Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: Libertarian Socialism: Does It Make Sense and How Does It Work?

  1. #1

    Libertarian Socialism: Does It Make Sense and How Does It Work?

    Are libertarianism and socialism diametrically opposed? The libertarian socialist would say no.

    The political philosophy of libertarian socialism categorically rejects state interference in social affairs and instead proposes the abolition of authoritarian institutions that inhibit freedom and justice.

    The rejection of state socialism and the current mixed economy define libertarian socialism. Instead, the libertarian socialism project calls for decentralized institutions that use direct democracy or voluntary associations to break up centralized institutions and institutions captured by rent-seeking capitalists.

    What is a Libertarian Socialist?

    The libertarian socialist believes in a free society, where individuals do not have to worry about being coerced by corporations or oppressive states. The political philosophy is focused on freedom and the individual’s quest to break free from institutions that shackle human thought and creativity.

    Unlike their state socialist counterparts, libertarian socialists do not push central planning, state-owned enterprises, or outright nationalization. However, they do not reject the idea of collective ownership of property. The ability for free individuals to determine their own property-holding arrangements is crucial for socialist libertarians.

    If people band together and collectivize the ownership of private property ona voluntary basis, this is perfectly in line with these precepts. There are numerous cases where private property is acquired through dubious means and is used by elites to cement their economic status and lord over the working classes.

    A social libertarian stresses the importance of defending civil liberties, which made them staunch opponents of totalitarian socialist regimes throughout the 20th century. Since Vladimir Lenin successfully led the Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, Communism and its socialist cousins have been directly associated with totalitarianism.

    What Is a Libertarian Socialist Approach to Governance?

    Libertarians of all stripes never approved of one-party states. Communist regimes and totalitarian socialist adjacent political movements were marked by such arrangements. Ironically, these regimes banned many dissident socialist parties, which validated the initial libertarian socialist skepticism towards these kinds of regimes.

    Instead, libertarians with socialist inclinations favored voluntary associations, economic democracy, and local governance. One of the contradictions they spotted with regards to 20th century communist experiments was how wealth inequality still persisted thanks to the concentration of power in the state.

    This was a sign of how centralized political structures can allow for massive wealth and power consolidation. Which is why political decentralization is key for ensuring equality of political and economic opportunities. In sum, states have a tendency of centralizing and creating benefits for parasitic individuals, thus requiring a new way forward.

    Unlike conventional free-marketers, libertarian socialists are concerned about economic inequality. A society marked by wealth inequality is oppressive and socially unstable. By phasing out the state, individuals would be free to live up to their economic potential now that they’re no longer shackled by the state’s laws and regulations.

    Similarly, being free from excessive corporate power allows for people to chart their own economic paths free from sub-optimal employment arrangements. Additionally, individuals and communities would then be afforded the opportunity to set up economic institutions that provide real value to consumers while providing dignified work.

    Although market interactions would be respected, many socialist libertarians called into question a number of economic assumptions and offered alternatives at the local level to address certain inequalities and worrisome social problems that corporate capitalism generally brought about.

    Origin of Libertarian Socialism

    It’s often forgotten that the word ”libertarian” had a different meaning in the 19th century. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and other forms of left-leaning anarchist movements of that century were often described as libertarians. These movements thoroughly opposed the state, as well as dominant business entities.

    This stands in contrast to modern libertarianism, which focused more on economic freedoms and private property. This 20th century philosophy of liberty drew more from classical liberalism and generally held market activity in a much higher regard. There was much stronger emphasis on individualism and respect for private property.

    In the 19th century, advocates of private property and free markets would generally be categorized as liberals. Broadly speaking, libertarian describes a pro-liberty outlook on politics, while socialism describes an economic system where wealth is distributed on a more equal basis.

    Libertarian socialists try to fuse these concepts together to form a unique philosophy. Liberalism would be critiqued from a socialist perspective, while state socialism would be critiqued from a libertarian perspective. The goal was to create a new way of dealing with the problems of industrialization while protecting individual freedoms.

