Liberal vs Libertarianism

[Matthew78]

Socialism requires a strong government to maintain it, lest a capitalist infection run rampant.

Youi're assuming that socialism, by definition, requires a government command economy. I would love to see this proven! Libertarian socialists, have, from the start, argued that socialism cannot be achieved through any kind of state government. I want to see proof that socialism has to require a state command economy. So far, neither you or anyone else has shown this.

To oppose capitalism would be to oppose people coming together to pool resources for economic activity. This requires a powerful government to suppress entrepreneurs.

What about people who oppose capitalism because they consider it explotative and injust? Libertarian socialists believe that people coming together to pool resources for economic activity is best achieved through either councils or self-managed markets. People coming together to pool resources is best achieved through equitable cooperation and mutual aid, libertarian socialists argue, and this cannot be achieved by capitalism.

Without a str ong government to prevent it, people would naturally engage in capitalism.

This is something I strongly defy you to prove! How do you know what people would "naturally" do?

I needn't read every confused pesudo-authority just to voice opinions.

I strongly defy you to prove that libertarian socialists are "confused pseudo-authorit(ies)". You needn't read every anarchist book out there but if you are just going to voice your opinion, don't complain if you are successfully shown to be ignorant and criticized for it. It's doubtful that you can prove that they're "confused" pseudo-athorities-but feel free to try.

Feel free to make a cogent argument of your own.

I would only need to do that if you have successfully critiqued libertarian socialist works. I've seen nothing of the sort from you. If you successfully critiqued libertarian socialist works and the concepts and arguments contained in them, only then would it be incumbent on me to produce an argument of my own.

Your believing you're a libertarian socialist doesn't mean they exist.

Excuse me? So you think I just made up names like Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin?

Socialism has the inherent trait of squashing economic liberty...& that ain't libertarian.

Well, then, proving this should be a piece of cake! So, where's your evidence of this? I want to see it proven that socialism has this inherent trait. Bear in mind that merely quoting Von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard won't cut it unless you want to use their arguments as your own. But I defy you to prove it.

Names, names & more names....I prefer reasoning to appeals to authority.

I'm not appealing to authority. I asked you which socialists and I named examples of libertarian socialists. These people have written works on the subject and it's becoming obvious to me that you haven't read any of their works. You say you prefer reasoning to authorities. Fine. Show me a reasoned argument instead of your baseless assertions.

Tell me...in a socialist society, if I got together with some friends to build a factory, hired workers to make products, & sold them at a profit...what would the goverment do with us?

Why on earth do you keep equating socialism with a government command economy? I don't believe it's possible for any government to create authentic socialism. If you do your homework on libertarian socialism, you would realize that in such a society, there would be no profits, no government, and no bosses. Now, please, do your homework. Let me help; here are some works you can read.

1.) The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
2.) Fields, Factories, and Workshops by Peter Kropotkin
3.) Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin
4.) The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism by Janet Biehl.
5.) Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation by Robin Hahnel
6.) Against Capitalism by David Schweickart.
7.) Anarchist FAQ (which can be found online)

Now, unless you have read these books, please don't play expert on libertarian socialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Youi're assuming that socialism, by definition, requires a government command economy. I would love to see this proven! Libertarian socialists, have, from the start, argued that socialism cannot be achieved through any kind of state government. I want to see proof that socialism has to require a state command economy. So far, neither you or anyone else has shown this.



What about people who oppose capitalism because they consider it explotative and injust? Libertarian socialists believe that people coming together to pool resources for economic activity is best achieved through either councils or self-managed markets. People coming together to pool resources is best achieved through equitable cooperation and mutual aid, libertarian socialists argue, and this cannot be achieved by capitalism.



This is something I strongly defy you to prove! How do you know what people would "naturally" do?



I strongly defy you to prove that libertarian socialists are "confused pseudo-authorit(ies)". You needn't read every anarchist book out there but if you are just going to voice your opinion, don't complain if you are successfully shown to be ignorant and criticized for it. It's doubtful that you can prove that they're "confused" pseudo-athorities-but feel free to try.



I would only need to do that if you have successfully critiqued libertarian socialist works. I've seen nothing of the sort from you. If you successfully critiqued libertarian socialist works and the concepts and arguments contained in them, only then would it be incumbent on me to produce an argument of my own.



Excuse me? So you think I just made up names like Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin?



Well, then, proving this should be a piece of cake! So, where's your evidence of this? I want to see it proven that socialism has this inherent trait. Bear in mind that merely quoting Von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard won't cut it unless you want to use their arguments as your own. But I defy you to prove it.



