u can't be a libertarian and a socialist. the two are fundamentally different.
...says the one who "doesn't have time to read books by socialist anarchists."
I'm not even going to restart the old debate. You, personally, are not qualified to make that claim having never read books by socialists who also claim to be libertarian.
How are socialists libertarian? Socialist workplaces such as cooperatives are just like the state as they are bureaucratic.
"How are socialists libertarian? Socialist workplaces such as cooperatives are just like the state as they are bureaucratic."
Ok champion, here's a quick quiz.
1. Do you know where the word "libertarian" originated?
If your answer is no, then please do a google search and find out, you might be surprised who the first libertarians actually were! If the answer is yes then
A. Realize how foolish your question is
B. Correct your mistake
2. Is a corporation, if it happens to be bureaucratic, statist?
If the answer is yes then consider every anarcho-capitalist a statist. If no then retract above statement
3. Is a direct democratic system bureaucratic?
If yes then proceed to question 3A if no then
A. Realize foolishness of your post
B. Retract question
3A. How is a system that is entirely dependent upon the will of the workers, rather than a hierarchy in which bureaucracies are literally designed to handle affairs rather than a direct translation of the will of the workers into action?
Either provide a direct answer or answer "it is not" if the latter is chosen then
4. Think of an anarcho-capitalist world. Imagine that communes were wonderful places to live and so every individual chose to live in one. Is this statist?
A. If no then socialist libertarians become perfectly tolerable so long as they are respectful. If no become a statist because you want to force people to base their lives and economic activities off of your wants
5. If someone came along and said outright that they did not consider books about anarcho-capitalism worth their time and then claimed that anarcho-capitalism was "statist" because corporations were bureaucratic like the state then what would your impression be of them?
If the answer is along the lines of "think they were a conciously ignorant fool" then pat on back. If the answer is "think they were entirely justified" then fully accept all socialist libertarians. If the answer is "ignore them" then begin ignoring yourself.
It's not a good precedent to come out and say that someone has nothing worth while to say because they happen to take a certain viewpoint, especially when you don't know what it is and can't even form a non-contradictory definition for why it is what you say it is.
I'll write a note to young Hoppe and tell him that he shouldn't bother reading anything written by any capitalists. It's not worth his time you know.
Do you know where the word "libertarian" originated?
How is that relevant to the new, capitalist sense of the term? By the new term, Libertarians cannot indeed be socialists. Yes, you are right, F4M made a historical omission in his statement. But why does that matter?
Rothbard took old, historical terms and gave them real, intellectual meaning. I don't see why we should think of the words in the old sense.
I agree with you though that F4M's intellectual apathy is rather egregious. However, Libertarianism is a Movement, not just restricted to intellectuals but also people like him.
States neither rise nor fall. There are only ego's which realize how to maximize their own utility to their own advantages within a social order at any given time, after that you are putting a ghost in the machine.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
First of all even the current sense of the term allows for a good deal of ambivalence and many "left libertarians" have obviously never stopped using the term. The reason that left libertarians refer to themselves as such is obviously because of the fact that they have a different definition of the word than "right libertarians" do. Just in the same way that the liberals in the old sense of the term call themselves "classicla liberals". A fair amount of them are not libertarian in, as you say, the "modern" sense of the term, but an increasing number of them are. It's hard to argue against a voluntaryist position when you say that communes or workers cooperatives are the superior form of economic organization whilst at the same time saying that they could not compete in a market environment.
Hmm...Good answer Neo.
I'm still a bit afraid of the leftist "libertarians" who would aggress against my private property and forcibly put me in communes, if they had their way. Is that reasonable?
EDIT- And am I then considered a "right" Libertarian? I have always considered myself a "strict" Libertarian, but I'd like to hear your thoughts...
I think that it would be reasonable if the left libertarians had a lot more support than they currently do. If the state dissapeared tommorow then people would go on living their lives for the most part. Right libertarianism would be much less of a stretch than left libertarian. In America, where libertarianism, left and right, are more popular than just about any other country on earth, it is right libertarianism, not left, that predominates. There would need to be a huge majority of leftist libertarians to forcibly confiscate land, especially when their entire ideology preaches equality peace and progress. If they tried to mass confiscate with even a 60% majority I believe that support would quickly be lost from this massive display of force.
