Making the association that an anarchist is the same as a libertarian is a leap and a half. In my mind its like calling a Republican a Liberal. As for socialism, can you give me your ideas on why it has failed every time its been in place?
Libertarian
- Thread starter the
- Start date
Making the association that an anarchist is the same as a libertarian is a leap and a half. In my mind its like calling a Republican a Liberal. As for socialism, can you give me your ideas on why it has failed every time its been in place?
You are spreading missinfo here
You call yourself a 'socialist' but am i right in thinking that means you believe in big government and a centrally controlled economy? Because that is not what socialism is; socialism is when the workers own and control the means of production
Also you are using the term 'libertarian' too narrowly. Libertarians are people who believe that they should be able to do what they want to do as long as they are not hurting anyone else
So there are libertarian socialists as well as libertarian capitalists
The corporate media wants to steer people away from the libertarian socialist option so they equate the word 'libertarian' to anarcho-capitalists who believe in capitalism with small government; those are the people you are describing who are often self interested
However there are libertarian socialists who are more akin to anarchist-communists who also don't like (or trust) government and want to see it reduced or got rid of but on top of that don't believe in capitalism
Concerning your comments about adolescents online i think its good that adolescents are discussing such complicated matters. I'd also like to point out that you have loudly and aggressively asserted your opinions a number of times; in fact i have asked you at times to support your opinions with information which has not materialised
Instead you seem to like to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as either mentally deficient or an 'adolescent'!
And what happens when one Libertarian's freedoms tramples another?
Person A wants to shoot rabbits in their neighborhood. Person B wants to raise rabbits and start a rabbit rescue.
Person A wants to go as fast as they like on the road, ends up killing person B in a 95 mph hit & run on a city street.
Person A doesn't want to pay taxes for any type of government facility. Person B's house catches on fire and burns to the ground since there's no fire department.
Person A wants to shoot rabbits in their neighborhood. Person B wants to raise rabbits and start a rabbit rescue.
Person A wants to go as fast as they like on the road, ends up killing person B in a 95 mph hit & run on a city street.
Person A doesn't want to pay taxes for any type of government facility. Person B's house catches on fire and burns to the ground since there's no fire department.
Whatever happens cant be any worse than be held hostage to either democrat or republican rule at any given time. You shall not have relations with your wife any where except one Saturdays and behind two closed doors. You children will learn what we want them to learn of the world and nothing more etc...
Your property is yours, you do what you want on it to include killing rabbits. The rest is not yours, you ask for permission from the owners or whomever.
There are still rules in place for government locations. Streets still have speed limits.
The paying taxes is an interesting thing. We are already subject to some amount of socialism because of them.
I dont know if it was this thread that I mentioned the how libertarian the word entered into modern American parliance, it was originally a word which was synomyous with anarchist, not just in French but mainly in French, were some thinkers like Daniel Cohn-Bendit (who's a social democrat now) argued that anarchism/libertarianism was synomyous with socialism, there's a good chance it was originally.
The differences I can fully appreciate, most libertarians are minarchists, even if they do believe in eventual privatisation of all functions. In fact that is one of my reasons for critically opposing libertarianism, in the main, by design or default, it will not remedy problems or dispense with oppression but will merely privatise them. I have met some "honest" libertarians, pretty mean guys, who are fine with that, they'll work for the highest bidder and wont split hairs about whether they are a tyrant or not, some of them would consider being paid to oppress others or intimidate or kill people challenging oppression to be a positive plus.
On the other side of the fence, so called "left libertarians" or those who I think are sincere about being "beyond left and right", there is too much sympathy for, or at the very least complicity with things like the ousting of Mozilla/Firefox's business leader for privat opinions which had nothing to do with his actual work performance. I dont want to live in a society which is some rough reflection of a stereotypical eighties American highschool at its worst/best.
Why has socialism failed? Hmm, I would have to think about each and every instance, there has been as much diversity when it comes to socialism as there is in capitalism, although I know that libertarians are inclined to look upon mixed economies, public planning, competition policies, nationalisation and proper controls of financial sectors to all be betrayals of capitalism, so perhaps the Rhineland and Scandinavian versions of capitalism, wrongly labelled socialism (although I tend to think that anything US conservatives dislike is labelled socialism these days), wouldnt be considered capitalist at all.
