I really had no desire to get invested into this, but since this gets in my feed so frequently, here we go. I’ve read relevant posts on Daniel Berntsson’s blog, i.e. the individual which this should really concern; instead of Mullvad as a whole. I understand the donated money possibly came from Mullvad subscribers, and if that leads you to unsubscribe, by all means do so; but stop bugging the rest of us.
It seems he donated to ÖP because they criticize excessive taxation, that is believed to typically end up enriching an (upper-)middle class (the “transferiat”), that gain additional support for (self-serving) policies, from lower (working) classes that are dependent on (welfare) subsidies. And given that immigrants are typically of the latter class, it’s believed to further reinforce the transferiat’s position: by a growing dependent class voting in favor of pro-transferiat policy.
This isn’t to say he agrees with (stricter) immigration policy, nor with the other positions taken by ÖP, or any other political party for that matter. Instead, he adheres to a “libertarian anarchist” ideal, where “people can … organically and voluntarily federate together at any scale”. Rather than states appropriating capital from citizens, to only partially redistribute effectively in the form of common goods, which involves protection thereof through immigration policies for example; often to the detriment of people, including him personally.
This isn’t to say he agrees with (stricter) immigration policy, nor with the other positions taken by ÖP, or any other political party for that matter.
He basically IS that party’s budget. His donation was like 80% or 90% of their total donations. I’d think if I basically owned a political party I’d try to make sure they don’t do shit I don’t disagree with.
I belief it’s morally wrong to do that, both from the perspective of the donor and party: as people democratically voted to land the party the low number of seats it has. If a donor could just dictate party policy, you’re disregarding the promise made to the voter. For such an insignificant party it’s likely to give them additional budget for campaigning, so they might have a better chance at competing with the seated opposition. I would respect him if he didn’t, but perhaps he’s able to influence party policy over time; instead of having to fight the uphill battle to get into parliament with a party of his own.
I really had no desire to get invested into this, but since this gets in my feed so frequently, here we go. I’ve read relevant posts on Daniel Berntsson’s blog, i.e. the individual which this should really concern; instead of Mullvad as a whole. I understand the donated money possibly came from Mullvad subscribers, and if that leads you to unsubscribe, by all means do so; but stop bugging the rest of us.
It seems he donated to ÖP because they criticize excessive taxation, that is believed to typically end up enriching an (upper-)middle class (the “transferiat”), that gain additional support for (self-serving) policies, from lower (working) classes that are dependent on (welfare) subsidies. And given that immigrants are typically of the latter class, it’s believed to further reinforce the transferiat’s position: by a growing dependent class voting in favor of pro-transferiat policy.
This isn’t to say he agrees with (stricter) immigration policy, nor with the other positions taken by ÖP, or any other political party for that matter. Instead, he adheres to a “libertarian anarchist” ideal, where “people can … organically and voluntarily federate together at any scale”. Rather than states appropriating capital from citizens, to only partially redistribute effectively in the form of common goods, which involves protection thereof through immigration policies for example; often to the detriment of people, including him personally.
He basically IS that party’s budget. His donation was like 80% or 90% of their total donations. I’d think if I basically owned a political party I’d try to make sure they don’t do shit I don’t disagree with.
I belief it’s morally wrong to do that, both from the perspective of the donor and party: as people democratically voted to land the party the low number of seats it has. If a donor could just dictate party policy, you’re disregarding the promise made to the voter. For such an insignificant party it’s likely to give them additional budget for campaigning, so they might have a better chance at competing with the seated opposition. I would respect him if he didn’t, but perhaps he’s able to influence party policy over time; instead of having to fight the uphill battle to get into parliament with a party of his own.