    This unique philosophy tried to make political discussion more nuanced by recognizing the merits of both socialist and liberal thought. Political discourse tends to get stale at times, and often what’s needed is to recognize that certain competing political schools have valid points that can be combined to form news ways of thinking.

    The rapid industrialization of the 19th century caught many people by surprise and required novel strategies to address its many unforeseen consequences. Socialist libertarians firmly believed they had the right answers to the many problems present during the industrial era.

    Continue reading Libertarian Socialism: Does It Make Sense and How Does It Work? on Libertas Bella
    DeFi tutorials for noobs and normies. Merchandise for apes and chads who want to share the love with our libertarian clothing2nd Amendment shirts. "Liberty is beautiful" for all - only at Libertas Bella.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Yup. Freedom has many flavors.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by libertasbella View Post
    Are libertarianism and socialism diametrically opposed? ...
    Yes. Next question...
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Yes. Next question...
    There is nothing anti liberty about socialism itself. As long as there is no coercion, what's the harm.

    You can try to make the argument that socialism cannot survive without coercion, but that's also not quite true. Families and even small communities such as tribes can often be described as socialist in nature.

    Nearly all socialist governments in history have been anti liberty. The same however can be said of capitalist leaning governments - they just generally have been better at putting food on the table.

    It does not however make capitalism "better" from a libertarian perspective.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by libertasbella View Post
    The political philosophy of libertarian socialism categorically rejects state interference in social affairs and instead proposes the abolition of authoritarian institutions that inhibit freedom and justice.
    "Socialism" is a bit of a misnomer for this. Mutualism, community/agricultural co-op, etc. are more accurate terms that describe some of the variations on this that have been tried over the years.

    Nobody will stop you from experimenting in this way. In fact, one sure-fire sign that you are living in a free society is that there is a broad diversity of forms of social organization in different communities. The more uniform and cookie-cutter communities are, the more sure you can be that they are the product of a monopolistic, nepotistic, tyrannical central State that either controls the market outright (socialism and communism) or indirectly (crony capitalism, lobbies, bribery, etc.) In other words, an ancap society that does not have pockets of mutualists, co-ops, (private) communes, and the like, is not actually free, it's a pirate oligarchy with a patina of liberty.

    As I wrote in a post in another thread a few days ago, the issue is scale. A family household is a communist organization. The parents (traditionally, just the father) owns the means of production. The children own nothing, not even their clothing. The few naive communists out there who "really believe" it could work "if done right" fall into this trap because they imagine that it is possible to universalize a family structure at a nation-state scale. And that's simply impossible. The communal structure of a family breaks down somewhere in the range of a few dozen people. Extended family structures allow this to be scaled up to the range of perhaps a few hundred people, but beyond that, it simply disintegrates into a sham where everybody pays lip service to "the way it oughtta be" then goes out the door and does whatever it is they have to do to survive.

    Tribal scale, community scale, agricultural national scale and industrial national scale... each of these is unique and no one social structure is appropriate for all of them. But the final social order, the one that is "above all" orders will always be the order consisting of no order, that is, no imposed order. "Anarchy" is the correct term in respect to human rule. The only global order is the order that emerges from the state-of-affairs as it is. Applying the chisel to the stone mountain does not make it better, it only leaves behind a bunch of unsightly scratches. Everybody has an opinion about how the mountain can be improved by chiseling it this way or that way but, in the end, the mountain remains unchanged and indifferent, too large to be moved or even significantly altered by human hands.
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 05-24-2022 at 10:45 PM.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Yup. Freedom has many flavors.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Yes. Next question...
    Incorrect. The early church in Jerusalem was a kind of "libertarian socialism."

    Acts 2:44-45
    44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

    45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

    The key is that this socialism was voluntary. Annanias and Saphira didn't sin by keeping back a portion of the proceeds of the land. They sinned by lying about it.

