I admit I am new here and just learning the ropes. I find the Mises Institute education fascinating and the ability to debate and ask questions refreshing.
But I was astounded to find so many socialist thinkers on the forum. How do they reconcile this thinking with the anti -coercion principle, or have they found a way around that?
It is said that until you can understand and credibly argue the position that your opponent takes, you have not done enough homework. So educate me:
How is it possible to be a libertarian, believe in individual liberty and yet justify socialism, which by definition takes liberty out of somebody's hands.
Thanks
It is possible and quite common actually in our world to hold contradicting ideas simultaneously. People do this all the time. Just sayin, don't mind me :)
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I think it's fine to be a socialist as long as it doesnt violate the non-aggression principle and forced on me. For example, freetown christiania in denmark is a socialist society but its not forced on anyone.
It depends on the definition of socialism. The term is sometimes used to mean a system of collective ownership and/or absence of private property rights. In that definition it has nothing to do with the state and it's perfectly compatible with non-agression.
Sure those are examples of experiments in socialism, but those are not libertarian socialists by any stretch.
Your property is one of the biggest liberties that libertarians believe in. By definition, these "communes" expect you to sacrifice all your property and all your earnings to the group. How is this not like a 100% tax?
And who administers it? Some group leadership now not only take 35% of your income, they take it all and they own and control everything. There can be no bigger government than that!
Besides who enforces this voluntarily donation? What if someone cheats? Do they just let it be or do they enforce it with aggression?
See I still think the two philosophies are incompatible.
They're just playing with words. Some people's definition of freedom means living in a dump.
I don't understand why don't they just do it themselves, and leave those who want to enjoy capitalism, alone?
Kinda like the majority of them who want to abolish "poverty", yet don't do anything except complain and expect someone rich to do so.
Even so, I did not start this thread to bash them,I just want to learn if any of them can put forth a coherent argument that I can understand
My apologies, I recommend going on DB0 website, you can Google his website.
Frankly, not sure you'll understand much. They never present they're arguments clearly.
The association of libertarian and socialist is actually older than the modern (implicit) association of libertarian with capitalism.
Basically, they don't believe in private property for individuals (at least over the means of production) instead the property should be held by unions, councils, assemblies or what have you.
I suppose they'd consider private ownership to be an illegitimate form of authority and be justified in "smashing it" or something.
The first anarchist Proudhon (though this is debateable) was a socialist (kinda).
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I don't understand how one can be a socialist and a libertarian.
They say the workers own the means of production(syndicate), but someone has to arrange that and take away my capital.
Why can't I own the company and hire workers to work for me? isn't more efficient for everyone?
I think you could have some kind of collective ownership of property via contract, but to do that it has to "start off" with an owner that can claim production on the property.
We do this in some form today, with some monasteries/convents and secular communes.
Anarchism and libertarianism did not start off so consistent. Politics has always been riddled with inconsistencies.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as it's voluntary.
The thing with socialism and anarchism is the tendency to see capitalism as a government based issue, they don't see corporatism, we are so used to seperating the two, that's why it seems so absurd.
There will never be a form of governing a country that everybody agrees with.
So under a libertarian-capitalist society, libertarian-socialists would be allowed to proceed in their communes provided they volunteer and use no force. In fact libertarian-capitalism would allow any belief to exist in any community under the same provisions. The only rule is, no man makes a law or a government that takes away private property. (Even if some of these private properties belong to communes.)
But if libertarian-socialism was decided to be the dominant theory, what are they going to do with the capitalists? Lock them up? Trade with them? Would they jail their citizens for buying products produced in a non socialist factory? Do they expect the whole world to submit?
Albert:There will never be a form of governing a country that everybody agrees with. So under a libertarian-capitalist society, libertarian-socialists would be allowed to proceed in their communes provided they volunteer and use no force. In fact libertarian-capitalism would allow any belief to exist in any community under the same provisions. The only rule is, no man makes a law or a government that takes away private property. (Even if some of these private properties belong to communes.) But if libertarian-socialism was decided to be the dominant theory, what are they going to do with the capitalists? Lock them up? Trade with them? Would they jail their citizens for buying products produced in a non socialist factory? Do they expect the whole world to submit?
In an anarchist society there wouldn't have to be one government that everyone agrees with. Neither capitalist nor socialist anarchism would be as such 'decided upon' to be the dominant theory. People would simply decide how they want to live. Even if 98% of the country becomes a socialist commune, the rest of us could continue to be capitalists. Of course that's not going to happen, socialist communes break down after a while because it's incompatible with human nature. But in theory they would do their sharing thing in their communes, and trade with us if they want to or boycott us because we're greedy exploiters. It's fine as long as they don't force anyone to participate.
Most of them break, Freetown Christiana has a very disturbing past, and it looks like a mess.
But that's the beauty with those people, they mind they're own bussiness and don't force anyone to submit.
The only socialists that I hate are the non voluntary kind, since they see themselves as Guardians of the world who know what
's best for everyone.
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
@Angurse
Thus what I mean by inconsistency.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: How is it possible to be a libertarian, believe in individual liberty and yet justify socialism, which by definition takes liberty out of somebody's hands. Well, if it by definition takes liberty away one can't. Perhaps you are using a different or wrong definition
The "public" control of capital and resources. Sounds pretty anti-individualistic to me. What definition are you using?
