Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 52 of 52

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

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property


    I think it would be stretching what Acts 2 says beyond the common sense meaning of the language to say that there was literally no private property. Note that Ananaias and Saphira weren't condemned for keeping some property to themselves, but only for lying about it. Peter even told Ananaias that while his land remained unsold, it remained his own.
    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)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Living up to one's potential causes income "inequality".
    There are other causes. A robber baron society is characterized by wealth-inequality. In fact, we see exactly this kind of wealth-inequality everywhere in the world except in those times and places where the principles of private property and freedom have held up -- Christian countries, to put it bluntly.

    If I am not becoming wealthy through crime, my wealth does not harm you no matter how large it is. "Yeah, but you should share." Maybe I should, but you're still not being harmed, so there really isn't a legal argument here, just an ethical one (potentially). But socialism is never content to remain an ethical debate, it's always a legal/political agenda, camouflaged as a "discussion" about "how to improve society" by "helping the poor" with "the wealth of the greedy rich."

    The anti-freedom NPCs have to conflate wealth created through illegal activity (most political wealth), and wealth built through honest trade. Of course, the system of crony capitalism so muddies the waters that it is virtually impossible to tell them apart. The big name billionaires of our day are all indirect beneficiaries of political corruption, one way or another. I think it was Thomas Sowell who pointed out that even the funding and building of roads by the State is an implicit subsidy of all car-owners because they benefit disproportionately from such spending, vis-a-vis the truly poor who cannot even afford to own a car. This is why we cannot allow the socialists to control the discussion, because they want to draw the boundaries of the discussion just so that we don't have to talk about the hidden logical contradictions in socialism/communism. In this way, they are able to pass off their nonsense gibberish as sounding plausible or even inevitable.

    The concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a tiny elite is a symptom that something is wrong in your society. But attacking the inequality itself is like trying to cure skin cancer with skin salve. You're evading the root cause altogether and just trying to treat symptoms. And in the course of doing that, you only play into the hands of whatever is actually causing the problem by failing to address it. First, you must diagnose the disease. Then, it is possible to choose an effective treatment and be healed. But the socialists want us all to run around like chickens with our heads cut off screaming slogan-counter-slogans at each other. Divide-and-rule.
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 05-25-2022 at 10:49 AM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by WisconsinLiberty View Post
    I like owning things and having private land.

    I oppose socialism and communism.
    Good for you! You never would have joined the fellowship of early Christian believers in Jerusalem. And guess what? That would have been okay! Seriously, it would have. Believers outside of Jerusalem still largely kept whatever wealth they had. In fact, that's how they were able to participate in the "great donation" when Paul collected alms for the church in Jerusalem. Now someone might say "Those lazy Jerusalem Christians! Living off the Christians in Asia Minor!" But there was a very good reason not to be wed to land in Jerusalem. Some forty years after the ascension of Christ, Jerusalem was destroyed! The same Bible that extolled the virtues of each man having "according to his need" (main maxim of socialism) also said the Lord gave to His servants "each according to his ability" (the maxim of free market capitalism).

    Anyway, the question isn't "Do you want to give up everything you own" but rather "Would you like to participate in something that is collectively owned as opposed to privately owned?" Like....say...cryptocurrency. If you put your money in a traditional "bank" you're putting your trust in something owned by BankOfAmerica or Citibank or Goldman Sachs etc. Who owns the various blockchains? Nobody? Everybody? Oh, but many you're luddite like @Anti Federalist. Okay. He's long complained about the ability of "big tech" to censor the private property they own. Like me, he misses the days of USENET. Guess what? USENET was collectively owned. Yeah, the servers were privately owned and each server could control who could log into it and what news groups to participate in, but other than that it was a free for all. (It still kind of sort of exists).