I'm not appealing to authority. I asked you which socialists and I named examples of libertarian socialists. These people have written works on the subject and it's becoming obvious to me that you haven't read any of their works. You say you prefer reasoning to authorities. Fine. Show me a reasoned argument instead of your baseless assertions.



Why on earth do you keep equating socialism with a government command economy? I don't believe it's possible for any government to create authentic socialism. If you do your homework on libertarian socialism, you would realize that in such a society, there would be no profits, no government, and no bosses. Now, please, do your homework. Let me help; here are some works you can read.

1.) The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
2.) Fields, Factories, and Workshops by Peter Kropotkin
3.) Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin
4.) Libertarian Municipalism by Janet Bhiel.
5.) Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation by Robin Hahnel
6.) Against Capitalism by David Schweickart.
7.) Anarchist FAQ (which can be found online)

Now, unless you have read these books, please don't play expert on libertarian socialism.

Yipes! Such a long post. It would seem that we have different takes on the word "socialism".
I see it as describing a governing system for a country. Your post suggests a voluntary relationship, perhaps within some other system (even capitalism).
As long as it remains voluntary, I've no objection. I only oppose socialism imposed upon the unwilling.

 

[Mathematician]

There is no such thing as libertarian capitalism. It's a contradiction. Capitalism requires the enforcement of a systematic and rigid property law. Without the oppressive thumb of the government history indicates that no such law prevails - colonial governments were relatively absent until indentured servants and tradesmen decided they would no longer follow their contracts.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no such thing as libertarian capitalism. It's a contradiction. Capitalism requires the enforcement of a systematic and rigid property law. Without the oppressive thumb of the government history indicates that no such law prevails - colonial governments were relatively absent until indentured servants and tradesmen decided they would no longer follow their contracts.

Don't hold back....let's admit there's no such thing as libertarianism, since a government is needed to preserve civil & economic liberty.
But enuf jesting. All economic systems have property law. Capitalism appears to be the freest (an odd looking word), since it requires
the least government coercion & because within a capitalist system, people may freely form communes & other arrangements.

 

[Darkness]

There is no such thing as libertarian capitalism. It's a contradiction. Capitalism requires the enforcement of a systematic and rigid property law. Without the oppressive thumb of the government history indicates that no such law prevails - colonial governments were relatively absent until indentured servants and tradesmen decided they would no longer follow their contracts.

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Right-libertarianism supports the existence of a limited government, which maintains the power and authority to enforce property rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right-libertarianism supports the existence of a limited government, which maintains the power and authority to enforce property rights.

If we're talking about libertarianism as applied to governance of a country, then limited government
is also needed to enforce civil liberties. It's just "libertarianism", neither "right" nor "left".

 

[Darkness]

If we're talking about libertarianism as applied to governance of a country, then limited government
is also needed to enforce civil liberties. It's just "libertarianism", neither "right" nor "left".

I assent. There are some persons who claim the mantle of libertarianism, such as Tibor Machan, that are really more towards anarchy than libertarianism. For instance, Machan argued in Libertarianism: For and Against that people should be able to opt out of paying taxes, even for money that strictly goes to enforcing property rights and basic civil liberties (though, assumedly, they would still enjoy certain protections). I don't think that is very libertarian, or if so, it is a radical fringe of libertarianism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I assent. There are some persons who claim the mantle of libertarianism, such as Tibor Machan, that are really more towards anarchy than libertarianism. For instance, Machan argued in Libertarianism: For and Against that people should be able to opt out of paying taxes, even for money that strictly goes to enforcing property rights and basic civil liberties (though, assumedly, they would still enjoy certain protections). I don't think that is very libertarian, or if so, it is a radical fringe of libertarianism.

It seems a dysfunctional "radical fringe" of the radical fringe we already are.

 

[Mathematician]

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Right-libertarianism supports the existence of a limited government, which maintains the power and authority to enforce property rights.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm aware there's different facets of libertarianism. I'm just playing on Revolting's willful ignorance but in the opposite direction.

 

[Darkness]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm aware there's different facets of libertarianism. I'm just playing on Revolting's willful ignorance but in the opposite direction.

Fair enough. I think that most political-ideological systems are consistent and logical within the framework they create for themselves. Most, however, do not hold an ideological framework like you, me and Revoltingest do. For instance, modern American conservatism is a patchwork system that makes no sense. It is illogical to argue that the government enacting gun-control laws is offensive to liberty, but that schools should teach creationism and gay couples should be barred from adopting kids.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm aware there's different facets of libertarianism. I'm just playing on Revolting's willful ignorance but in the opposite direction.