    Acts 5:4

    Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

    But that doesn't change the fact that there was a collective safety net for the body of believers to which the community of believers contributed. Everything doesn't have to be done by "property rights." That's one of the biggest fallacies plaguing the libertarian movement. You want to have a commune, have a commune. You want to have a walled off ranch for you and your heirs, have a walled off ranch for you and your heirs.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  8. #7
    +outta rep well said clayton
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  9. #8
    It works for families and maybe small tribes.
    Anything bigger and it doesn't work.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    "Socialism" is a bit of a misnomer for this. Mutualism, community/agricultural co-op, etc. are more accurate terms that describe some of the variations on this that have been tried over the years.
    Are you sure about that?

    http://www.mutualist.org/

    Mutualism, as a variety of anarchism, goes back to P.J. Proudhon in France and Josiah Warren in the U.S. It favors, to the extent possible, an evolutionary approach to creating a new society. It emphasizes the importance of peaceful activity in building alternative social institutions within the existing society, and strengthening those institutions until they finally replace the existing statist system. As Paul Goodman put it, "A free society cannot be the substitution of a 'new order' for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life."

    Other anarchist subgroups, and the libertarian left generally, share these ideas to some extent. Whether known as "dual power" or "social counterpower," or "counter-economics," alternative social institutions are part of our common vision. But they are especially central to mutualists' evolutionary understanding.

    Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism.

    Nobody will stop you from experimenting in this way. In fact, one sure-fire sign that you are living in a free society is that there is a broad diversity of forms of social organization in different communities. The more uniform and cookie-cutter communities are, the more sure you can be that they are the product of a monopolistic, nepotistic, tyrannical central State that either controls the market outright (socialism and communism) or indirectly (crony capitalism, lobbies, bribery, etc.) In other words, an ancap society that does not have pockets of mutualists, co-ops, (private) communes, and the like, is not actually free, it's a pirate oligarchy with a patina of liberty.
    Personal pet peeve of mine is when people try to argue against something by defining it away. You can have socialism without state control just like you can have capitalism without state control.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    There is nothing anti liberty about socialism itself. As long as there is no coercion, what's the harm.

    You can try to make the argument that socialism cannot survive without coercion, but that's also not quite true. Families and even small communities such as tribes can often be described as socialist in nature.

    Nearly all socialist governments in history have been anti liberty. The same however can be said of capitalist leaning governments - they just generally have been better at putting food on the table.

    It does not however make capitalism "better" from a libertarian perspective.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Correct.



    Incorrect. The early church in Jerusalem was a kind of "libertarian socialism."

    Acts 2:44-45
    44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

    45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

    The key is that this socialism was voluntary. Annanias and Saphira didn't sin by keeping back a portion of the proceeds of the land. They sinned by lying about it.

