Fringes aside, I think that sums up everybody. The difference is that most regulation doesn’t directly impact the average Joe.
Nobody disputes that government should be enforcing peace, contracts, providing defense, etc. That sort of thing is necessary and prudent. But the enforcement needs to happen fairly and according to clear rules. The enforcers need to be accountable. And often the citizen needs more than just a ballot box to push back on corrupt government.
To bring it back to tech, rules are not evenly written, let alone enforced. Why is electronic mail treated differently than mail? Why are hosts pressured to drop horrible people from their customer lists, but not phone companies? Why is it OK for tech companies to keep records for government consumption, but not car dealers, libraries, supermarkets, etc.?
If I support banning alcohol, I probably don't drink alcohol myself. Hell, it'd be pretty hypocritical if I did.
(There are exceptions, of course - if I supported changing the side of the road we drive on, I'd wait for a change of law before acting on my beliefs!)
I think that sums up everybody that doesn't understand how effective governments work. Regulations are an intrinsic part of them and the libertarians know that. That's why they're against them. It's a lot easier to create tax loopholes when you don't have thousands of regulations to worry about.
Only very few Germans would call themselves "libertarian", so for an international discussion it would probably also be good to hear your distinction between liberal and libertarian.
"Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights". There beliefs in no way had a problem with public healthcare, but would have issues with curtailing free speech, or a curtailing of free enterprise. Today I think a classic liberal would be in the centre of the political spectrum.
I didn't completely grasp this for a very long time despite understanding 'American Liberals' were not the same as 'Classical Liberals' - it's not intuitive.
To prevent confusion the etymology is the same as the word "Christian". Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians. Sometimes one will claim to be more 'Christian' than the other but that is beside the point: to a non-Westerner they're the same group. The same is true of the word "Liberal". Democrat Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians - these are all species of Liberal.
What this means may be found controversial by some people.
This would mean in the West, or at least in the Anglosphere political authority is typically wielded by two competing variants of the same political philosophy.
I find this interesting because that is not at all what is advertised.
For years I thought the differences between China's One Party State and the West were plain to see but now I think the distinction is less obvious. Going back to my Christianity analogy, it may be an argument over The Holy Trinity - both completely different and also the same simultaneously.
Is the West a Two Party System with one faction? Is China a One Party System with multiple factions? If so what's the real difference or is there a real difference?
There's a strange perspective distortion where the differences are either enormous or minor but it's hard to tell which - I speculate that metapolitics has a Lovecraftian quality to it where it might not be possible to understand without going insane. :)
