Lately I have been curious to know about libertarian socialism. The two terms seem to contradict each other, as I have absolutely no clue how a socialist society could exist without government coercion. The same goes for libertarian communism.
Could someone give me a simple breakdown of how this could possibly work?
As well as any other political ideology...
Look up Noam Chomsky and libertarian socialism (Anarcho-syndicalism). I have thought of it as a gigantic, worldwide, Union that operates with anarchist principles.
No property rights. Possible World State although it is not a state, but a Corporativist Union.
I heard that libertarian socialism permits personal property. What is the difference between that and private property?
semantics and idiocy. It means you can "have" things, but you can't "own" them...
I found this. - It is a difference that idiots persist with (I think because they have no idea what "capital" means).
Wow.
And you know, I just saw the opening of a Noam Chomsky video where he calls Occupy Wall Street "courageous."
And it was confirmed to me that libertarian socialism is indeed dumb.
It is basically all abolition of private property AND government.
Everyone shares the same resources, and capital is controlled by the workers.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
...Which is stupid from an economic and freedom-lover's viewpoint. Equal distribution of wealth in a stateless society? wat?
Personal property means consumption goods. If you are using something as a productive good in your business, then it's private property.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I don't think there's an actual built in mechanism for ensuring the total equality of everyone's incomes. It just means a democratic style worker ownership of productive goods.
There is no contradiction between libertarianism and socialism. I consider the family unit to be very much a socialist unit. Property is held communally and everyone takes what they need from the common pool of goods and services. Money is rarely involved in transactions between family members. If you notice, Mises' argument discussion of economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth is just that, a discussion on a commonwealth. There is no reason why socialism could not work in an isolated manor or farm. This isolated grouping would be denied the benefits of trade, and its residents would live diffilcult lives constantly working in order to survive. There would be a limited division of labor. In the case of a famine or other natural disaster they would likely die out, as they were unable to diversify their holdings around and would lose everything. It isn't the sort of life I'd personally live, but it is a life some might wish to live out of some genuine belief that it is morally superior.
The old classic liberals were infected with anti-propertarianism by William Godwin who originated the idea that private ownership of property was the cause of all the world's evils. He saw nations going to war for land. Men fighting over wealth, etc.
The leftist socialists since then have never been able to escape the influence of that idea, and have focused on spiritual concepts of equality to the exclusion of justice via property. They thus feel free to trample on property rights in the name of egalitarianism, and willingly use coercion to achieve that outcome.
I went out with a girl recently, a leftist, and she asked me about being a libertarian. What I told her was that like her, we libertarians too believe in freedom of speech and the like. But we think that rights can only achieved if you have corresponding property rights. Thus, the right to freedom of speech is actually a property right; meaning that you have freedom of speech only if you have the right to publish a book, or to rent a lecture hall and invite people.
And you have freedom of religion only if you have the right to build a church or the like. What use would it be to a jew to have freedom of religion if the government owned everything and did not allow the jew to make matzah balls? Freedom or speech or religion is a farce if you don't have the corresponding right to actualize that right in the real world.
It's taken me a long time to understand the leftist mindset--leftists treat human being and rights as floating abstractions, almost spiritual concepts, and ignore the physical reality that's entwined with it. They're deep into the idea of using power and coercion to right wrongs, and see no contradiction there, and they believe in the impossible egalitarian goal of 'equality of outcome' which can never be achieved, as opposed to the just concept of equality of opportunity, of equality before the law.
The leftist libertarians tend, therefore, to be so-called 'civil libertarians', meaning they want right and equality but they divorce that concept from economic libertarianism. They want free love, drug legalization, gay marriage, etc., and we agree with them on that, but they don't extend that concept of freedom to your right to do what you want with your property.
It would be interesting to try to craft an argument along those lines tho.
William Godwin who originated the idea that private ownership of property was the cause of all the world's evils.
Yeah, I think Plato said some things about this as well...
Leftists make my brain hurt. One thing that I have never understood is gun control, and the idea that if we do away with the open gun market, crime will be seriously reduced.
I have to admit, many leftists are very easy to talk to about everyday things, as most of the liberals I have met agree with me on many things relating to life. But when it comes to freedoms, it's like they speak a different language.
SkepticalMetal: Leftists make my brain hurt. One thing that I have never understood is gun control, and the idea that if we do away with the open gun market, crime will be seriously reduced.
It was a policy crafted by suburbanite leftist who lived in privately patrolled condos and whatnot. No one was proposing to take guns away from the pinkertons. Thus, they felt safe, felt like owning a gun was an anachronism.
They never gave the first thought that the people that most needed guns were inner-city minorities, and these were being hurt the most by tightened gun laws. Plus, liberals have a hatred of violence. Though they think graphic sex is fine. And conservatives are the reverse.
The most influental leading socialist political economist and communist in my country states the subject of private property is a 'black box'. The notion of private property exist even in a communist society. He persistently reminds right wing libertarians they should defend INDIVIDUAL property (not private property). This to make sure right libertarians do not loose sight of the implications of their own ideology which happen all too often with the use of 'private property'. Thus remove non-individual family property and impersonal corporate property incompitable with the individual property defended by right wing libertarians. He states he has no objections to free markets which he realize will never come to effect but get your prioriteries right and show your good intentions by dismantling the non-individuel property types on the market first.
The relevant criterion for common/shared property (also private property) is not everyone having access to it, but the shared right to regulate the access (the park, means of production). Private" (deprive (others), privateer) is the right to exclude. Like excluding dog owners from use. A negative right. "Property" a positive right associated with allowable use of the thing is to complex to elaborate further on here.