Once again the terms themselves are very ambivalent. You could argue that the divide is between "collectivist" and "individualist" libertarianisms and anarchisms, but this it not strictly speaking correct. A central tenant of all libetarianism has been self discovery and self determination. Emma Goldman, the most famous communist anarchist, described anarchism as an ideology that would finally remove all antagonisms between the individual and society, as well as supporting full individual freedom both economically and socially, so long as they stayed away from what she felt constituted "exploitation". Proudhon lacked any clear cut economic plan, all of his work seemingly contradictory, but he did favor small capitalistic organizations, free banking, and workers cooperatives, whilst at the same time saying on his deathbed that he felt his solutions should be "free and optional for all". The anarchist Lysander Spooner, adored around here himself was very critical of capitalism and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, although never lashing out against property itself.
So the only way that I feel that libertarianism can be defined is by the prescription towards capitalism and markets, not even the attitude. Therefore I split it between the general lines which have divded the consistent aspect of politics, economics, for about a century now. Left, critical of capitalism and favoring egalitarian and democratic organizations, and Right, usually favoring property, hierarchical capitalism, and general freedom of action within the property norm. The difference is of course that leftist aims and prescriptions can flourish in rightist societies, but the reverse cannot happen.
So to your original question these terms are only really useful when drawing dichotomies between libertarianisms. Calling yourself an "anarcho-capitalist" "voluntaryist" "modern libertarian" "american libetarian" "classical liberal" or whatever work much more effectively. As for your preffered term I'd say it still leaves room for a great deal of ambivalence, indeed some could interpret it as being "strict" in the same way that "strict" christians are fundumentalist and don't take heed of current definitions and developements. This would of course, usually just be in a more leftist crowd, around here it'd work fine.
All good points. Are voluntarists the same as we anarcho-capitalists, by the way? They are against all States, right?
Are voluntarists the same as we anarcho-capitalists, by the way
Same thing, yes.
Btw, you should go to Forums of the LIbertarian Left. You would have so much fun.
Yes, voluntaryists/voluntarists are both direct outgrowths of the modern libertarian/anarcho-capitalist movement. If I had to choose a term to describe myself then that would be it. Voluntarists are much more focused on, obviously, the voluntary nature of free markets and an anarchist society instead of the focus being entirely upon the benefits of the private ownership of the means of production and profit seeking activity. For this reason they tend to have a wider array of influences beyond simply Mises Rothbard and Rand. For this reason "voluntaryist" is usually a bigger umbrella of a term than "anarcho-capitalist". While most voluntaryists do indeed heartily support capitalism, I would consider many of the more open minded libertarians who claim to be "left libertarians", because they are critical of capitalism, voluntaryists because they are not hostile to capitalism itself, they merely support alternatives to traditional firm/market structures. They wish people to voluntarily determine their own fates, regardless of the system they really choose or which they personally favor.
My problem with the term "anarcho-capitalism" is that it seems to proffer a single solution to all problems, private ownership of the means of production. I do believe that there are situations under which more collective and less profit oriented organizations will prove superior, but furthermore I don't pretend to know what kind of system is superior, I don't know if traditional capitalism with the chains taken off is superior to an anarcho-communist society. Let's try to make a society in which people are free to determine and discover this on their own. Let's create a voluntary society.
instead of the focus being entirely upon .
Upon what?
Fixed
Fun or "fun"? xD
I think I visited once or twice, but I found it very strange.
Lol, "fun." You got me.
Do you remember why Rothbard and fellows started to use word 'libertarian'? Because left-wingers stole the word 'liberal'. It seems that after 10-20 years we have to go through that sh*t AGAIN.
There's an old saying: if you cannot stop a train by applying the brakes there are only two ways to come to an alt. Either cut off the fuel supply or keep accelerating until the train jumps tracks and crashes.
The "spend into oblivion" scenario is a train crash: is nasty, messy and costs untold lives and resources. That's where we are heading right now. That's one of the solutions to the "Capitalist Problem" Marx envisaged in his later years: let them bring about their own demise and then reap the rewards.