Private oligarchical control of resources sounds pretty anti liberty to me.
I'm using liberty in the sense of free will. Not just for ownership, but for everybody.
Ownership for everybody, you mean co-operative?
Private oligarchical control of resources sounds pretty anti liberty to me. I'm using liberty in the sense of free will. Not just for ownership, but for everybody.
Plutocracy? The free market is not Plutocracy.
What governing power does a board of directors have over individual free will in ancap?
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:How is it possible to be a libertarian, believe in individual liberty and yet justify socialism, which by definition takes liberty out of somebody's hands. Well, if it by definition takes liberty away one can't. Perhaps you are using a different or wrong definition? Remember, there's no such thing as a wrong definition. There are only different definitions. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 5
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Private oligarchical control of resources sounds pretty anti liberty to me. I'm using liberty in the sense of free will. Not just for ownership, but for everybody. If I understand your reasoning correctly, you shouldn't object when someone wants to use your body in a different way from how you want to use it. Otherwise you're exercising "private oligarchical control of resources", right? The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
If I understand your reasoning correctly, you shouldn't object when someone wants to use your body in a different way from how you want to use it. Otherwise you're exercising "private oligarchical control of resources", right?
What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend?
I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend? I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
Which "you" are you talking about in the second sentence -- the real you, or the one who wants to use his body to murder my best friend? I doubt that the latter would have such a hope. But how you wish to use your body is completely irrelevant to the fact that using your own body in any certain way, to the exclusion of others, is "private oligarchical control of resources".
Are you implicitly claiming, however, that ensuring free will isn't your highest moral/ethical goal? If so, then you must logically allow for "private oligarchical control of resources" at some point.
To drive my point home: either you think "private oligarchical control of resources" is never okay, or you think otherwise. So which is it?
Which "you" are you talking about in the second sentence -- the real you, or the one who wants to use his body to murder my best friend? I doubt that the latter would have such a hope.
It's the same me. People can change their minds about peace rather quickly in a moment of passion. You would be surprised what people will do when it's fightg or flight... pushing over old women that get in their way and all that.
Are you implicitly claiming, however, that ensuring free will isn't your highest moral/ethical goal? If so, then you must logically allow for "private oligarchical control of resources" at some point. To drive my point home: either you think "private oligarchical control of resources" is never okay, or you think otherwise. So which is it?
Read my quote. You will find it rare for me to say "x is always bad." But I 9/10 find democratic decision making better than "my stuff, my decision."
Private oligarchical control of resources = individual action of malice?
So your support of socialism is because it eliminates the potential for hitmans?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand...
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:It's the same me. People can change their minds about peace rather quickly in a moment of passion. You would be surprised what people will do when it's fightg or flight... pushing over old women that get in their way and all that.
I call bullshit on this.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Read my quote. You will find it rare for me to say "x is always bad." But I 9/10 find democratic decision making better than "my stuff, my decision."
So you don't think "private oligarchical control of resources" is always bad. Okay, when do you think it's okay? Can you enumerate the circumstances? If not, why not?
I call bullshit on this
Care to elaborate why? You don't think there are people that call off all morality when it's fight or flight? You've never heard of people getting pushed over and stomped in a human stampede? Some will help them up, some will step on them without a thought. This is human nature, it's fickle, and generally amoral.
But I do think more often than not, people come to better decisions through council. It's probably why corporations tend to grow larger than private enterprises...
Well a voluntary council is a bit different than coercive council, which is usually what the democratic process entails. No one said people willingly coming to a decision is a bad thing.
What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend? I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
Thats as oligarchical as it is democratic.
You don't think there are people that call off all morality when it's fight or flight? You've never heard of people getting pushed over and stomped in a human stampede? Some will help them up, some will step on them without a thought. This is human nature, it's fickle, and generally amoral.
Amoral or immoral? If you meant amoral, then that would imply that we as humans, if we had been in that stampede, would have no positive obligation whatsoever to help anyone. If you meant immoral, then our lack of positive action to help others would be wrong.
Which is it?
Autolykos to EiK:Okay, when do you think it's okay? Can you enumerate the circumstances? If not, why not?
Good luck with that one. The only consistent thing about him is his inconsistency.
Z.
In full disclosure I will respond to real questions/arguments, like those brought forth by the illustrious and inquisitive Autolykos. Loaded questions, intentional misrepresentations, and unfounded ad hominems will simply be ignored.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Well, if it by definition takes liberty away one can't. Perhaps you are using a different or wrong definition
Filc:The "public" control of capital and resources. Sounds pretty anti-individualistic to me. What definition are you using?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I'm using liberty in the sense of free will. Not just for ownership, but for everybody.
Is this your definition of socialism?
Such a vague definition could be applied to just about any political philosophy. Everyone thinks their political and economic philosophy will benefit mankind over-all. No one actually thinks their beliefs will impoverish the masses.
How can you support-free will. If the establishment you promote institutionally undermines individual-free will? Are you supporting free-will, if your free-will encroaches upon the free-will of your neighbors? Is it free-will for all? Or free-will for yourself, as far as your personal preferences and desires are concerned.