Or it could be that you define everything in politics you don't like as "leftism" or "Marxism". That is your prerogative, bit it renders the terms meaningless when it comes to any discussions with you.

Out of curiosity, who wants to close nuclear power plants and why? First I've heard of it.

man if you follow continental European politics, what the media and leftists call "far right parties" are denouncing what I listed (and a lot more) and campaigning against the regulatory rape leftists have enacted for years in Europe, the above is just leftism, uncontroversially.

and the "far right" is polling decently (we vote in June).

man jfc Germany closed their nuclear plants recently

Ok, why?

Far right parties denounce pretty much everything, that's why they're called "reactionaries". In general, criticising things other people do to try and make the world a better place is far easier than doing those things yourself. The progress of human kind throughout history certainly can't be traced to those who wanted to maintain the status quo.

because it was the green (actual Marxist party) request and main policy for decades, greens had a huge and growing support politically, and the "genius" nuanced Merkel wanted to strip the main policy from her adversaries and make it her own trying to cement her political support.

and because leftists are actually psychotic irrational people with fully incoherent desires, they want to "fight climate change" but "nuclear isn't actually clean" because of nuclear waste and because the USSR ****ed up a nuclear plant in Ukraine 40 years ago or something

well given in the vast majority of cases doing absolutely nothing is by far the best thing the government can do...the idea itself of government as a tool to use violently to meld the world into a "better place" is the source of the worst man made disasters of the last couple of centuries.

That's where you and I, and I daresay you and most reasonable people part ways.

the progress of humankind can be fully traced to technological progress alone, with political power often being something that delayed, ruined or otherwise interfered negatively with quality of life improvements

most people like "big government" these days, I know.

but not argentinian people it seems.

let's see if other countries move a bit toward libertarian principles

Well, I would think the problem of nuclear waste has to be addressed, yes. Chernobyl was obviously an outlier for a number of reasons, so I agree that shouldn't be an argument against nuclear power.

Right, because historically, political power was vested in those who wanted to maintain the status quo, like monarchs, religious leaders, and the like. Basically the historical equivalent of modern reactionaries/conservatives.

There is a chasm between wanting big government, which I don't, and not wanting any government, which I do.

Bobo is correct.

Your views on politics, and especially the post above, are what I would expect to hear from a reasonably intelligent, somewhat egotistical, conservative-leaning 13 year-old kid.

yes rococo I understand that's what you think.

that's the normal position for people who believe "experts" should decide everything

vast majority doesn't mean ever.

i am not an anarchist, but government role has to be very limited at the "if we don't act here people kill each other's in the streets" or comparable level of threat. if a society exists which is decent without regulation x, regulation x should be unconstitutional.

you should never even think of limiting any freedom of citizens if you aren't willing to bet your actual life on the absolute indispensability of doing it (like if you are wrong, you get killed because of it).

and the threshold to pass any freedom limitation should be absurdly high, akin to what is now needed for a constitutional amendment.

yes the above means that for any increase in taxes, any new line of regulation about anything, you would need a vast majority of the population in favour

And do you think that society would have made as much progress as it has if your stipulations had always been adhered to (proponents of the changes you describe have to put their life on the line, and pretty minor changes have to have the vast majority of the population in favour)?

Lol, you put "experts" in quotes like they are mythical beings or something. You realise that experts exist, right?

Seem Japan isn’t on planet earth .
Climate changes is leftish not scientific .
everything Lucian do not agree with is a lie or lunatic narrative .
Amazing the majority of Human are totally ignorant of that .

changes can happen without state violence ffs. I was talking about limitations to state violence.

you can change toward electric cars without a majority, if you don't need state violence to force it (just a random example). we didn't need state violence to start using PCs at home and later smartphones.

What do you mean by state violence? Like passing laws that are enforced by the police? That's kinda how laws work, otherwise they would be recommendations, not laws.

in some topics more than in others.

in many social sciences no "expert" exists to refer to and delegate choices.

In bridge building they exist and, guess what, you don't have too much of a political quarrel about who to ask to build bridges.

but for too many topics of political interest, there is no objective expertise, because social sciences aren't actual sciences

FWIW experts shouldn’t decide policies but experts should be used as starting base for those tho .
ignoring experts and called them all liars just because u don’t like the anwers…
Your stance on climate changes, vaccines, covid ,etc do exactly that.

Ps: Covid, vaccine, climate changes aren’t social science and yet again …..

Just because you can't be 100% sure that one answer is correct, doesn't mean that all possible answers are equally incorrect. An inexact "science" such as economics, or your favourite, epidemiology, can still have theories that are more likely to be correct than others, and can rule out some theories entirely. Just like poker, where in a given spot you might not be sure what % of the time to call and what % of the time to raise, but you can be pretty confident that folding the nuts on the river is always wrong.