    Which brings us to Web 3.0, which is shaping up to be a compilation of crypto and USENET. Steemit (I think I learned about this from @danno), is (was?) a blogging platform on a blockchain. It actually suffered a 51% attack (I think). So the faithful "steemit injuns" moved on to greener pastures and created https://hive.io. It's more resilient to a 51% attack, boosts two different video sharing platforms, several different blogging platforms, some games, decentralized finance etc. All without a central authority or "owner."
    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.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    [/INDENT]


    I think it would be stretching what Acts 2 says beyond the common sense meaning of the language to say that there was literally no private property. Note that Ananaias and Saphira weren't condemned for keeping some property to themselves, but only for lying about it. Peter even told Ananaias that while his land remained unsold, it remained his own.
    Do you consider China socialist? They have billionaires. But you're missing the point of the Ananias and Saphira story. The people around them were VOLUNTARILY giving up private property! That's the point that you refuse to even acknowledge with your circular reasoning. In your mind, as long as someone can have private property, everybody by definition must have private property. That's simply not the case. People can be voluntarily socialist. They can even allow people in their company who aren't voluntarily socialist. Ananaias and Saphira experienced the social pressure to conform to those around them who were selling everything and holding all things in common, by pretending to sell everything and hold all things in common. If things were the way you're trying to pretend they were, there would have been no reason for A & S to pretend.
    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.

  7. #35
    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 it's evidence that socialism can work. I would even posit that socialism could work on larger scales - if it was paired with a compatible culture.

    Either way, that's missing the point.

    Whether or not socialism can work, or is doomed to fail, it is not up to us to decide. We can make our case, tell them it is a bad idea, but if people want to try socialism without coercion, who are we to stop them?
    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

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    The article is serviceable for this discussion. Either works for me.

    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.
    Good question. Here's the Biblical answer:

    1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

    Is that tyranny? Well....it depends. Do you think God is a tyrant? I don't. But some people do. Now, I don't think the state should be willy nilly enforcing what I believe God says is appropriate or not appropriate to do with one's body on everyone. That means I have to support people's right to make a choice about the body that they do NOT own because they neither created it nor redeemed it! Abortion is a special case because there is another created body inside the body that people think they own. But all the radical feminists shouting at the homes of the SCOTUS "My body my choice" would agree with you. So would the "libsoftiktock", those fun loving purple haired teachers that want to teach your children that they can "choose" whether or not they want to be a boy or a girl. I guess it's only a matter of time before it's acceptable for someone to teach children with body integrity dysphoria that they can "choose" to cut an arm or a leg off to fit with the mental ideal they have of themselves. Mmmmm.....okay.

    For this reason, it is impossible to have socialism beyond the scale of, say, a small tribe, without an omnipotent State.
    Only if you totally misunderstand the Bible and the nature of God. I get it. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. If you realize that God really owns everything and you're just a steward, and yes that includes your own body, then it's possible for you to live with a group of like minded believers who live for God and not for themselves. But as the Police would sing "We are spirits...in a material world." Or Madonna "We are living in a material world and I am a material girl."
    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.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    There are other causes. A robber baron society is characterized by wealth-inequality. In fact, we see exactly this kind of wealth-inequality everywhere in the world except in those times and places where the principles of private property and freedom have held up -- Christian countries, to put it bluntly.

    If I am not becoming wealthy through crime, my wealth does not harm you no matter how large it is. "Yeah, but you should share." Maybe I should, but you're still not being harmed, so there really isn't a legal argument here, just an ethical one (potentially). But socialism is never content to remain an ethical debate, it's always a legal/political agenda, camouflaged as a "discussion" about "how to improve society" by "helping the poor" with "the wealth of the greedy rich."
    Right. It's not a legal argument. It's a moral argument. And you've just explained voluntary / Christian socialism. You act like you don't understand it, but clearly you do. It's illegal for a 21 year old to sleep with a 16 year old in some states. It's NOT legal in other states. Is in moral? Is it less moral than an 80 year old sleeping with a 18 year old? It's certainly legal for the 80 year old to sleep with the 18 year old. It's now legal for two men or two women to marry in every state in the union. But it's still a criminal offense in most states for one man to marry two women or vice versa even if the marriage is done in a private ceremony with no state involvement. Solomon and David would both have criminal records in modern America. Should a group of people (a church) be able to preach to its members from 1 Corinthians 6:19 and say "You can't be a part of this body of believers if you are out having illicit sex, doing drugs, listening to that bad music?" Should such a group of people (a church) decide not to continue to associate with people who didn't agree with their idea of what God thinks it's okay for Humans to do with His bodies that he lent to said humans for them to complete their spiritual journey own? I can tell you to give to the poor, stop sleeping with male and/or female hookers, don't get your eyelids pierced, and as long as you can tell me to "bugger off" and I can tell you "Well in that case you can't join my group" we still both have freedom.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 05-25-2022 at 11:52 AM.
    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.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Because it's evidence that socialism can work. I would even posit that socialism could work on larger scales - if it was paired with a compatible culture.

