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?
Actually some are even worst they act like they are moraly superior and they dont even believe in morals...which I do.
DemiProphet: "It's taken me a long time to understand the leftist mindset" (from Anenome) Sorry I couldnt find out how to make a proper quote.
"It's taken me a long time to understand the leftist mindset"
(from Anenome) Sorry I couldnt find out how to make a proper quote.
Hit the quote button, then when it loads, look at the URL and at the end it will say 'false,' simply change that to 'true' and it will reload and the quote will be working.
DemiProphet:I share the exact same thought, thats basically what Im trying to do (even here), grasp the psychological source of their mindset in order to effectively shatter it into pieces (just for charity). But is hard because I see so much incoherence, some (like my aunt lol) act like they are moraly superior while they defend Bashar Al Assaad and atack the rights of Tibetans.
I've got a treat for you then. Here is Rothbard's book on the mindset, which is at the top of my reading list currently, and surely exactly what you're looking for:
It's free :)
DemiProphet:By the way I like what I been reading from you.
Thanks :)
DemiProphet: Actually some are even worst they act like they are moraly superior and they dont even believe in morals...which I do.
Never forget this: it is on moral grounds that the fight must be waged. Socialism spread so far because people believed it was morally superior to the ruling classes using aggression to maintain their privileges at the expense of ordinary people. It was, in the face of even worse oppression. But socialism did not does not and cannot reject force in social relationships, it is predicated on force, and must be attacked on those grounds. Our best wedge is the non-aggression principle.
That attitude of moral superiority still persists to this day in those people. We must agree with their goals of freedom and prosperity for all--after all they took those goals from us back in the day. But their chosen means, of using force to achieve all ends, is completely and irredeemably immoral. And you cannot cleanse an evil means with good goals.
Ok thank you.
I got a confesion to make I never read a book (entire one at least), and when people write books they tend to be very scientifical and they end up being very complicated and not saying much. But I like the title because Egalitarianism its really a revolt against nature, natural laws and reality, but still I prefer reading your posts for now, maybe later when I develop reading habits ill have a look ;)
Okay guys. I think I understand now that libertarian socialism is dumb and that Chomsky is pretty much a statist.
Ok Imagine I quoted the whole thing you said on your last post basically I agree.
And I also thought of them like "well intentioned people" but hell is full of good intentions, and I always find hard to believe the good intentions of people that voluntarily ignore truth and facts...in order to impose their "moraly superior" goals. And the concept of justice they have is beyond me...totally based on emotion and personal interests I guess.
DemiProphet: Ok thank you. I got a confesion to make I never read a book (entire one at least), and when people write books they tend to be very scientifical and they end up being very complicated and not saying much. But I like the title because Egalitarianism its really a revolt against nature, natural laws and reality, but still I prefer reading your posts for now, maybe later when I develop reading habits ill have a look ;)
Not Rothbard, he's write for a mass audience in a very easy to understand style :) And he says a lot.
Here, this is best book you could possibly read. And for it to be your first, that would be something you could boast about for life, because as far as books go it's a life-changing book. It's Rothbard's explanation of libertarianism, and it's free:
For a New Liberty, the Libertarian Manifesto
If you read just a few minutes a day, you'd be done in a month. Also, here's the exact same book as an audiobook! Again, for free. So, if reading ain't your thing, how about listening? I like to listen to audiobooks while driving for instance.
They believe in equality, it's true. But it's a kind of spiritual equality, or as Thomas Sowell puts it, Cosmic Justice, an unobtainable form of justice. That's a great book on the leftist mindset as well. And speaking of Sowell, here's another fantastic book about them he wrote called The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.
Because it is unobtainable, it justifies going to any length to obtain it, including the violation of people's rights--in their minds. They hold equality above justice in many cases, and thus accept the idea of using gov coercion to force certain social outcomes, such as using the obviously unjust racial tests for employment and school admissions. And they use them to "HELP" (favored) minorities, justifying it as discrimination used for good to make up for past discrimination which held people down.
That makes a certain sense in terms of justice. But it's still evil to use force to discriminate against people, legally, even if you're trying to help one group or another. What needs to be done away with in the first place is the idea that legal discrimination is in any way acceptable, even for good purposes. Because, as your said, the road to hell... good intentions. And Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor too.
Well...I wont say its unobtainable I would say its a stupid thought to start with, for equality to exist we necessarily needed to be all the same and do the exact same things, or else, justice couldnt exist. And thats what they try to ignore, that justice exists just like natural laws, if you put your hands on the fire you will get burned, not everybody will, just you. But anyway its a long discussion.
Thanks for the audiobook thats more my field (of research), I dont want to sound like a demiprophet or some might say "arrogant" but Im really not very much into knowing what others think, its good sometimes but I try to stay away from influences, thats how I apparently became a Libertarian (eventhou Im not sure of what that means), its a thing I have, its my way, im extremely individualist. ;)
Just to add wouldnt exist justice and of course free will and I could even say LIFE itself.
But suppose that you made the hammer on a machine that I personally built. I've hired you to run this machine. With the machine you can make 100 hammers a day of very high quality. Without the machine you can make perhaps 5 hammers a day of far inferior quality. Am I cheating you by taking the hammers you produce with my machine, and the metal I bought, and selling them for a market price that is more than what I agreed to pay you for a day's work? Or do you in fact recognize that without my machine you wouldn't even be able to earn as much from the hammers you could make on your own as I've offered to pay you to simply run my machine?
Am I cheating you by taking the hammers you produce with my machine, and the metal I bought, and selling them for a market price that is more than what I agreed to pay you for a day's work? Or do you in fact recognize that without my machine you wouldn't even be able to earn as much from the hammers you could make on your own as I've offered to pay you to simply run my machine?