Being a libertarian is about the only thing I know.
Ignorance is what I bring to religious discussions.

The discussion of libertarian socialists reminds me of some believer who say atheists need faith.
Both involve definitions which are ambiguous or out of context.

 

[Matthew78]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm aware there's different facets of libertarianism. I'm just playing on Revolting's willful ignorance but in the opposite direction.

I find this in a lot of discussions with right-libertarians. They think libertarian-socialists are trying to steal or misappropriate terms that they think they were the first ones to come up with. They just cannot admit that socialists invented the word first. To them, socialism, by definition, must involve some kind state-command economy. I suggested literature for Revolting to read and now he seems to be back to suggesting that socialists are confused about libertarianism by saying that when libertarian socialists used words like "libertarian" it's taken out of context or some nonsense like that.

This isn't my biggest problem with right-libertarians though. My biggest problem with many of them is their self-righteous attitude and the offense that they take at people disagreeing with them. Seriously, what is with this condescending attitude from some of them? If you're a New Deal liberal or a socialist of some sort, many of them treat you like you're some kind of ignoramous or unsophisticate and you should be shamed into agreeing with them. Some of them just can't seem to handle a difference of opinion or respect people with opposing views.

So what if some people are New Deal liberal Democrats? So what if some people are Marxists, or anarchists, or New Left liberals? What is so horrible about people with these views that right-libertarians get so offended by them? They remind me of enviromentalists who treat skeptics of global warming like dirt. It's like if you're skeptical of global warming, you're either a total scientifically illiterate moron or you're some greedy corporate ladder-climbing jerk who will step on anyone and everyone for a buck.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't take offense at people believing differently as I do. I try to treat people with respect. I just wish I was given the same courtesy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find this in a lot of discussions with right-libertarians. They think libertarian-socialists are trying to steal or misappropriate terms that they think they were the first ones to come up with. They just cannot admit that socialists invented the word first.

It isn't that I "cannot". Tis that I will not. We just disagree.
I'm unconvinced that socialists invented the word.
Besides, I don't care who invented it...current usage is what matters, so as to accurately describe things.

To them, socialism, by definition, must involve some kind state-command economy. I suggested literature for Revolting to read and now he seems to be back to suggesting that socialists are confused about libertarianism by saying that when libertarian socialists used words like "libertarian" it's taken out of context or some nonsense like that.

As I've already said, "socialism" is typically used to describe an economic system for a state, which appears to be necessarily integrated with government because of taxation & regulation needs. In such cases, one cannot decide to eschew the level of taxes & regulations. That is how I'm using the word in this discussion. It is a seldom described scenario where socialism exists as a voluntary organization with no coercion. In this case, a libertarian socialist could theoretically exist, since additional taxation & regulation would be self-imposed & reversible by individual choice (excepting enforceable contracts). If I cause confusion by having dismissed this peripheral possibility, then I hope this clears it up.

This isn't my biggest problem with right-libertarians though. My biggest problem with many of them is their self-righteous attitude and the offense that they take at people disagreeing with them. Seriously, what is with this condescending attitude from some of them? If you're a New Deal liberal or a socialist of some sort, many of them treat you like you're some kind of ignoramous or unsophisticate and you should be shamed into agreeing with them. Some of them just can't seem to handle a difference of opinion or respect people with opposing views.

I've no problem with people having different values.
I just find that some labels are oxymoronic or not as useful as alternate terms. As for being self-righteous, that's a trait which afflicts people of all economic persuasions. My position is that no system is "right" or "true"....there is only what we each prefer. My preference for libertarianism (ie, maximizing both social & economic liberty) is merely my preferred agenda. If I favor both leftish liberty & rightish liberty, then how does it make sense to assign handedness to me? The simple & singular word "libertarian" fits best, & comports with the eponymous political party positions. You'll note that Darkness is my most fell & loyal foe in the economic arena, yet I claim no superior judgement, knowledge, or moral authority, & we get along peacefully. (He is most tolerant of my being wrong.)

So what if some people are New Deal liberal Democrats? So what if some people are Marxists, or anarchists, or New Left liberals? What is so horrible about people with these views that right-libertarians get so offended by them?

All sides get offended by opposing views. This is something we should all strive to overcome....we may disagree, but without rancor. I actually have socialist friends, & sometimes we plot to take over the federal government...we could do a better job (so we think) of implementing both socialist & libertarian goals, ie, more of each.

I just wish I was given the same courtesy.

I try. But as you see, my social skills are poor.
But I hope this helps.