    Either way, that's missing the point.

    Whether or not socialism can work, or is doomed to fail, it is not up to us to decide. We can make our case, tell them it is a bad idea, but if people want to try socialism without coercion, who are we to stop them?
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.
    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.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Right. It's not a legal argument.
    It's possible to have such a discussion, but 99.999% of the time, when the word "socialism" is used, what is meant is a State-administered socialism. Which is why it's best to choose some other, more descriptive word to avoid confusion.

    It's a moral argument. And you've just explained voluntary / Christian socialism.
    In the snipped post and in your other posts, you're all over the map. I'll save both of us a lot of time by just noting at the outset that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue.

    The Kingdom of God is neither capitalist nor socialist, it is a universal, absolute monarchy and it is administered by a theocratic order. It is present on the earth today, and it has always been (although it was particularly officiated by Jesus when he came to earth). Socialism versus capitalism have nothing more to do with this aspect of theology than the debate over quantum mechanics versus special relativity in the theory of gravity do. The facts of the world are what they are, no matter whether anybody likes it or not. Even God cannot make 2+2 equal something other than 4. The facts about decision-making -- and how those facts are affected by different legal regimes regarding property rights -- are what they are, no matter what anybody thinks about them.

    As a monarchy, the Kingdom of God is neither communist nor capitalist, it is the divine-will. What God decrees within his Kingdom is the order within that Kingdom. He makes this crystal clear in the Bible: "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit." (Matthew 21:43) God retains the absolute, unqualified right to reassign property (including life itself, Deut. 32:39) to anyone he sees fit.

    Within that divine order, God delegates the administration of the particular details to the overseers. The overseers are not licensed by God to act on a whim or to steward their charge arbitrarily. They are bound to execute their office with wisdom, and wisdom begins by calling things by their proper names. Socialism, as that word is generally used, is just grift-society-writ-large, systematized and legalized mooching. While resource-sharing may absolutely be part of the wise administration of God's Kingdom, it can never supplant or overturn the facts of scarcity and the economics of decision-making. Some of these are facts about human nature, and some of them are facts about the world-as-such. In The Fatal Conceit, Hayek explained the knowledge aggregating role of market prices. This role is a fact about reality that doesn't care about anyone's beliefs about "the way things oughtta be". In this respect, it is no different than the law of gravity. And this is why we speak of laws of economics, because these are not matters of how to paint the lines on the basketball court, as they are usually discussed, rather, they are brute facts about the world, just like gravity or conservation of mass. You can either cope with those facts (honesty, wisdom), or you can pretend that they can be ignored or even reversed (blindness, folly). I know which of those alternatives God will demand from the overseers (Matt. 25:14-30).
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 05-25-2022 at 12:57 PM.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Do you consider China socialist?
    I think it's debatable whether they are or not.
    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)



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    It's possible to have such a discussion, but 99.999% of the time, when the word "socialism" is used, what is meant is a State-administered socialism. Which is why it's best to choose some other, more descriptive word to avoid confusion.
    It's possible to have such a discussion, but 99.999% of the time, when the word "CAPITALISM" is used, what is meant is a State-administered CAPITALISM aka CORPORTISM aka FASCISM. Which is why it's best to choose some other, more descriptive word to avoid confusion.

    See what I did there?

    In the snipped post and in your other posts, you're all over the map. I'll save both of us a lot of time by just noting at the outset that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue.
    Nope. I am not "all over the map." You just don't want to accept the truth. You said you own your own body. The Bible says you don't. It's not that hard.

    The Kingdom of God is neither capitalist nor socialist
    I agree. There are elements of socialism and capitalism in it though.