If you have a contract, you don't have a slave, for the contract can be broken by either party
We are the guardians of true freedom of the world--to slander us as supporting slavery is the worst slander of all.
There is absolutely no reason to think that slavery would exist in a free society, as it is a direct contravention of the non-aggression principle (NAP).
o_O what basic right is that, and how did you derive it?
There's a categorical difference between "kill, rape, and torture" and "employment" which makes all the difference. It's contained in one word: coercion.
You are completely oblivious to the concepts of uncertainty and risk which makes you the idiot vs the employee who quite rationally prefers the certainty of a paycheck to a % share in the uncertain future profits.
leftist mindset
But socialism did not does not and cannot reject force in social relationships, it is predicated on force, and must be attacked on those grounds. Our best wedge is the non-aggression principle.
I think I understand now that libertarian socialism is dumb and that Chomsky is pretty much a statist.
Dude sorry but Socialist contracts are far worse. Socialists and Communists operate on contracts that are collectivist and much more crude.
Life is about risk, people are allowed to take risk and sell themselves if necessary, especially if there is a meeting of the minds. It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what is good for me.
The reality is that Capitalism is more successful than Socialism, even impure capitalism like we have today is far better than whatever society you have in mind. Only the market can save us from problems.
"If I was born without wealth and you were not, it does not mean it is right for you to exploit me."
I don't think anyone here would disagree with that, as no one is arguing for exploitation.
"My question is, do you find my behavior acceptable in this scenario and if not, what could possibly stop me in your stateless capitalist paradise if I also happen to be disgustingly rich?"
Most libertarians do not accept the ability of an individual to actually sell himself, and in no society that isn't extremely invasive would a group of people stop such a contract from going on if it was continually voluntary. I wouldn't like it, and I could try to stop either of you from continuing the contract, but at the end of the day if neither you nor your slave was willing to do so then it would continue on, and such would likely be the case for the socialist anarchist society so long as it still allowed for any degree of social freedom.
"Freedom means freedom, not 'freedom to do with your 'property' as you wish'."
In a world of general scarcity this is the closest thing to freedom that you can get.
"Your "free to choose" also means you are free to financially support people who directly oppose true freedom."
What?
"Slaves were also "free". They can do what they are told or they can starve and get whipped. The employed are free. They can do what they are told or they can starve. The paperwork involved makes no difference."
Really? I think it makes a lot of difference. In 99 percent of cases in the modern day there are alternatives for any individual than working for any single employer and eventually it comes down to the same thing: if the people of the society are willing to fund others to do absolutely nothing then they are more than welcome to do so. There is no guarantee that in a leftist anarchist society some variation of wage-slavery will be abolished (beyond becoming goods-slavery because money is gone), it's up to everyone there to decide this. If you live in a commune and the workers decide that they don't want to distribute goods to non-workers then you're out of luck... Guess communists are slave owners.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that in the case of "wage slavery" I have done nothing to you, I have left you alone and now you are dead, no force was used, nothing of yours was infringed upon. You are free to survive in any way imaginable, and in the modern world these are numerous indeed and would shrink infinitely under the socialist system. If you were my slave then I could take your life, rape you, do anything to you. These are not the same and to equate them is gross conflation. The wage slavery doctrine was bunk from the start and it's even more irrelevant now with exactly how far most people in the developed world are away from the starvation line.
"Waiving this right by signing a contract is no different than waiving any other right."
You cannot physically stop controlling your body unless you die or are unconscious. You can sure as hell stop possessing practically any physical object.
"If one agrees by contract to get tortured, where is the coercion?"
If they agree to it all the way through, there is none, and there wouldn't be in the socialist anarchist society either.
"Now suppose all of the workers who could possibly work at his company unionize and demand that he gets no more than his contribution in production from now on. What then? In your capitalist utopia, rich people do not hire armed people to force others to work. They do not influence the market in ways harmful to the workers (e.g. food shortages). Union leaders are not lynched. Striking miners and their families are not massacred. Dictatorships are not installed to obtain cheap resources and labour. And rivers run uphill."
This isn't an argument. Nor could it be made into one if you really think that there's a likelihood of the capitalists actually influencing the market through something as ridiculous as producing food shortages or that basic law enforcement is impossible.
"Why do you think that? Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist."
Chomsky supports numerous welfare programs and actions of the state, he also supports someone like Hilary Clinton over Ron Paul even though Paul supports the pacifism which Chomsky supposedly adores so much and wants to reduce the power of the central government only to make the state governments more powerful, take things down to a local level, like socialists supposedly want to.
This is what casts doubt on Chomsky for me more than anything else, although I do like a lot of his rhetoric involving knowledge, he admitted once that he doesn't even necessarily oppose the existence of markets, which would necessitate then that according to Chomsky's logic that if the socialist anarchist society was ever reached he would be brought over to voluntarism.
''In capitalism there is hierarchial organization among people, and the workers don't get the full product of their labor, whereas in socialism these two traits are absent.''
It's natural for hierarchies to form in nearly all, if not all, aspects of human activity primarily because of variation in human ability. Some people are more intelligent, some are stronger, some are faster, and so on. To give an example, a hierarchy will naturally arise in sports, such as cricket, were teams comprised of the most gifted, physically fit, and competently trained players will outperform teams comprised of less gifted, less physically fit and less competently trained players.
p.s I'm an ex-marxist that was influenced by left-communism, libertarian socialism, and anarcho-communism.
I extend my welcome to you Rugged Free-Marketer, thanks for joining this debate.
Schools are labour camps.