 

[Darkness]

For the record, libertarian socialists are as crazy as classic liberals.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, libertarian socialists are as crazy as classic liberals.

Is crazy a bad thing?

 

[Darkness]

Is crazy a bad thing?

Not quite sure at this point. At the very least, it is not boring.

 

[Matthew78]

It isn't that I "cannot". Tis that I will not. We just disagree.

Okay, that's fine with me. It seems that you might not care who invented the word but you seem to care more about which group has best appropriated the term.

I'm unconvinced that socialists invented the word.

Just curiously, what would it take to convince you? I think that "libertarian captialists" should just call themselves "liberals". The word "liberal" has become misappropriated by the New Deal left. I think it was Von Mises and Hayek who used the word "liberal" to describe their "free-market capitalist" views. I think the New Deal left should use the word "progressive" or even "New Deal progressive" while the New Left should just stick with "New Left".

Besides, I don't care who invented it...current usage is what matters, so as to accurately describe things.

Fair enough. Maybe we can agree to disagree about its proper usage.

As I've already said, "socialism" is typically used to describe an economic system for a state, which appears to be necessarily integrated with government because of taxation & regulation needs. In such cases, one cannot decide to eschew the level of taxes & regulations. That is how I'm using the word in this discussion.

I understand. This usage of the word "socialism" I blame on Marxists. Marxists have taken this word and have dragged it through the mud. To make matters much worse, monsters like Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and others have created terrible societies in an attempt to foster their disgusting brand of "socialism" and now, consequently, "socialism" is seen as synonymous with "totalitarianism".

It is a seldom described scenario where socialism exists as a voluntary organization with no coercion. In this case, a libertarian socialist could theoretically exist, since additional taxation & regulation would be self-imposed & reversible by individual choice (excepting enforceable contracts). If I cause confusion by having dismissed this peripheral possibility, then I hope this clears it up.

No libertarian socialist that I personally know of believes that taxation and regulation are necessary.

I've no problem with people having different values.

I appreciate knowing this! I suspect that both left-libertarians and right-libertarians have more in common than they realize. I think the major points of contention would be the existence of private property, economic calculation, and the reward system.

I just find that some labels are oxymoronic or not as useful as alternate terms. As for being self-righteous, that's a trait which afflicts people of all economic persuasions. My position is that no system is "right" or "true"....there is only what we each prefer.

I understand. To be fair to right-libertarians I do believe that other groups of people are self-righteous. I included the example of some enviromentalists.

My preference for libertarianism (ie, maximizing both social & economic liberty) is merely my preferred agenda. If I favor both leftish liberty & rightish liberty, then how does it make sense to assign handedness to me? The simple & singular word "libertarian" fits best, & comports with the eponymous political party positions. You'll note that Darkness is my most fell & loyal foe in the economic arena, yet I claim no superior judgement, knowledge, or moral authority, & we get along peacefully. (He is most tolerant of my being wrong.)

Well, you'll probably find me quite easily to get along with. If you can look past my occasionaly sarcasm or my peeved tone at times, I think you'll find me a very likeable person to get along with. Darkness sounds like my kind of fellow. Anyways, I'm quite freindly and very respectful until my buttons get pushed but I try not to let that happen too often.

All sides get offended by opposing views. This is something we should all strive to overcome....we may disagree, but without rancor. I actually have socialist friends, & sometimes we plot to take over the federal government...we could do a better job (so we think) of implementing both socialist & libertarian goals, ie, more of each.

I totally agree with you.

I try. But as you see, my social skills are poor.But I hope this helps.

It does. It helps me to understand and appreciate your position more. For my sake, I hope I didn't come across as hostile or disrespectful.

 

[Darkness]

Just curiously, what would it take to convince you? I think that "libertarian captialists" should just call themselves "liberals". The word "liberal" has become misappropriated by the New Deal left. I think it was Von Mises and Hayek who used the word "liberal" to describe their "free-market capitalist" views. I think the New Deal left should use the word "progressive" or even "New Deal progressive" while the New Left should just stick with "New Left".

Liberal is an accurate term for the New Deal Left. Yes, FDR was very much a social democrat, but most of the New Deal leftists are merely left-liberals. Social democracy and social democracy are different ideologies. Social democracy is socialist and borrows much of its ideology from Marxism. Originally, social democrats were called Reformed Marxists. A good example is the different approaches to prostitution. The deeply socially democratic governments of Sweden, Norway and Iceland have taken a Marxist-Feminist approach to prostitution, viewing prostitutes as victims of economic and patriarchal exploitation. Thus it is illegal to buy prostitution services in those countries, but prostitutes themselves are not treated as criminals. The Netherlands, a liberal state, chose to legalise prostitution, because they believe it is the choice of individual, whether or not he or she wants to sell his or her body for money.