    Acts 5:4

    Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

    But that doesn't change the fact that there was a collective safety net for the body of believers to which the community of believers contributed. Everything doesn't have to be done by "property rights." That's one of the biggest fallacies plaguing the libertarian movement. You want to have a commune, have a commune. You want to have a walled off ranch for you and your heirs, have a walled off ranch for you and your heirs.
    Why would one even attempt to label a family or a temporary voluntary agreement of a small group as “socialism”?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    But that doesn't change the fact that there was a collective safety net for the body of believers to which the community of believers contributed. Everything doesn't have to be done by "property rights." That's one of the biggest fallacies plaguing the libertarian movement. You want to have a commune, have a commune. You want to have a walled off ranch for you and your heirs, have a walled off ranch for you and your heirs.
    Without both the concept and practical defense of property rights being "baked into" a system of society, nothing will prevent the stronger warriors or the better armed of the commune or ranch over the hill from coming and taking yours when the need or desire arises.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Without both the concept and practical defense of property rights being "baked into" a system of society, nothing will prevent the stronger warriors or the better armed of the commune or ranch over the hill from coming and taking yours when the need or desire arises.
    Tell that to all of the Indian tribes who banded together and fought to defend their collective happy hunting grounds. In fact a strong argument can be made that there's more incentive for a group of warriors to band together to defend they land they own together than to band together the defend they land they all own individually.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by libertasbella View Post
    Unlike conventional free-marketers, libertarian socialists are concerned about economic inequality. A society marked by wealth inequality is oppressive and socially unstable. By phasing out the state, individuals would be free to live up to their economic potential now that they’re no longer shackled by the state’s laws and regulations.
    Living up to one's potential causes income "inequality".
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Why would one even attempt to label a family or a temporary voluntary agreement of a small group as “socialism”?
    Because....that's what it actually is. Why does the accurate label bother you? And why do you describe a voluntary agreement as "temporary?" Just because people can voluntarily leave something doesn't mean they must. But, technically, everything is "temporary" even empires. There is no reason a group of people cannot indefinitely share resources. This entire planet "shares" the ocean. I recall that not too long ago people on this forum where vehemently arguing against the "L.O.S.T." treaty as statist overreach. Do you think billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates should be able to buy up the ocean?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Tell that to all of the Indian tribes who banded together and fought to defend their collective happy hunting grounds. In fact a strong argument can be made that there's more incentive for a group of warriors to band together to defend they land they own together than to band together the defend they land they all own individually.
    Makes my point...when the more powerful tribe came along, not from over the hill but from across the ocean, they got wiped out.

    In large part because the concept of private property and it's defense, was foreign to them.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Makes my point...when the more powerful tribe came along, not from over the hill but from across the ocean, they got wiped out.

    In large part because the concept of private property and it's defense, was foreign to them.
    Uhhhh....nope. Not even kind of true. They got wiped out because they had no immunity to European disease and hadn't invented gun powder. Even the "civilized" tribes like the Aztecs and Incas who had European style feudalism got wiped out.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Living up to one's potential causes income "inequality".
    Jordan Peterson had a pretty long discussion about this. While he agree with your point about "living up to one's potential causes income inequality", he went on to say that in a healthy society there is some way to balance that out. And that way doesn't have to be statist. For example he mentioned the native Canadian tribes ancient tradition of the "pot latch" where chiefs who had accumulated lots of stuff where honored by how much they gave away.



    The Hebrew religion also had something to balance out income inequality. It was the Year of Jubilee. That year all family land that to be returned to the original owner, debts were cancelled, and Hebrew slaves were freed. (See: https://insight.bibliotech.us/jubile...eness-of-debt/) Interestingly enough, the Lord Himself claimed ownership of the land and that's why it couldn't be permanently sold, except for houses inside walled cities. (Leviticus 25:23 ¶ The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.)

    Instead, we have a society where the government ultimately owns the land. Don't pay your taxes? Lose your land. Make a bad business deal? You can lose your land. One of your cousins twice removed decides he wants to sell his 2 acre share in the family 2,000 acre plot because he wants to buy his trophy wife that boob job and butt lift she wants? You guessed it, you can lose your land. There are some aspects of the Hebrew religion still in our law such as debt forgiveness through filing for bankruptcy and prohibitions on usury...with loopholes where people still charge usury anyway.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    There is nothing anti liberty about socialism itself. As long as there is no coercion, what's the harm...
    Yes, voluntary association of all types is a big part of freedom.
    No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Because....that's what it actually is.
    You could also label a family a monarchy or a totalitarian dictatorship. It is not accurate, and not a justification for some political system.

    Why does the accurate label bother you?
    Because it’s not really accurate, and it's an example of redefining and twisting words to stealthily push a political agenda. The Marxists use this technique constantly. If you accept this, then they take you to the next step.

    And why do you describe a voluntary agreement as "temporary?" Just because people can voluntarily leave something doesn't mean they must.
    Just because a group of people have a potluck and share food does not justify or make for a political system. It is a temporary agreement. It’s a contract.