    , it is a universal, absolute monarchy and it is administered by a theocratic order.
    *sigh* Wrong. A monarchy is a political system. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Neither are incompatible with monarchy.
    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. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I think it's debatable whether they are or not.
    Anything can be debated. That said, have you read the book Animal Farm? At the end the "farmers" (capitalists) and the "pigs" (communists) bodies warp until the animals (us peons) looking from one to the other couldn't tell the difference. China is indeed becoming more capitalist as is Russia. America and Western Europe are indeed becoming more socialist. And all of the areas I just mentioned are becoming more statist and authoritarian. Socialism isn't a proxy for statism / tyranny / authoritarianism.
    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.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's possible to have such a discussion, but 99.999% of the time, when the word "CAPITALISM" is used, what is meant is a State-administered CAPITALISM aka CORPORTISM aka FASCISM. Which is why it's best to choose some other, more descriptive word to avoid confusion.

    See what I did there?
    In the political space, you are right. But in academics, we know what we're talking about (definitions actually matter).

    Nope. I am not "all over the map." You just don't want to accept the truth. You said you own your own body. The Bible says you don't. It's not that hard.
    I own my body in respect to all other humans... no other human has a higher claim on my body than I do. While you are right that my ownership is not an absolute title (I did not create it, it was given to me by God), that is the case for all things we call "owned", so it's a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this discussion. What makes ownership of the body uniquely important versus, say, owning a car or a house, is that my body is inalienable ... I can't get rid of it because, without it, I am unable to act in the world. It is a logically necessary precondition to any other action in the world. Thus, if we suppose that someone else could own my body, I would be leashed or enslaved to them, unable to act directly in the world but, instead, forced to go through the "access layer" of their permission/refusal. This construct is extremely broad and includes almost all of what we mean when we discuss "government", which shows that most of what people mean when discussing "government" would better be called slavery.

    Socialism requires the shared ownership of all property. The "socialist libertarian" can't explain how this can be universalized, while still leaving individuals free to make choices. After all, Suzie does not own Suzie's body, "the community" owns her body. Should "the community" vote to make Suzie a sexual companion for everyone in the community who chooses to make use of her, she would have no logical/moral objection to that on the basis of a consistently socialistic system. And as soon as we say, "Everything is shared except ______" we're right back to capitalism (that is, freedom and private property) since many things are already shared, such as the air we breathe, the beauty of the landscape and the skies, and so on.

    The idea of sharing cannot be universalized because it immediately leads to contradiction. It only makes sense within a restricted framework. Even Nature shows us this. My body is a "socialistic" organization of cells. No cell works for itself, each cells is performing an assigned role that contributes to the whole. However, the order between organisms is competitive (market-like), not cooperative. The deer does not walk into my backyard, lay down and breath its last just in time for me to fire up the barbecue. No, I have to hunt the animal down and, if it senses me, it will run away from me, as it ought to do. That is the principle of freedom and self-direction (private property) in action. A family or a church is like a body... there is an "ingroup" and "outgroup". Everything in the ingroup contributes to the benefit of that group, as it ought to. And everything that is in the outgroup is left to its own devices, as it ought to be. The idea of universalizing socialism is like trying to make the entire Cosmos into a single, cancer-like, overgrown mono-mind and mono-body.

    There are elements of socialism and capitalism in it though.
    I agree with what you're trying to say, but I wouldn't say it that way myself.

    *sigh* Wrong. A monarchy is a political system. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Neither are incompatible with monarchy.
    Yes, God's good order is political. The whole Bible is political. It is not human political, but it is political. The devil's war is a literal, real political rebellion in the court of heaven with ramifications on earthly affairs. It is so much bigger than the earth, that it cannot be contained merely in human affairs. But it is absolutely political.

    The idea of "economic system" is the very thing I'm challenging. When the Founding Fathers sat down to draft the Constitution, they were arguing over how to paint the lines on the basketball court. We've had to revise those lines a few times, usually improving things but sometimes making them much worse than they were. But the essential nature of a Constitution is that it is "the rules of the game", the lines on the basketball court. But the economy is not like that at all. The economy is like the jungle. Sure, you can slash and burn it. But you cannot "remake it", nor can you change the rules by which the jungle exists and operates. You can burn part of it down, pave it and paint lines on it, but the moment you leave it unattended, the jungle just grows right back over your silly lines. In other words, the vast majority of what people call "economic regulation" is just an exercise in egotistical fantasy. The regulators certainly do cause a lot of harm, but they do not and cannot really do what they imagine they are doing -- "running" the economy. Nobody runs the jungle. The jungle runs the jungle. All the slash-and-burners can do is make a mess.