The "cut the fuel supply" scenario is more sensible and much less painful, but it requires the full cooperation of the chap shoveling coal into the furnace. Right now the chap shoveling coal is scared. He is scared because he fears if the train stops he'll be out of work; he's scared of the heavily armed and short tempered conductor. Perhaps he's tired of a life shoveling coal and wants to be, say, a cowboy but he really sees no option but shoveling coal all day in the furnace. That chap shoveling coal is all of us, wealth producers, from the humble day worker to the professional athlete making millions. For all of our hard work we get nothing more than a promise of payment. It's not a binding contract: the conductor is just telling us "I'll pay you someday". Whatever we get paid or not depends entirely on the conductor. If the conductor wants to buy himself a new house or has to bail out his friends there won't be nothing left for us. S*** happens.
Right now the conductor is not only cutting pay, but also ordering us to shovel coal faster and faster. If he sees us slack he puts his hand on his revolver or concocts some fanciful, tear-jerking story to keep us working. Problem is we are growing tired in the body and the mind. The West has started to decline precisely because wealth producers are tired and see no way out. Shoveling coal all day at an ever accelerating rate for a dimishing pay is not an incentive, even under the threat of violence. Eventually you end up doing the bare minimum to survive, just like a slave.
There are a few options for the chap shoveling coal though. He can just jump off the train. It's dangerous though: he can end up seriously wounded or dead. Life is not a film. He can cross his arms, sit down and refuse to work. Sure, the conductor can threaten and beat him up but will he go as far as kill him? Gandhi proved non-violence works, but he was confronted with Lord Mountbatten who, despite being a violent thug, was far more reasonable than any modern day politician. He knew when to give up. Finally he can use violence against the conductor, his own bare hands against the conductor's revolver. It's a huge gamble, but desperate people resort to desperate means. Let's pray God we don't get to this.
Nice analogy
1) Action taken against "private" property is defense, not aggression.
Imagine this scenerio: John comes up to a pond in a field, pulls out his guitar and enjoys the local ecology. Freddie runs out with a gun screaming "MINE" and threatens to shoot John. John calmly asks Freddie to calm down, he will be on his way soon enough. Freddie shoots John and calls the police. John goes to jail, Freddie walks free. You have to make some pretty big logical jumps to call John the aggressor in that scenario; basically you have to beg the question and assume the legitimacy of property rights.
Imagine this scenerio: John comes up to a pond in a field, pulls out his guitar and enjoys the local ecology. Freddie runs out with a gun screaming "MINE" and threatens to shoot John. John calmly asks Freddie to calm down, he will be on his way soon enough. Freddie shoots John and calls the police. John goes to jail, Freddie walks free.
You have to make some pretty big logical jumps to call John the aggressor in that scenario; basically you have to beg the question and assume the legitimacy of property rights.
2) It wouldn't be very libertarian to force people into communes. Just as it is not (in our view) libertarian to force people into the property system (think Enclosure Act).
Most of us socialist libertarians are fine allowing people to try capitalism in a non-state society. We just don't see it likely that the majority of people will choose to be slaves without the massive support Property gets from the state. If we sieze the workplace and you don't have the police to call in against us, how well do you think you will be able to hold on to it?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Action taken against "private" property is defense, not aggression.
That does not make any sense. Are you denying the Libertarian principle that every man has a right to his own? Anyway, that confirms my fears about you aggressing against my private property...
Also, I am confused by your example. Presumably John does not own the guitar in this scenario? Are you saying that it is Freddie's, and John has stolen it? Honestly, I am confused contextually by this.
I would say, from my Rothbardian view, if John owns the guitar, Freddie has obviously aggressed upon him. If John has stolen the guitar from Freddie, Freddie has still used more than proportional force against the original crime of Johnnie's. For he has threatened murder against petty theft. We Rothbardians are not maximalists mate. We believe in punishment in proportion to the crime; Freddie becomes a criminal by that much more which he has Aggressed than the original crime.
Also, you are not allowed to aggress upon the owner and "seize" the workplace.
I am not, nor would I, deny that principle. It is the foundational reason for my anti-capitalism.
And again, we are defending ourselves against your aggression.
1) Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.
2) It's the lake I'm talking about, not the guitar.
The owner aggressed against all of us when he bought the deed
My aggression? I am simply a peaceful Free Market capitalist. Why, that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard!
Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.
There is no literal, collective "society." Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot "do" or "allow" or "determine" anything: "it" cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 of Man, Economy, and State.