    Plenty of communes have been attempted in the past. They never work, because socialism is not a workable philosophy. Renaming common human interactions and arrangements such as families, churches, communities and charities as “socialism” is not accurate, and is a ploy.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  23. #20
    The OP reads like it's a way that a libertarian capitalist might hope libertarian socialism could work, but not like what actual self-identified libertarian socialists themselves say they are for. I don't think that socialists who call themselves libertarians advocate strictly voluntary participation. They view private property itself, everywhere that it exists, as theft, and they believe that abolishing capitalism goes hand in hand with abolishing the state.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 05-25-2022 at 07:33 AM.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  24. #21
    I like owning things and having private land.

    I oppose socialism and communism.
    The John Birch Society is a grassroots education and action organization to return the Republic to the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. -- Join the Fight!

    Boycott Youtube! Create a Rumble Account.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Are you sure about that?
    Yes.

    Personal pet peeve of mine is when people try to argue against something by defining it away.
    I have the very same pet peeve. On this very topic, to boot.

    You can have socialism without state control just like you can have capitalism without state control.
    Only by playing word games. From Wiki: "Socialism is a political philosophy and economic system based on the collective ownership and control of the means of production; as well as the political and economic theories, ideologies and movements that aim to establish a socialist system." The key problem is in "collective ownership and control". Suppose the subway mugger informs me that he and I collectively own my wallet. OK, fine, so be it, but who decides how my wallet will get used? That's always the question that the mythical "non-state" socialists can never answer. The mugger has an answer: he's got a gun to me and so I'll kindly hand over the wallet if I value my life. The "non-state" socialists either have no answer (they just never thought about it, or assume it "will all just work out") or they have a hidden agenda (hidden gun). Either way, they're no better than the openly statist socialists. Both are equally dangerous and both are paths to tyranny.

    As for capitalism and the State, they are mutually exclusive by definition. If I am the crowned king (the State), and I start dictating winners and losers in the market (subsidies, lobbying, sanctions, tariffs, and other more direct controls), my actions are ipso facto anti-capitalist, that is, anti-freedom and anti-private-property.

    All of this confusion can be avoided by starting with clear thinking about the material basis for social order. In order to act in the world, you must have a body. Not only must you have a body, you must own that body (have the legal right to move around, speak, and so on). So, self-ownership is the first principle of social order. Next, in respect to unused resources, we must have some rule to decide who owns which of them. And the answer is obvious, it is the kindergarten rule: whoever first starts using a resource, owns it. Finally, we need some way to exchange resources with one another in trade. And the simple test is whether the exchange is voluntary -- if both parties to an exchange (of whatever sort) voluntarily agree to it, it is a lawful exchange and all other exchanges are unlawful. 1. Self-ownership, 2. Original appropriation (homesteading) and 3. Free (as in free-speech) exchange.

    Anyone on this forum that hasn't been exposed to Hans Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics needs to hear it. This is the granite foundation of private property and free exchange, which are the basic elements of a free market and explain why socialism, as any kind of "global order", is completely busted and unworkable. It's the best way you can invest an hour of your time, guaranteed.


  26. #23
    Here are a couple of helpful paragraphs from the wikipedia article on libertarianism. As I understand it, this is a pretty accurate summary of the history of the use of the word "libertarian."

    Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-statesocialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[14]Left-libertarian[20] ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Leftschools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school.[24]

    In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian[27] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[8][28] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-fairecapitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[29] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,[26] where it advocates civil liberties,[30]natural law,[31]free-market capitalism[32][33] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[34]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    The historic meaning of "libertarian socialism" is not what the OP describes. And I think that still today most self-described "libertarian socialists," particularly in other countries besides the US, still hold to what is basically just an extreme form of communism that is not grounded in voluntary participation. When they use the word "libertarian" they don't mean what we mean by it.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by WisconsinLiberty View Post
    I like owning things and having private land.

    I oppose socialism and communism.
    While your feelings are valid, this is also the single weakest argument against socialism and communism, because the socialists/communists just wave it away as special pleading. Of course the king likes being king... he's king! Of course the "white privileged" love their white privilege... they're privileged!

    The two most powerful arguments against socialism/communism are based on (a) logic and (b) historical evidence.

