for the healthcare. But that healthcare still has costs, it’s not free, if a person does not desire pointless, humiliating, and often times dangerous “treatments” to try and extend their life by a few days, why should they be forced to?
Again, the person cannot be “killed” because the doctors so desire. The person should have the ability to request that, of their own free will. Because ok, let’s say you’ve sedated them, what’s the difference? They’re not going to spring to life magically, and their family still had to watch them wither away and die and horrible death.
As the cases in Canada prove, it is incredibly easy to coerce desperate people into suicide. That's why, despite completely agreeing with you in theory of the euthanasia, i am absolutely opposed to any implementation of it in practice in capitalism.
I agree, however this is a topic that capitalism has corrupted to almost no fault of euthanasia itself. I’m mostly approaching this from a socialist lens without the pressure of a capitalist profit motive, or supremacist eugenics pressure.
Ok, but we live under capitalism right now. We aren't in the socialist utopia where only people suffering painful terminal diseases choose to end their lives. We have people that choose death because their disability payments aren't enough to cover a halfway decent place to live, let alone all of their other (often higher) expenses. Stop being naive and living in theoryland, you cannot have a program like MAID without the pressures of capitalism, the profit motive, or supremacist eugenics pressures.
I’ll respond when you stop strawmanning my argument. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth about how I love MAID or Canada? Where did I ever bring up the Canadian system or praise it? You’re the only one who brought it up.
If your entire argument revolves around “Canada and capitalist corruption bad therefore insert thing bad”, then you are not engaging in good faith.
Do you think subsidized housing is bad and shouldn’t be advocated for because bad faith actors and capitalists have used it to take advantage of destitute people while getting guaranteed paychecks from the government?
Also theoryland? What the hell do you think theory is?
I agree in theory that terminally ill people should be allowed to end their lives with dignity, but seeing how it's being implemented in Canada has made me a staunch opponent of it under the current system. On top of MAID being open to those that are essentially just suffering from poverty, they're aiming to open it up to the mentally ill in 2024, and there are groups pushing for it to be open to "mature minors" as well. I don't think we should be focusing on expanding the MAID program until we're able to provide a decent life (food, housing, medical care, accommodations for disabilities, education, etc) to our neglected people before offering suicide.
I'm going to be a little Anecdote Andy here, but as someone who suffers from depression and has had suicidal thoughts in the past, the idea that I would qualify for euthanasia and that it would be an option terrifies me. In my darkest moments in the past I very well may have taken that option, at a time when I was not in my right mind and it would have been at the very least irresponsible to allow me to make a life-ending decision in that state of mind. This would be a huge barrier to having an open and honest discussion with my healthcare providers if I have it in the back of my mind that suicide through them is an option.
I agree the Canadian system is extremely disgusting, and that is not what I’m advocating for here at all.
And while I don’t want to demean you, but depression is not a terminal illness and should not qualify for euthanasia. There are treatments that work, and meaningful ways to make change. Someone with terminal AIDS, cancer, or someone simply at the end of their lives doesn’t have those options.
Please read the section on eligibility of people suffering solely from mental illness and get back to me thx. This is what people mean when they say MAID is going to be applied to people that it in no way should be.
My bad, meant “should not”, thanks for catching that.
But again, why do you think that I for some reason love MAID. How is that at all relevant to the conversation. Why do you think MAID defines the euthanasia advocacy argument? Most advocates were disgusted when Canada rolled it out.
I recently read that the drug cocktail which is used for death penalties was invented by someone who was not a toxicologist and that produces a quite painful death, this year a mas "died" for 3 hours and his body was all filled with marks afterwards. Not to disagree with what you said, though.
Execution cocktails are very very different from what is given during ethical euthanasia, and they’re genuinely horrific.
Further, even with euthanasia, a good amount of sedative and a lethal amount of medication varies from person to person with age, race, gender, weight, and so on taking a very important role in the calculations. Doctors during executions have been known to be lax and negligent, sometimes purposeful, sometimes not, but no one cares because the person is slated to die anyways, further the person is meant to be sedated but conscious oftentimes. During euthanasia it is meant to occur under general anesthesia, or full sedation and sleep.
