So I'm on this terrible forum in a stupid "communist filled" thread, and some guy (not me) says this to one of them:
"I am Libertarian. So, yes I am capitalist. I support economics and personal freedoms."
The response to this made me laugh out loud... then it hit me and I thought about poking my eyes out so I couldn't read it ever again:
If you're a libertarian you're a pro-capitalist, but not necessarily a capitalist. And I fail to see the rationality in being a pro-capitalist as a non-capitalist.* Libertarianism is opposite to personal and economic freedoms. Libertarianism is based on the formation of multiple private tyrannies, instead of a state you at least have some influence over.
* = Here I believe he's saying he doesn't think workers can be "capitalists", because they're working for the capitalists... But I find the last sentence here to be the "best".
Should I bother trying to define libertarianism for this guy, or is it just stupid at this point?
I think radicals like this are more likely to respond and reform (in time, after planting the seeds of doubt and being led in the right direction) and become active supporters of libertarianism than a "lay person" simply because they've shown that they have an interest in the general topic(s). Someone without a strong opinion may be easier to convince, but they're also less likely to be very active and vocal about the topic IMO. (This is why I torture myself talking to these nutjobs, in case anyone was wondering.)
Even if you did define libertarianism it wouldn't matter, he's already made his views on private property clear.
Ansury: So I'm on this terrible forum in a stupid "communist filled" thread, and some guy (not me) says this to one of them: "I am Libertarian. So, yes I am capitalist. I support economics and personal freedoms." The response to this made me laugh out loud... then it hit me and I thought about poking my eyes out so I couldn't read it ever again: If you're a libertarian you're a pro-capitalist, but not necessarily a capitalist. And I fail to see the rationality in being a pro-capitalist as a non-capitalist.* Libertarianism is opposite to personal and economic freedoms. Libertarianism is based on the formation of multiple private tyrannies, instead of a state you at least have some influence over.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Ansury:I think radicals like this are more likely to respond and reform (in time, after planting the seeds of doubt and being led in the right direction) and become active supporters of libertarianism than a "lay person" simply because they've shown that they have an interest in the general topic(s).
I completely agree. Here's my reasoning. Socialists have rejected the status quo. They accept that the current system is riddled with problems. In fact, I've been to a few socialist meetings and I've found that their critique of the current system is almost totally spot-on. (It's when they start suggesting solutions that they stop making sense!) Moreover, in rejecting the status quo they've abandoned faith in the explanations and suggestions of those at the top. It seems to me that convincing people to dispense with the propaganda dished out in public schools and via government officials is one of the hardest parts of getting somebody to embrace libertarianism (or anything outside the political norms).
I know that speaking from my own experience, I was led into libertarianism through socialism. Howard Zinn's leftist revisions history text "A People's History of the United States" destroyed my loyalty to the state. That was a necessary step in my progression to look for alternative options. Plus, conversion from leftism seems surprisingly common - this observation is based on discussions of how people came to embrace libertarianism ongoing in this forum as well as on the Mises Facebook discussion tab. That should make all of us hopeful!
That said, I know my transition from apathy to libertarianism took ~5 years. My transition from socialism to libertarianism took ~1.5 years. Along the way, there were several short discussions that steered me in that direction. The first time I learned about Ron Paul was from a message posted by a friend on Facebook. Prior to that, I accidentally stumbled onto Ayn Rand through an X-box game based on Objectivism. My conclusion is that introducing people to libertarianism is definitely possible, but we should not expect instant gratification as self-guided transitions take a lot of time. I definitely encourage you and others to directly engage with self-proclaimed socialists/communists, but do so politely and with relatively low expectations. Try to find areas of agreement and make arguments that they can identify with. Try to demonstrate that the problems they are concerned about can actually be explained by state intervention, so even from a utility point of view one might embrace libertarianism.
I've been attending some local ISO meetings (International Socialist Organization). They all know I'm an anarchocapitalist. You would be shocked at their reception of me. They are absolutely fascinated by my views. In fact, they quite enjoyed the fact that I described myself as an anarchist and suggested that I use this term instead of libertarianism. Somehow that seemed to bridge the gap between us a little better. I'm learning that this surprise is generated by their lack of understanding as to what "libertarianism" really is.