    Logically, socialism is inherently contradictory and fraught with impossible constraints. It "works" as long as you don't think about it too carefully. In a worker-owned fast-food joint, who cleans the toilets? Somebody has to do it. And it's equal pay for all. "Easy, just rotate it." OK, but who decides that? In other words, any proposed solution to deciding who cleans the toilet just creates a new problem of who has the job (rank, privilege) of making that decision, and then we have a new problem of the same form, just bigger. And so on up the chain of socialist decision-making. In the limit, the problem is that the individual in a socialist society technically has no will -- you do not own your own will, it belongs to "society". But who is this "society" and how does it ever reach decisions when all of its constituents have no will of their own?? This is only the first of many devastating logical problems with socialism.

    And the historical evidence perfectly bears out the logical predictions. The fact is that, in socialist societies, nobody ever cleans the bathrooms. If you've ever lived in a dormitory (not prison, not military), you will know that one of the biggest difficulties is deciding who will clean the bathroom and kitchen, sweep the halls, and other matters like that. Even when the landlord or some other authority figure hands down a fixed order of assigned duties, you find that some members are supremely skilled at skipping out of them. And so the privileged elite in a socialist society are precisely these people -- those who are supremely skilled at skipping out on duties. Ultimately, that's what the Party is.

    A few years ago, I worked in a church facility crew for a few months. As a rule, we didn't have this problem. The cleaning assignments were always done to excellence regardless of who they were assigned to, or on what shifts. What is the secret ingredient in church work that is missing from godless socialism? Oh yes, faith in God. In other words, the belief and practice of a "God-seen life" leads to a social order where duties can be assigned without respect to payment for time, and people will do them because they understand and believe that what they are doing is done in the sight of God. I don't think they are motivated by guilt and fear, either, they are motivated primarily by devotion. And the real insult of most socialist discussion is that we are "supposed to" talk about socialist society in these terms, while ignoring the reality that people, apart from God, will only do whatever is the bare minimum to skirt by and maintain their own personal life and interests.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    the socialists/communists just wave it away as special pleading. Of course the king likes being king
    I expect nothing less.

    Socialists/communists care little about reason, logic, and common sense unless it can be exploited to advance their Utopian goals. If 100 million people have to be murdered to accomplish their Utopian goals, so be it. "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."


    We Must Never Forget the 100 Million Victims of Communism
    https://www.heritage.org/progressivi...tims-communism
    The John Birch Society is a grassroots education and action organization to return the Republic to the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. -- Join the Fight!

    Boycott Youtube! Create a Rumble Account.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    You could also label a family a monarchy or a totalitarian dictatorship. It is not accurate, and not a justification for some political system.



    Because it’s not really accurate, and it's an example of redefining and twisting words to stealthily push a political agenda. The Marxists use this technique constantly. If you accept this, then they take you to the next step.



    Just because a group of people have a potluck and share food does not justify or make for a political system. It is a temporary agreement. It’s a contract.

    Plenty of communes have been attempted in the past. They never work, because socialism is not a workable philosophy. Renaming common human interactions and arrangements such as families, churches, communities and charities as “socialism” is not accurate, and is a ploy.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again."
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Because....that's what it actually is. Why does the accurate label bother you?

    I'm with Brian on this.

    The meanings of words are determined by how those words are intended in their usage.

    The word "socialism" has an established meaning that isn't the way you're using it. That being the case, labeling what took place in Acts 2 as "socialism" isn't an "accurate label."

    There may be some rare cases where people use the word "socialism" in an idiosyncratic way to apply to something like that. But that's not the meaning of the word that is established through its historic and typical usage. I think that application of the word is a muddying of the waters, rather than an accurate label.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I'm with Brian on this.
    You're allowed to be wrong.