I consider democratic socialism of the sort supported by British socialist GDH Cole or supported by Erich Fromm in The Sane Society to have been a success where or when it has existed, which is usually on a very small scale and in a temporary, time limited fashion, as I've posted elsewhere I also think that the ideas of Henry George, asset based welfare systems and basic incomes are all steps in the direction of the sort of socialist society I believe is most attuned to human nature and consequently liable to satisfy human needs that capitalism does not (even in its best case scenario, I'm not a fan of comparing socialism at its best with capitalism at its worst or vice versa, there's no perfect societies, just those that reflect more or less one ideology or another but reflecting more than either the prevailing class struggles and social struggles).
If that helps, I dont believe that socialism and capitalism are zero sum games, I dont believe that one succeeds and the other fails and its a done deal, dustbin of history etc. If I'm really honest I believe that there are many, many things trending at the moment which make neither capitalism, nor socialism possible but that's a different story maybe.
Factually inaccurate. And you suggest its me spreading misinformation?
Or perhaps you'd like to compare me to a rapist again?
I've told you once already that you've voided any possibility for discussion with me. The natural thing to have done when you pointed out your previous, serious, discussion faux pas, to put in all to mildly, would have been to recognise your error and apologise but you're not big on that so, you know, you're done.
No i'm not done. I'll decide when i'm done not you
What discussion faux pas?
I did not compare you to a rapist but that hasn't stopped you trying to twist things
I was explaining to you how stigma works
You constantly try to stigmatise people who disagree with you; don't be suprised when they then point it out
Also you have avoided the question of what you mean by socialism. Is it something you don't want to share?
Last edited:
I suppose I am a somewhat this way inclined in that I believe you need to have your own affairs in order before attempting to greatly influence others and decide how a society should be structured. There could be so much more done to help people do this but I don't believe it is in the interest of those who currently structure society to do this. As such, I also do not believe in gradual reform. But neither do I believe that revolution should happen until, as mentioned, the majority of people have their personal affairs in order. However, this cannot happen en masses in an increasingly repressive and depressive social environment.
The old structures, institutions and ways of organising have failed and we're too fucked up en masses in body, mind and soul to fix it or build anew quicker than those who stand against us can organise. We have to do it as individuals with as little interference in each others lives as possible while we work out where we are and what we are supposed to be doing. I guess 'do no harm' is a good basic rule, so I suppose I'm pretty libertarian in outlook.
The old structures, institutions and ways of organising have failed and we're too fucked up en masses in body, mind and soul to fix it or build anew quicker than those who stand against us can organise. We have to do it as individuals with as little interference in each others lives as possible while we work out where we are and what we are supposed to be doing. I guess 'do no harm' is a good basic rule, so I suppose I'm pretty libertarian in outlook.
The way I see it, no party that has any single unified ideal should suddenly be in charge.
Diversity and balance is my view. Everyone is welcome to have their input but nobody should get all of it, not even me.
Democrats, republicans, green parties, socialists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists - any could be a temporary ally to me on a given point. But I'd never want to give any one of them all of the reins.
Don't be silly.
There wouldn't be public roads like that in a libertarian society.
Instead there would be toll roads, built and maintained by private groups which would likely insist on much stricter safety standards. Higher prices for traveling during rush hour would make such congestion very unlikely.
There wouldn't be public roads like that in a libertarian society.
Instead there would be toll roads, built and maintained by private groups which would likely insist on much stricter safety standards. Higher prices for traveling during rush hour would make such congestion very unlikely.
By 'libertarian' you are obviously referring to right wing anarcho-capitalists?
Because in a left wing libertarian world there would be free roads
Also if you look at our current society it is moving towards a toll booth economy even though it is centrally controlled. This is because the countries assets are being privatised and sold to the same people who are the real power behind our governments which they use as their enforcers against the people
If we don't halt this process we will soon be paying corporations for the air we breath with the authorities penalising us if we don't pay our corporate masters