Some of the arguments I found they were most receptive to: Capitalism channels greed into productive uses, since the only way to obtain more for oneself is by serving one's fellow man. Central banks hurt the poor by devaluing the value of their money. War is not a symptom of the free market, but its antithesis because it violates respect for individuals lives and property. It's also useful to appeal to any personal morals which might be well aligned to their coercive causes - in my case, this includes a personal desire to preserve parts of the environment, anti-discriminatory, anti-war, empathy for the sick, etc. I try to show that libertarians are peaceful and compassionate people, which catches them off guard.
At one meeting this year, after I was describing the privatization of the court system, one guy put his arm around me and said consolingly, "You know, as much as I'd like to see socialism established here in my lifetime, I accept that probability is close to nil. But I feel like your system is even less likely." I'm not sure whether this is correct or not, but I had a good laugh. To some extent, I was pleased by that comment because it was an admission that anarchocapitalism is just as radical, or more so, as communism. A point that Murray Rothbard makes in "For A New Liberty".
Anyway, keep those discussions going, but remember to be polite and non-aggressive. Even if you don't concert anybody to libertarianism straight away, you might plant a seed that encourages somebody to "look into it" and he just might find, like I did, that he agrees.
-Michael
Anyone know where did the private tyranny idea originate? I've only heard it from Chomsky.
Caley McKibbin: Anyone know where did the private tyranny idea originate? I've only heard it from Chomsky.
Oh, geez, is that where this drivel is coming from? And here I thought this was something original.
Some interesting observations above. I can add that years ago (I guess 15 now) I did have an interest in reading the Communist Manifesto and of course being around high school at the time, as far as I understood it, I wasn't very critical of it. I wouldn't say I went full blown communist or anything, but I've always been more active in learning about topics like this than most people I know. Most people just aren't interested. Anyway "communism" didn't lead me directly here (besides, neocon talk radio grabbed my attention for years)--I'm another one of those Ron Paul converts, but the fact that I was curious about it (when most people aren't at all) hasn't escaped me.
It would seem that it's not a rare view among Communists that libertarianism is one of the worst ideologies second only to fascism.
That does open the question though that if libertarianism will end up oppressing the proletariate so much, then shouldn't the fact that (unlike a fascist society) guns can be easily bought and that there is no government restriction on speech/press actually be a good thing? From a Marxist point of view (at least what I think would be a Marxist point of view, I'm not expert) it would seem that this is the perfect fertile ground for a Communist Revolution.
So shouldn't Communists support the creation of a libertarian society if only as a means to bring about the inevitable revolution or something?
Just something I was thinking about.
As I recall they did support the creation of a fascist system (nazi germany) during the elections for the same reason you posted.
All the statists I talk to go back to the idea that if you let the free market do its thing, someone will just superwin in the marketplace and enslave us all and we'll have oppressive government again
Snowflake: All the statists I talk to go back to the idea that if you let the free market do its thing, someone will just superwin in the marketplace and enslave us all and we'll have oppressive government again
lol well in that case. Wouldn't it be better to remove tyranny now and accept the possiblity that it might come back instead of just being ok with it as a constant? Like hey man who cares if this guy comes in and robs my Corner store deli, another one will come and rob me anyway so I might as well just give them all my money all the time.
Even someone who "superwins" is not in a position to invade property indiscriminantly. Here an opponent may say that with sufficient wealth, bribery and corruption will buy anyone the ability to escape punishment from acts of invasion. Yes, if the multitudes are willing to forget their principles in exchange for wealth, then we certainly do return to an oppressive government again. But this is always how governments lose their way, not just libertarian ones. At some point, the principles of the party are abandoned for "general welfare" (at the expensive of rights) which then becomes a disguise for the "personal welfare".
In other words, if you let the state do its thing, a few people can grab the levers of power (and these are very powerful levers for the statist) and we'll have oppressive government.
auctionguy10:lol well in that case. Wouldn't it be better to remove tyranny now and accept the possiblity that it might come back instead of just being ok with it as a constant? Like hey man who cares if this guy comes in and robs my Corner store deli, another one will come and rob me anyway so I might as well just give them all my money all the time.
I'm with this guy, but to add.
Some of us learn to appreciate economics before anarchy and some of us learn economics after.
Defining libertarian is probably a lost cause. The word is claimed by people (like Glenn Beck and Bill Maher) who may not be all that representative. If you get into a definitions debate, neither of you will benefit. Instead, say what you mean by the term.
I think the extreme left is looking for a non-governmental stable form of social cooperation they can believe in. There only problem is that they have witnessed the private-public industrial complex for so long, calling itself "free market", that they are blocked from seeing the answer.
Sure. Worse case scenario is "we're back to government". But it is an essential part of the anarchistic argument that governments are "just guys" no matter how they are constituted, and as such, they are all vulnerable to forgetting ideals, getting sloppy, and lapsing into something else. Words on paper and fancy hats offer no more insurance.
Snowflake:All the statists I talk to go back to the idea that if you let the free market do its thing, someone will just superwin in the marketplace and enslave us all and we'll have oppressive government again
That is exactly the same argument that the "non-statist" anarcho-communists put forth, and as Liberty Student said on another thread, I think it boils down to economic ignorance. There's no discussion with folks like this, as a rule.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Kierkeguardian:That does open the question though that if libertarianism will end up oppressing the proletariate so much, then shouldn't the fact that (unlike a fascist society) guns can be easily bought and that there is no government restriction on speech/press actually be a good thing? From a Marxist point of view (at least what I think would be a Marxist point of view, I'm not expert) it would seem that this is the perfect fertile ground for a Communist Revolution. So shouldn't Communists support the creation of a libertarian society if only as a means to bring about the inevitable revolution or something?
That is EXACTLY what the socialists at revleft.com keep saying over and over again.
I found it amusing.
Ansury:Libertarianism is based on the formation of multiple private tyrannies, instead of a state you at least have some influence over.
If he meant "multiple organizations/individuals generaly seen as having the legitimate monopoly of violence on a giver teritory" he is very very right, and actually a step ahead of most libertarians in accepting that what we've been calling a "state" since Weber onward, is just a property-owner.
if, instead, he means "multiple organizations/individuals generaly seen as having the right to infringe property rights (i.e. foster nonvoluntarism)" he is wrong.
If he had no idea of what he meant than the cause of Socialism has been righlty served :)
It's always interesting to hear people consider private ownership as tyranny. I'm being tyrannical with my laptop right now, it wanted union rights. I scoffed at such fripperies.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I used to be vaguely socialist myself. An Objectivist friend was what lead me out of it, and then I found this site which has moved me to anarcho-capitalism.
"Thats no law, thats just a sword. Happens I got one too"
Couldn't you extend the Anarcho-Communist logic on ownership and say that Laptops should be free or have a "free will". Since you possess a table you are tyrannizing it by having a meal on top of it. In fact by their logic you cannot even posses objects, for you are enslaving it.
Sounds like the Environmentalist logic to me.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Laughing Man:It's always interesting to hear people consider private ownership as tyranny.
Always interesting, indeed. And always nonsense. I've seen attacks on Rothbard making the claim that, essentially, he is an idiot and his arguments are inconsistent since he denounces the State for its "territorial monopoly" but he supports an individual's "territorial monopoly." I've been dissatisfied with this criticism without formulating my own well-thought out reply, but basically because there is a qualitative difference between the tyranny of a State and the "tyranny" or a man who forbids trespass over or through a small parcel of land. THe difference, IMO, is not simply reducible to a matter of size.
Someone above put it best: the difference is that the State, within its territory, infringes upon people's rights and liberties.
I'm not aware of any advocate of "private tyrannies" (i.e., agorists, anarcho-capitalists/market-anarchists, panarchists, etc.) who believes in an individual's right to infringe the liberty or rights of others.
It's another f*cking strawman distraction.
"Private tyranny"? Show them this .
I was really hoping that would've been worthwhile...
David Z:I've been dissatisfied with this criticism without formulating my own well-thought out reply, but basically because there is a qualitative difference between the tyranny of a State and the "tyranny" or a man who forbids trespass over or through a small parcel of land.
All I've seen is: "The free market oppresses the masses!" and "Libertarianism is such an insane philosophy."
David Z:. I've seen attacks on Rothbard making the claim that, essentially, he is an idiot and his arguments are inconsistent since he denounces the State for its "territorial monopoly" but he supports an individual's "territorial monopoly." I've been dissatisfied with this criticism without formulating my own well-thought out reply, but basically because there is a qualitative difference between the tyranny of a State and the "tyranny" or a man who forbids trespass over or through a small parcel of land.
a man's property in goods outside of his body, is merely an extension of his body property.
'tyrant!' has emotive power and meaning in the context of politics, as it references the tyranny, or illegitimate force of a tyrant over a subordinate.
how can i be a tyrant over myself?, a tyrant over my property.? i can't, any-more than i can be a slave to myself..... A tyrant confuses anothers property with his own, and so proceeds to act illegitimately, tyrannically. this is evil.
an owner confuses nothing, merely reserves the right to exclude 3rd parties from his property. If they find this objectionable. so be it. if they take up force against it. they are themselves the tyrants.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Laughing Man: It's always interesting to hear people consider private ownership as tyranny. I'm being tyrannical with my laptop right now, it wanted union rights. I scoffed at such fripperies.
Be careful there, I have often argued with socialists that claim that it is not personal property what they want abolished but the means of production in private hands, I guess that would be the company that makes the laptops.
Personally I found this argument very annoying and hard to refute since they can conveniently turn the abolition of private property into something innocuous and abstract, after all who wouldn't want a free laptop?
Felipe:Be careful there, I have often argued with socialists that claim that it is not personal property what they want abolished but the means of production in private hands, I guess that would be the company that makes the laptops.
Irrationalists. Why is it harmful to own the means of production yet not personal items?
Laughing Man:Why is it harmful to own the means of production yet not personal items?
Because private ownership of the means of production enables exploitation of the have-nots, by the haves. Or so the argument goes.
David Z: Laughing Man:Why is it harmful to own the means of production yet not personal items? Because private ownership of the means of production enables exploitation of the have-nots, by the haves. Or so the argument goes.
Their argument shatters to pieces when one takes it out of an abstract context and into a tangible one. What if my personal property is a printer, and I happen to use it to print out and sell postcards to people. Am I exploiting anyone by owning this printer? Should it be taken out of my hands and given to some mythical 'society'? Or to continue with the laptop example, when does the laptop stop being 'personal property'? Is it before or after I used it to produce a profitable piece of software?
Most people who hate libertarianism seem to think it's just a philosophy for rich people.
phrizek: Their argument shatters to pieces when one takes it out of an abstract context and into a tangible one. What if my personal property is a printer, and I happen to use it to print out and sell postcards to people. Am I exploiting anyone by owning this printer? Should it be taken out of my hands and given to some mythical 'society'? Or to continue with the laptop example, when does the laptop stop being 'personal property'? Is it before or after I used it to produce a profitable piece of software?
I think its linked with the labor theory of value, since according to them only labor adds value a mean of production that employs other human beings would be inherently exploitative.
A printer or a laptop would continue to be personal property I guess.
PD: Can you exploit a machine?
David Z:Because private ownership of the means of production enables exploitation of the have-nots, by the haves. Or so the argument goes.
And yet the ownership of goods does not enable such 'exploitation'? If I owned all the shoes in the world then could I not 'exploitate' all others according to their definitions?
Laughing Man: David Z:Because private ownership of the means of production enables exploitation of the have-nots, by the haves. Or so the argument goes. And yet the ownership of goods does not enable such 'exploitation'? If I owned all the shoes in the world then could I not 'exploitate' all others according to their definitions?
Yes (and as a scholar of socialism, you may understand this better than I do).
My understanding is that anything more than pure usufrucht ownership (by possession & use) is labeled as "private property" and hence, "exploitative." To use your example, the fact that you "own" all of the shoes in the world puts you in a position of economic power over all those who want shoes but have none.
The hinge seems to be at the "possession & use", i.e., it's impossible for you to constructively possess & use all of the shoes in the world, therefore your property claim in them is illegitimate. In fact, it's impossible for you to constructively use and possess more than a few pair of shoes at any time.
IMO, the distinction between propertarian anarchism and libsoc is more a question of "At what point does abandonment attach?" since it seems to me that the basis of ownership (homesteading/possession & use, etc) is not terribly contentious.