It's the lake I'm talking about, not the guitar.
Ah, John's a trespasser I presume, then. Yes, Freddie is still using more than proportional punishment. He should proceed to evict him with proportional force, and that would (of course!) be legitimate.
1). I am not a part of this "all of us" BS.
2). The owner has aggressed upon no one.
I am going to make a stunning and amazing prediction!!!!
I predict that Rothbard's Disciple... IS NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LAOTZU DEL ZINN IS TRYING TO SAY!!!! :O :O :O
*epic thunderclap, crowd gasps in amazement*!!!
"Most of us socialist libertarians are fine allowing people to try capitalism in a non-state society. We just don't see it likely that the majority of people will choose to be slaves without the massive support Property gets from the state. If we sieze the workplace and you don't have the police to call in against us, how well do you think you will be able to hold on to it?"
Funny, I think something similar about communes.
Oh, am I missing something really important? :O
He said he would aggress against my (emphasis) property.
And does your prediction apply vice versa? xD
You're only peaceful because, once again, you are begging the question of private properties legitimacy.
Hey, why don't you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.
Ya, except you are... like it or not.
If I steal your gold, and sell it to a third party is the third party part of the aggression against you? (In Ohio he is)
At least we both realize the state is unnecessary, and usually reactionary.
You called it
You are begging the question of private properties legitimacy.
Private property is absolute. I beg no question.
Hey, why don't you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping.
What's MI? And I am not a communist; I have no interest in going into communist class, even though I am interested in learning about it from the outside. (You can see me from the window taking notes on why you are wrong).
Your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.
Nope, morality is objective and universal, according to Rothbard's Non-Aggression Axiom.
Nope, there are only individuals. I am a literalist, and I only believe in things that literally exist mate.
If I steal your gold, and sell it to a third party is the third party part of the aggression against you?
And? The owner got to mix his labour with the (still unowned!) land by buying a deed. So what if he bought unowned land which the State aggressively gave him claim to? He still first mixed the land with the labour making it his.
Your gold metaphor is not parallel.
Oh, does MI=Mises Institute? That would make sense.
Well I can see Im arguing with a fundamentalist, and undertaking a futile effort. I think I'm done here. I will respond to your response for the benefit of the lurkers.. you, my friend, are at the moment at least, a lost cause...
Ya, except for the one "is private property legitimate." Other than that question tho, no, you're not begging anything.
What's MI
Methodological Individualism.
Except, it's, you know, not.
So you don't believe in love or humor? lol
But all kidding aside. What literally exists is you, me, and a bunch of other individuals who take actions that have both direct and indirect efffects on each other.
Again... sad but true.
So guess what. When Terry steals your gold and sells it to me, you're not getting your gold back. I "bought it fairly. So what if the theif aggressively gave me claim to it. I still mixed the gold with my labor, making it mine."
Well I can see Im arguing with a fundamentalist, and undertaking a futile effort. I think I'm done here. I will respond to your response for the benefit of the lurkers.. you, my friend, are at the moment at least, a lost cause.
I'm a fundamentalist? I am just a Rothbardian. And I am willing to listen to someone else's communism. Even though I know in advance I will disagree. That is what being open-minded means to me.
Well, morality is objective because abstract theories are objective. This is according to the philosophical definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. Morality is universal because the NAA is true.
Yeah, except...Nobody owns unowned land! xD
Whoever said the capitalist bought unowned land to put his factory on? I certainly didn't.
Well, that's what happened in many cases historically!
Ok, I know I am coming off bad at this point. But the thing is, I am on your side in certain cases. Where the original victim can be specifically traced, I would agree his property can be restituted which the govt. gave to a third party. However, the original victim has to prove his case in court, or otherwise responsibly justify any actions of vigilante confiscation he might take. So, yes, I entirely agree: where property is illegitimately owned, and where the victim can be specifically found, the victim can be restituted. So if the State steals money from X, and subsequently subsidizes business Y, X can get his money back from Y if he can specifically prove that it was stolen from him. Same as the victim in your gold scenario.
Rothbardians can get along with everyone. We are certainly not funamentalists, albeit we are disagreeable. Please see this article, which I think you would much agree with as a leftist:
http://murrayrothbard.com/confiscation-and-the-homestead-principle/