    The meanings of words are determined by how those words are intended in their usage.
    Right. And there's more than one usage for the word "socialism" just like there's more than one usage for the word "capitalism." By the way, the game you and B4L are playing is the same game I see socialists play with the world "capitalism." I define capitalism as anything other than the current crony corporate capitalism and they are quick to say "But that's not capitalism." Ummm.....yes it is. And what the early church did in Acts 2 was a form of socialism whether you are willing to admit it or not.

    The word "socialism" has an established meaning that isn't the way you're using it. That being the case, labeling what took place in Acts 2 as "socialism" isn't an "accurate label."
    It also has an established meaning that is EXACTLY the way I'm using it.

    From Meriam Webster online.

    Definition of socialism
    1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
    b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    There may be some rare cases where people use the word "socialism" in an idiosyncratic way to apply to something like that. But that's not the meaning of the word that is established through its historic and typical usage. I think that application of the word is a muddying of the waters, rather than an accurate label.
    I gave a historic example that supports my position. I gave a dictionary definition that supports it as well. You are free to be wrong. But you're still wrong.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Yes.



    I have the very same pet peeve. On this very topic, to boot.



    Only by playing word games. From Wiki: "Socialism is a political philosophy and economic system based on the collective ownership and control of the means of production; as well as the political and economic theories, ideologies and movements that aim to establish a socialist system."
    Wiki? Really? From the freaking dictionary.


    Definition of socialism
    1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
    b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    A "society or group" can be "living in which there is no private property" without being statist.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Wiki? Really? From the freaking dictionary.
    The article is serviceable for this discussion. Either works for me.

    A "society or group" can be "living in which there is no private property" without being statist.
    Once again, only by playing word-games. Is my body my property or not? If it is my property, then we are not socialist. If it is not my property, then neither are my vocal cords or the fingers I am typing this with. So you have abject tyranny, in principle, whether or not the social order actually works out all the ramifications of that.

    Property is not merely stuff and things. Property is the exclusive right-of-use. This is easily seen in timeshares, for example. The time-shared beach-house does not completely belong to any one holder of a timeshare, it belongs to all of them, together. But the property right of each individual shareholder consists in their right-of-use of the premises for the allotted time. There are countless such examples and, in fact, these kinds of intangible properties are far more numerous than actual physical properties.

    In the end, every resource must have a single owner within its extents because, otherwise, you are trying to jam two families into a time-share at the same time, which defeats the whole point of even having a time-share. This is as true in Marxist communism as it was in free wheeling 19th-century American capitalism. It's not about "social norms", it's about causal structures. It's simply impossible to have two independent decision-makers simultaneously controlling the same resource. There is only one steering-wheel in a car for a reason... steering and control of a vehicle is not a "sum-of-effort" activity, it is a sole-decision-making activity. This is the logical structure of all property and all decision-making, regardless of the political rhetoric it is wrapped in. The Marxist commissar is the de facto owner of the resources for which he is the final decision-maker, just as much as JP Morgan was the owner of the gold in his vaults. We can play word-games and pretend there is some distinction between these, but there is none, it is the very same thing wrapped in different flags and national anthems.

    For this reason, it is impossible to have socialism beyond the scale of, say, a small tribe, without an omnipotent State. That is because socialism is not really about sharing anything, it's about removing the decision-making power of individuals and placing it in the hands of a plutocracy -- the Party officials. In a socialist/communist State, you do not own a timeshare because you can only be told what time-share you have been assigned to, and for how long. And so on. The socialism is not in the sharing of the resource (which happens in the free market anyway), rather, it is in the removal of the power to make your own decisions and the placement of that power in the hands of others. In the movie The Lives of Others -- set in communist East Germany -- it is depicted that even the furniture had a serial number on it showing that it is the property of the communist State. But why? What's the point of this? Did the communist German state actually care about furniture? Or did it care about controlling the decisions of the people under its control?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-02-2022, 10:38 AM
  2. Could socialism ever work?
    By timosman in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-02-2018, 06:54 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 05:27 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-12-2011, 09:48 AM
  5. Why does socialism in Scandinavia work so well?
    By synth_floyd in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 03:46 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •