Why (good) libertarians and socialists/progressives aren't really at odds with each other.

[therealwild1]

@hugolp well said.

[SgtPepper9537]

Revolution 2012!

[mdak06]

Libertarianism is about governance where an individual's consent is paramount - where non-consent determines what actions are criminal. There's no reason a socialist commune can't exist within a free-market system, as long as all participants are involved voluntarily.

For the socialists who truly want to flatten society and "make everyone equal," this approach won't work. For those who want workers to not be under the thumb of crony-capitalists, this is what should be done. Good video.

[mdak06]

One thing I wish libertarians would do more of is point out that "capitalism" is NOT synonymous with "the free market." Capitalism can take many forms, including crony capitalism, fascist capitalism, etc. "Free-market capitalism" is the only form that doesn't involve the government using coercion to dole out favors to some and punishments to others.

Capitalism is a system that makes use of capital. It doesn't have to be a free-market system. China is a capitalist country, but not free-market.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

I been saying libertarians are socialist historically not all socialist are libertarian though. But that does not matter what matters is what you stand for today. Fuck titles.

[dimideluxe]

Its funny in Europe we call the far left wingers (anarchists/bakunin and stuff) libertarians!

[23lFrench]

It's possible to a be a libertarian socialist DRRRRRR.....

[dabigdog377]

Hi im a libertarian and i challange all socialists to a boxing mach.

[TheIronCrawdad]

I just spent a good share of the night debating with my socialist friend and we came to almost the same conclusions. I found your video insightful. I will rephrase my arguments from now on. (Honestly i grew up socialist i only recently switched over to libertarianism when i realized the "gun in the room" wielded by the government... so i see where your coming from.)

[lambowolf]

The problem with this video. The criticisms of Capitalism, isn't Capitalism, but Corporatism. Those on the left don't often understand the difference and a Libertarian would never support Corporatism.

[russkeller]

Tried this last year but maybe you'll have better luck then me, so here's what I did: This is a post I made on the Coffee Party website to get things kicked off: coffeepartyusaXcom/content/cha­llange-tea-partier The conversation I had with them at a coffee shop pretty much boiled down to this TP: Patriot Act CP: Healthcare TP: Homeland Security CP: Healthcare TP: Bank Fraud CP: Healthcare And I left shaking my head. That's just one mans experience, use it to make yours better.

[carterrising]

I didn't realize that the goals of the socialist was for every person to keep the full product of their labor. That seems to be entirely contrary to what I have heard. Are there any other socialists out there who think that people should keep what they earn?

[p1d1s1]

"The more irrational ideology", huh? Yeah, right.

[douglasscrew]

@PurpleHoneyBear - You said, " but we are the strongest economy of the G8 because of regulations placed on banks."

I think that hits the nail on the head. Here with the control that the banks have been given over the government and hence the taxpayer via debt is a huge issue and a hinderance to freedom. Basically banks need to be put on the same playing field with everyone else for there to be true capitalism right now they are welfare recipients supported by the taxpayer. Just my 2 cents.

[Heathh49008]

Socialists are not friends, at best they are well intentioned foot soldiers for the state. Yay! I trust a big collective to stop... umm wait... we already have that.

Stop calling corporatists capitalists and deal with the reality the Socialism is the enemy.

[PurpleHoneyBear]

Very interesting video. I like you. I find this issue is exceedingly difficult to discuss. I'll share a story to preface.

A few years ago Noam Chomsky was asked how he could call himself a "libertarian". It seemed to the questioner that this was a contradiction given his political positions.

[PurpleHoneyBear]

@PurpleHoneyBear He replied with the fact that "libertarian" in the US means the opposite of what it has meant in the outside world throughout history. "Here libertarian means extreme advocate of total tyranny. That power ought to be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies. Even worse than state tyrannies because there at least the public has some kind of role."

So I always throw up in my mouth a little when I hear the right wing extolling their perverted "libertarianism".

[PurpleHoneyBear]

@PurpleHoneyBear But your kind of libertarianism is substantially different. Yours does not seek to use the power of the state to empower corporations through various welfare subsidies, no bid contracts, payoffs, bailouts, and cronyism in general. On these we agree strongly and are allies.

My difference on this is that I am in favor of government regulation. Here in Canada we also suffered a recession, but we are the strongest economy of the G8 because of regulations placed on banks.

[PurpleHoneyBear]

@PurpleHoneyBear There are a number of differences, but I nevertheless choose to interact with both sides of the political spectrum because we are ultimately united in many of our goals.

Adam Smith's argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. But that's not going to happen. So casting aspersions on the concept of the state as an intervening force in the market will ultimately serve corporate power.

[LeElHa]

I have yet to meet a socialist who believes that every person should be able to keep the full product of their labor. Indeed, most socialists I know have their hands deeply in other people's pockets to fund their pet projects for social equality.

[docbaddass]

i liked it, but i think that all the problems you mentioned are caused by gov intervention. and could be solved if the gov stepped out to prevent, or reverse the growing divide from rich to poor. i didnt hear what your means would be to fix the issues going on in capitalism. care to share?

[fringeelements]

Okay video. Too much emphasis on the behavior of free marketers though. It is, and always has been, the intransigence of the socialists that is the impediment to reconciliation. Which makes sense because they have the more irrational ideology. So lets not pretend this is a two-sided issue.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@fringeelements This was more of an overture to those on the left, so going in guns blazing (does that work for you... ever?) wasn't what I was looking to do. I just want people of the left to know that stateless libertarianism, especially emergent orders approaching an entirely free market to the point of mutualism, serve their goals without the need for violent coercive monopolies.Maybe sometime I'll go back and update the piece to add more criticism rather than just stressing what we share.

[fringeelements]

Actually yes, it has worked for me. I know of two marxists who became anti-statists because of me, and I'm sure there are many more. These little overtures have been going on forever and they don't work. They were doing this before even I showed up.

What always happens is some "socialist" decides to open his mind or try to debunk someone, and then they get convinced. Overtures are contrived and they see it.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@fringeelements trying to argue the libertarian position by hard sell isn't all that convincing. I have people who are more communitarian-leaning who take libertarianism seriously now when it isn't misleading Randian political economy and moralizing self ownership talk all day long. I appreciate it if you're willing to fight it out in the trenches like that, its just not what I do, or even want to do. I've had too many LONG threads go absolutely nowhere. Where I am should please everyone.

[SecularNumanist]

@fringeelements

"I know of two marxists who became anti-statists because of me, "

who was the other guy?

[fringeelements]

Lol you were too? Well then that makes three.

[SecularNumanist]

@fringeelements partly indeed. You first got me to doubt the LTV, (you didnt destroy it completely), and you also first introduced me to the idea of the state being an extortion racket which i had never even considered before. After that I remained a (well its the lesser of two evils) statist untill I gave in.

[fireteamforfreedom]

Good points! Thanks for taking the time to point that out.

[rakim282828]

For workers together under the principles of individual autonomy and direct democracy, direct the production. When planning the production or compete in a free market, should be the criterion of the components of each partnership working.

[rakim282828]

As a Libertarian Socialist does not attack the free market but to the ownership. Only divine right legitimized by coercive institutions, can provide legitimacy to an individual to get rich with the fruits of labor of workers. I understand that the means of production should be in the hands of workers so that they are truly masters of their work, the fruits of their labor.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@rakim282828 What I'm positing here is primarily that by removing state power from the economy, most people would voluntarily choose to organize horizontally, and good thing for it!

[RainFall2112]

@SelfOwnershipFTW Theoretically. The more likely scenario is that warlords aka corporate monopolists will seize the power vacuum.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@RainFall2112 Doubtful. Seems like the majority of people, being generally fairly decent, would resist that. However, the state aka corporate monopolists already control the power, so I'd rather take my chances with freedom rather than keep our masters!

[RainFall2112]

@SelfOwnershipFTW Freedom is such a faux buzz word. You'd rather take your chances with less restrictions on these corporate monopolists? How is that freedom? I am w/ most libertarians with their ideas about the state, but they don't understand you have to replace the state with institutions controlled by the people or there will be a power vacuum.

