Does mankind possess the capacity to spontaneously organize and govern the self and the whole fairly and equally by some criteria of standards, without coercion by an external force? What are some real world examples of this phenomenon?
Question doesn't make any sense because you say "coercion by an external force".
Case 1: If all humans in this world are not part of the "external force", then there already is no coercion by an external force.
Case 2: If humans belonging to government are part of the "external force", then you are committing the Bastiat Fallacy: "Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." The retaliatory and justice-driven force that is applied in response to rights violations can be done by individuals in a monopolistic government or it could be done in a competitive market manner. If you are to view one system as an "external force", you must also consider the other one to be an "external force".
Hope that clears up the logical fallacy.
"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron.
</thread>
Clayton -
Clayton: "Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron. </thread> Clayton -
It's not. Propertyless societies do exist. They just end up withering away and dying, either from hunger or from illness.
Private property doesn't exist in the slums of Liberia. Everything that people use is used commonly. That is the technical definition of socialism. Even when the people there are not coercing each other or being violent with each other, the lack of property means little sustenance.
We have plenty of hippy communes in India, and foreign hippies here live in filthy conditions. It doesn't work out. They can barely feed themselves or live in sanitary conditions. Their clothes end up dirty and they look almost like vagrants.
It's not. Propertyless societies do exist. They just end up withering away and dying, either from hunger or from illness. Private property doesn't exist in the slums of Liberia. Everything that people use is used commonly. That is the technical definition of socialism. Even when the people there are not coercing each other or being violent with each other, the lack of property means little sustenance. We have plenty of hippy communes in India, and foreign hippies here live in filthy conditions. It doesn't work out. They can barely feed themselves or live in sanitary conditions. Their clothes end up dirty and they look almost like vagrants.
But I don't see what any of that has to do with what I said - libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. People will engage in property-like behavior because property is something that is biological, it's culturally universal (to borrow a term from evolutionary psychology), so the only way to stop property-like behavior is with coercion. But even there, it's not so much that property-like behavior ends as it is that the ordinary or natural rules of property are exchanged for different rules under socialism.
The Austrian conception of property is based in the handling of conflicts over the control of scarce physical resources. So, property always exists, even under socialism or communism. The illustration I've used in the past is that of railroaders building a railroad in a communist country. The sledge-hammers they use are the property of "society" or "all" and it is supposedly the "general will", not any central authority, which has determined that those hammers be used to drive railroad spikes. But the metaphysical BS surrounding communist political theory doesn't change the physical fact that only one or the other individual may hold and swing the hammer at a time. It is impossible for two men to hold on to the hammer and swing it simultaneously. The rules governing who may (or must) swing the hammer and when are the property rules. So, it's not so much that property no longer exists under socialism/communism as it is that the natural rules (self-ownership + original appropriation) are overridden by coercive force. And coercive force is the only way to override the natural rules, no voluntary culture has ever had socialism or communism. It's a contradiction of terms.
Case 1: Nit-picky logic arguments are appreciated.
Case 2: The Bastiat fallacy is itself a fundamentally flawed expression, because people behave in irrational ways and percieve logic with personal biases.
It would be voluntary if individuals viewed it as such.
"Case 2: The Bastiat fallacy is itself a fundamentally flawed expression, because people behave in irrational ways and percieve logic with personal biases."
What is this intended to mean?
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Yes, some people do have this ability, all of mankind? No. There are relativly few lasting real owrld examples. In theory however Owenian type organizations (the original not the new hope kind) are perfectly possible and I believe preffered in many instances.... It all depends upon ideas and societal memes.