    That doesn't mean there is no way to improve the jungle, or that the jungle cannot exist in a beneficial symbiosis with the wise gardener. In fact, the world will not be healed until things are so restored. But this requires real wisdom and insight, which this present evil world-order completely lacks.


  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    In the political space, you are right. But in academics, we know what we're talking about (definitions actually matter).
    And that's why dictionaries are important. And the dictionary says....you're wrong. But like a typical politician you'll spin the answer. You're being Fauci-like. "I am science." Or "I am the one who gets to decide what the definition is." Nope. Sorry. You don't.

    I own my body in respect to all other humans... no other human has a higher claim on my body than I do.
    Exactly. But I was talking about a group of fellow believers! Which brings us full circle. What was described in Acts 2 id a type of socialism. Glad you finally agree.
    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.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    ...Whether or not socialism can work, or is doomed to fail, it is not up to us to decide. We can make our case, tell them it is a bad idea, but if people want to try socialism without coercion, who are we to stop them?
    ''Libertarianism" is about freedom to do your own thing. If you want to come to an agreement or contract with other people, you are free to do it. If you want to call yourselves socialists, you are free to do that. Just don't mix libertarianism in with it.

    Many people miss the point, especially critics of libertarianism. Libertarianism allows for recreational drug use, but Libertarian Marijuana-ism doesn't make sense. It's simply a freedom enjoyed. Libertarianism does not equate to the actions that might take place under the system. It is not an endorsement of marijuana use.
    "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.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    ''Libertarianism" is about freedom to do your own thing. If you want to come to an agreement or contract with other people, you are free to do it. If you want to call yourselves socialists, you are free to do that. Just don't mix libertarianism in with it.

    Many people miss the point, especially critics of libertarianism. Libertarianism allows for recreational drug use, but Libertarian Marijuana-ism doesn't make sense. It's simply a freedom enjoyed. Libertarianism does not equate to the actions that might take place under the system. It is not an endorsement of marijuana use.
    Sure, but I doubt you would describe libertarianism and marijuana use as "diametrically opposed".
    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

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And that's why dictionaries are important. And the dictionary says....you're wrong. But like a typical politician you'll spin the answer. You're being Fauci-like. "I am science." Or "I am the one who gets to decide what the definition is." Nope. Sorry. You don't.
    I am not the one spinning. This sub-discussion began by me pointing out that the term "libertarian socialism" doesn't really make sense, because the usage of the word "socialism" almost exclusively means State-administered socialism. There are other words that more accurately describe what you are talking about -- mutualism, co-op, communalism, and so on. The word socialism, like "democracy", has been politicized on purpose. It cannot and will never serve the interests of freedom, no matter how broadly conceived, because it has been corrupted to mean something that is fundamentally incompatible with freedom, whether freedom to live in an agricultural commune with other like-minded people, or any other type of freedom.

    I "get" what you're trying to say, but the word "socialism" is fundamentally broken. It's like when Russell Brand says "democracy". I know what he means. He just means freedom, empowering the little guy to make decisions for himself and not be ordered around by the big guys, whether big capitalist guys or big bureaucrat guys. But the word "democracy" itself is corrupted and it will inevitably act like a glass-ceiling on Brand's ability to articulate his own points. The Marxists are far cleverer than you suppose -- they have set word traps specifically to derail the development of thinking of those who are starting to break out of "The System". As soon as you start to break out, you step in a pothole and fall over again. Which is the point. I'm not confused about what you're saying... I know you're not a Marxist. I'm warning you that the word "socialism" is more broken than you realize.