Combine Trump's bullshit with the attitude and ideologies from your average libertarian teenager on the internet: Javier Milei (Argentina).
From Wikipedia in Spanish:
From Wikipedia in English:
Also:
He also opposes euthanasia. Great libertarian, huh?
Basically, he was elected because he's promising fantastic changes for Argentina.
How is called when a politician wants to do something that is already in place? I emigrated to Argentina in 2007 and had to show police papers from my country of origin showing that I had no funny business to resolve.
Sounds like he wants the use of a rather powerful state for someone who claims not to like the state.
From @rf_@lemmy.world:
Almost everything is here: https://www.larazon.es/internacional/america/asi-piensa-milei-aborto-papa-corrupcion-comunismo_20230820655b13fab276150001c04e6f.html
The homosexuality one is trickier because he was explaining his libertarian views, and said: "What do I care what your sexual election is? If you want to be with an elephant—, well, if you have an elephant's consent, it is your and the elephant's problem". So... yes, he is comparing it to zoophilia, but not in the condemning tone I was imagining. It is, still, ridiculous.
They wrote "fascist" 7 times in a row 😵
I agree with him on that euthanasia has a terrible history including links to the holocaust.
Perhaps, but my point was that he claims he is a libertarian and then acts incoherently with topics such as euthanasia. I guess it has to do with his Catholicism. Still, I don't like his hypocrisy/incongruity.
Claiming g to be libertarian and then innediatly espousing authoritarian views about personal liberties you don't agree with is about as Libertarian as it gets.
I think you could put in a credible libertarian anti-euthanasia position by pointing to euthanasia's history of being coerced. I have very little sympathy for American pro-euthanasia positions as they resulted in the nazi policies of gassing the disabled being continued in the American portion of west Germany years after the war
Hard not to get the impression that euthanasia advocates may view me as life unworthy of life
That’s not what euthanasia advocates are asking for. That’s greedy fucking capitalists that see a quick way to get rid of you and save some money.
Euthanasia advocates want their terminally ill grandmother with cancer that’s hooked up to and only being kept alive by 6 machines; to be able to request a doctor give them a sedative and a medically lethal amount of medication so they can pass away painlessly in their sleep and stop their suffering.
Something doctors are not legally allowed to do. Putting people through endless suffering and humiliation in the final weeks, days, and hours.
yes which is how the kinder euthanasia program initially got off the ground. To start with it was about people who were chronically ill requesting to die, then the parents of chronically ill children could request it, then people could decide for people deemed mentally disabled on their behalf that they should die, then things snowballed rapidly and disabled people started being sent to gas chambers.
I am deeply uncomfortable with advocacy asking for that first step because death is then often seen as a cheaper alternative to treatment. Like that Canadian woman who was euthanised because she couldn't afford disabled accessible housing.
As a disabled person I have deep concerns that the begining of such policies could ultimately result in a threat to my life which the history of their adoption bears out
I agree that those possibilities are horrible, but this slippery slope argument just doesn’t really work. It just doesn’t address that initial point of, what do you do then with those terminally ill suffering people? There is no treatment, and any treatment you can use will only prolong the suffering. Many people incur over 70% of the medical costs over the course of their entire life in their final month alive, all to die a humiliating horrible death because doctors are legally not allowed to let the person request to be humanely put out of their misery.
Well for starters we should have single payer healthcare so dying is free
I don't have an easy answer about them living in pain, heavy sedation might help but I have no trust in a medical system that would kill them
I never said anything about the person paying for the healthcare. But that healthcare still has costs, it’s not free, if a person does not desire pointless, humiliating, and often times dangerous “treatments” to try and extend their life by a few days, why should they be forced to?
Again, the person cannot be “killed” because the doctors so desire. The person should have the ability to request that, of their own free will. Because ok, let’s say you’ve sedated them, what’s the difference? They’re not going to spring to life magically, and their family still had to watch them wither away and die and horrible death.
As the cases in Canada prove, it is incredibly easy to coerce desperate people into suicide. That's why, despite completely agreeing with you in theory of the euthanasia, i am absolutely opposed to any implementation of it in practice in capitalism.