I understand. This usage of the word "socialism" I blame on Marxists. Marxists have taken this word and have dragged it through the mud. To make matters much worse, monsters like Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and others have created terrible societies in an attempt to foster their disgusting brand of "socialism" and now, consequently, "socialism" is seen as synonymous with "totalitarianism".

Marx is still the core of socialism.

Well, you'll probably find me quite easily to get along with. If you can look past my occasionaly sarcasm or my peeved tone at times, I think you'll find me a very likeable person to get along with. Darkness sounds like my kind of fellow. Anyways, I'm quite freindly and very respectful until my buttons get pushed but I try not to let that happen too often.

I appreciate the compliment. Yet, you should know from the outset that I am a staunch proponent of the state. Stockholm is essentially the place I look to as the shining city upon a hill.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, that's fine with me. It seems that you might not care who invented the word but you seem to care more about which group has best appropriated the term.

It's all about usage comporting with commonly recognized definitions. I know some people who use vocabulary according to their own ideas about correct
definitions, but confuse because everyone else is using another. I bristle at some meaning changes too, but ultimately I use common modern definitions.

Just curiously, what would it take to convince you?

A good & comprehensive history showing who coined the word & their economic orientation would suffice.

I think that "libertarian captialists" should just call themselves "liberals". The word "liberal" has become misappropriated by the New Deal left. I think it was Von Mises and Hayek who used the word "liberal" to describe their "free-market capitalist" views. I think the New Deal left should use the word "progressive" or even "New Deal progressive" while the New Left should just stick with "New Left".

Modern usage of "liberal" in the US is strongly associated with social liberty, governmental advancement of underclasses/minorities, big government,
high taxes, & overseas aid/adventurism. This strikes me as pretty much the Democratic Party platform. Were I to call myself a "liberal" without a
lengthy explanation that I'm a classical/Jeffersonian liberal, my audience would get the wrong impression. The singular word "libertarian" generally
accurately conveys the nature of my being "to the left of Kennedy & to the right of Reagan" (an old libertarian joke). When discussing politics/economics
with modern liberals, I will sometimes play the scamp & call myself a "liberal", re-appropriating the term, but always explaining myself to allay their
confusion at my odd political values.

Fair enough. Maybe we can agree to disagree about its proper usage.

You betcha!

I understand. This usage of the word "socialism" I blame on Marxists. Marxists have taken this word and have dragged it through the mud. To make matters much worse, monsters like Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and others have created terrible societies in an attempt to foster their disgusting brand of "socialism" and now, consequently, "socialism" is seen as synonymous with "totalitarianism".

I don't equate socialism with totalitarianism, even though the latter is a risk associated with the former. I stick with a common description of it in Wikipedia....
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No libertarian socialist that I personally know of believes that taxation and regulation are necessary.

Would you explain how they propose structuring a government & an economy?

I appreciate knowing this! I suspect that both left-libertarians and right-libertarians have more in common than they realize. I think the major points of contention would be the existence of private property, economic calculation, and the reward system.

The Libertarian Party is most popularly associated with libertarian (small l) values. Their Statement Of Principles.....

2.0 Economic Liberty Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

The above statements strike me as an endorsement of capitalism & free markets, rather than socialism.
But within such a framework, individuals could cooperate in a socialist way. They just couldn't force anyone else into it.
So this would not be a system for a country....just a system within a country's system.

I understand. To be fair to right-libertarians I do believe that other groups of people are self-righteous. I included the example of some enviromentalists.

Self-righteousness is a human characteristic. In any group comprising humans, some will exhibit the trait.
I find that pointing out personal flaws in members of any group to be moot & myopic.

Well, you'll probably find me quite easily to get along with. If you can look past my occasionaly sarcasm or my peeved tone at times, I think you'll find me a very likeable person to get along with. Darkness sounds like my kind of fellow. Anyways, I'm quite freindly and very respectful until my buttons get pushed but I try not to let that happen too often...
....For my sake, I hope I didn't come across as hostile or disrespectful.

We be good.

The only way I can see "libertarian socialism" making sense is if it applies to individual relationships, rather than a country or government.
But used in this sense, it's a description of interpersonal relationships, & not about political systems in which they exist. I find that most
people use & hear the term in a context of discussing an entire country, so this special phrase becomes inaccurate.