    Exactly. But I was talking about a group of fellow believers! Which brings us full circle. What was described in Acts 2 id a type of socialism. Glad you finally agree.
    It was a distribution under the oversight of the apostles. Note that the individual believers were free (but not obligated) to sell their own property. In other words, it was their property to sell or not sell, Peter didn't just wave a magic wand and confer title of all properties of believers to himself. If anything, Acts 5 (and 2, by proxy) is a massive affirmation of the principles of freedom and private property.

    You are correct that Acts shows us that the exercise of authority within the church is intended to perform a kind of cooperative distribution of wealth in the case of emergencies or in other cases in order to meet the needs of the body, to the glory of God (in other words, not for the purposes of human aggrandizement). In fact, this is the very kind of distribution that useful-idiot communists falsely believe they can implement through the godless State. But it is not possible for human systems to administer the Kingdom of God... only the divinely appointed hierarchy can perform this work, through the living work of the Holy Spirit -- direct, divine theocracy. That is precisely what the Kingdom of God will be when it has arrived in fullness, see Is. 65, Jer. 31, Joel 2:28ff, Rev. 20-22, etc.

    So, Marxism is the devil's attempt to counterfeit the logistical structure of the Kingdom of God. In other words socialism and communism are of the devil, and what we mean by the coordinating role of the Kingdom of Heaven (as pictured by, for example, the work of deacons within the church) will be wholly unlike these. There are two major reasons that these human systems are satanic. First, they supplant the peace of God's good order with the violence of the State. Instead of the infinite wisdom of God, which is manifestly understood by anyone who is part of God's household, we are given the impersonal dictates of a violent, bureaucratic State. Second, they supplant the brotherhood of faith with godless "comradeship". Sure, we can be comrades with our fellow citizens, that is, we can have neighborly trust even between neighbors who are not part of the household of God. But this is provisional, limited, temporary, qualified, etc. And even the trust we have within the household of God is qualified by the sin of this Age. So, nothing is perfect until the Kingdom comes in fullness. But the satanic counterfeit of the logistical hierarchy of God's Kingdom in the form of Marxism, communism and socialism, is an attempt to throw out the need for any distinction between those within God's Kingdom and those without. If you are outside the Kingdom, you are not my brother. You are my neighbor and I owe you the duty of love (e.g Good Samaritan), but I don't owe you trust and certainly not the trust of sharing title to all my property with you in any kind of communal or shared arrangement. This is a form of unequal yoking.
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 05-25-2022 at 04:10 PM.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    I am not the one spinning.
    Yes you are.

    This sub-discussion began by me pointing out that the term "libertarian socialism" doesn't really make sense, because the usage of the word "socialism" almost exclusively means State-administered socialism.
    ^That is just simply not true. You can put all of the "walls of text" up that you want. You can falsely claim "Nobody uses the word the other way." It's just NOT true. Most of the time capitalism is state administered capitalism but it doesn't have to be. Most of the time socialism is state administered but it doesn't have to be. In fact it's in some ways easier to have socialism that is not state administered than it is capitalism. Every time I buy something and sell it at a profit I'm supposed to report it to the IRS and collect sales tax. But if I pool resources with people, if I share, if I engage in any type of communal living (other than marriage), there are no government goons breathing down my neck. So no. Nothing you've been saying is even kind of close to true.
    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.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Anything can be debated. That said, have you read the book Animal Farm? At the end the "farmers" (capitalists) and the "pigs" (communists) bodies warp until the animals (us peons) looking from one to the other couldn't tell the difference. China is indeed becoming more capitalist as is Russia. America and Western Europe are indeed becoming more socialist. And all of the areas I just mentioned are becoming more statist and authoritarian. Socialism isn't a proxy for statism / tyranny / authoritarianism.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake 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)

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Whether or not socialism can work, or is doomed to fail, it is not up to us to decide. We can make our case, tell them it is a bad idea, but if people want to try socialism without coercion, who are we to stop them?
    Well, if you're talking about it as a political shift away from a supposedly free republic, it's unconstitutional for starters.

    Article IV

    Section 4

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Well, if you're talking about it as a political shift away from a supposedly free republic, it's unconstitutional for starters.

    Article IV

    Section 4

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
    The Constitution is valid only insofar as it represents the will of the people in its jurisdiction.

    And that hasn't been true for quite some time.
    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

  26. #52
    Lol, fair enough.
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


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
  •