I agree, however this is a topic that capitalism has corrupted to almost no fault of euthanasia itself. I’m mostly approaching this from a socialist lens without the pressure of a capitalist profit motive, or supremacist eugenics pressure.
Ok, but we live under capitalism right now. We aren't in the socialist utopia where only people suffering painful terminal diseases choose to end their lives. We have people that choose death because their disability payments aren't enough to cover a halfway decent place to live, let alone all of their other (often higher) expenses. Stop being naive and living in theoryland, you cannot have a program like MAID without the pressures of capitalism, the profit motive, or supremacist eugenics pressures.
For fucks sake, Canada has been forcibly sterilizing indigenous women for decades, with the most recent case I can find with a cursory search in 2019. Is this a country you would trust with euthanasia?
I’ll respond when you stop strawmanning my argument. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth about how I love MAID or Canada? Where did I ever bring up the Canadian system or praise it? You’re the only one who brought it up.
If your entire argument revolves around “Canada and capitalist corruption bad therefore insert thing bad”, then you are not engaging in good faith.
Do you think subsidized housing is bad and shouldn’t be advocated for because bad faith actors and capitalists have used it to take advantage of destitute people while getting guaranteed paychecks from the government?
Also theoryland? What the hell do you think theory is?
I agree in theory that terminally ill people should be allowed to end their lives with dignity, but seeing how it's being implemented in Canada has made me a staunch opponent of it under the current system. On top of MAID being open to those that are essentially just suffering from poverty, they're aiming to open it up to the mentally ill in 2024, and there are groups pushing for it to be open to "mature minors" as well. I don't think we should be focusing on expanding the MAID program until we're able to provide a decent life (food, housing, medical care, accommodations for disabilities, education, etc) to our neglected people before offering suicide.
I'm going to be a little Anecdote Andy here, but as someone who suffers from depression and has had suicidal thoughts in the past, the idea that I would qualify for euthanasia and that it would be an option terrifies me. In my darkest moments in the past I very well may have taken that option, at a time when I was not in my right mind and it would have been at the very least irresponsible to allow me to make a life-ending decision in that state of mind. This would be a huge barrier to having an open and honest discussion with my healthcare providers if I have it in the back of my mind that suicide through them is an option.
I agree the Canadian system is extremely disgusting, and that is not what I’m advocating for here at all.
And while I don’t want to demean you, but depression is not a terminal illness and should not qualify for euthanasia. There are treatments that work, and meaningful ways to make change. Someone with terminal AIDS, cancer, or someone simply at the end of their lives doesn’t have those options.
Just going to assume this is a typo and you meant to say "should not qualify for euthanasia"
Yea, mental illness shouldn't qualify, but that doesn't stop the government from wanting to expand maid to include it
Please read the section on eligibility of people suffering solely from mental illness and get back to me thx. This is what people mean when they say MAID is going to be applied to people that it in no way should be.
My bad, meant “should not”, thanks for catching that.
But again, why do you think that I for some reason love MAID. How is that at all relevant to the conversation. Why do you think MAID defines the euthanasia advocacy argument? Most advocates were disgusted when Canada rolled it out.
Again, you’re moving the conversation.
I recently read that the drug cocktail which is used for death penalties was invented by someone who was not a toxicologist and that produces a quite painful death, this year a mas "died" for 3 hours and his body was all filled with marks afterwards. Not to disagree with what you said, though.
Execution cocktails are very very different from what is given during ethical euthanasia, and they’re genuinely horrific.
Further, even with euthanasia, a good amount of sedative and a lethal amount of medication varies from person to person with age, race, gender, weight, and so on taking a very important role in the calculations. Doctors during executions have been known to be lax and negligent, sometimes purposeful, sometimes not, but no one cares because the person is slated to die anyways, further the person is meant to be sedated but conscious oftentimes. During euthanasia it is meant to occur under general anesthesia, or full sedation and sleep.
He is conveeting to nazionism btw, literaly
Ah. So he's the perfect Nazi puppet.