[Leftofawesome]

@assassinatorgirl "does it convince people?"

I went from a Chomsky, Luxemberg, and Russell influenced socialist sympathizer with libertarian leanings to a left wing market anarchist because of it, so yeah, I would say so.

[syadasti]

Great job, Ross!

[hugolp]

I am a libertarian, coming from a left-wing social-democrat education. I mainly agree. We libertarian can get a bit anal with socialist, when usually we have the same objectives. I really think there is a lot of common thins with non-authoritarian socialist, but there is little to be done with authoritarian socialist (or authoritarian right-wingers for that matter).

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@assassinatorgirl Sure it does. Talk about markets removing corporate privilege and the elite's strangehold on the poor!

[littlebier8]

Socialism is an incoherent economic system, and I feel comfortable working with socialist anarchists only because I'm sure that in a world with the state, the self-organizing powers of the truly free market will once and for all BURY the nonsense of socialist utopianism. I oppose the state, but I also oppose bad ideas more generally.

So far as anarchy goes, free markets are BY DEFINITION incompatible with the state. Not socialism: it has always and everywhere relied on state power for survival.

[littlebier8]

I'm not buying it. I'm a libertarian, and a free market "capitalist." I'm a libertarian because I oppose government coercion (like many socialists), but I'm a free market capitalist because that's the only economic system that makes sense. You're right, in that anarchist libertarians and socialists are not philosophically at odds...

But that's like saying that libertarianism and creationism are not incompatible: it's true... but that doesn't make the latter any less crazy, however.

[lotekjunky]

For those interested, Mike Gogulski put "Iron fist behind the invisible hand" into audiobook/podcast format.... its also here on youtube. You can get the links on no state dot com

[Estamio]

Nice Vid.

Six minutes of chat with no cuts!

I am 'Libertarian'. The problem I have with "Collectivism", is the SIZE of the Collective.

A (USA-size) NATIONAL programs or Business/ Union is TOO BIG; the seat of power created thus will become corrupted (a dog will lead the sheep).

The (so-called) USA States are a much better size for ALL law-experiments, union, production---is there anything you use that cannot be had on a State-provided level?

Good Luck and Thanks.

[justino81]

I "dislike" the video because it did not address the tactical difference between the two largest camps. There are lots of semantic differences, but that is not the major problem. One supports no-provision Lockean property rights and rent, and the other does not.

Of course, some fall in the middle on these issues, but that is the major split in my mind.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@justino81 I will gladly address this at a later time. I try really hard to keep the focus narrow enough so that the videos aren't 20 minutes and people can get some info and then move on. I realize there is more to this topic.

[InBonobo]

what I'd like to know is if anyone views any of the many libertarian "flavours" (with the possible exception of minarchism) as viable / resilient

[kenthandlet]

@InBonobo Yeah, I do. Not to mention, minarchism and all statism is based upon the insane idea of drawing lines on a map and forcing everyone within those lines to buy their protection services from a coercive monopoly at gunpoint...

[InBonobo]

@kenthandlet The problems with the others are well known, there's no point in going there. The question is how can a libertarian state be viable? Do you actually buy the fairy tale with the private security firms that never merge, never reach monopoly and never conspire?

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@InBonobo Well, that's what states do now, silly. They get bigger, merge into higher bodies like the UN, are monopolies, and are always conspiring. I trust the market more than I trust arbitrary coercive monopolies over the most important services in existence: defense and justice.

[InBonobo]

@SelfOwnershipFTW And that's the very problem - you trust more than you think. It's good to be hopeful and optimistic, but a libertarian state will devolve quite soon into much uglier authoritarianism / dictatorship. To be viable, most participants would have to be much better prepared for liberty than they are right now. Then again, such citizens might make our existing form of governance better. Our goal should thus be education.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@InBonobo Uh, you should go watch my silly arguments for the state videos, because I don't trust people, which is exactly why I don't want to give certain people arbitrary geographical monopolies. Also, your statement is pure conjecture.

My goal is education. WTF do you think I'm doing here?

[InBonobo]

@SelfOwnershipFTW I will go watch your arguments, though I'd much rather read them. If you did write them, could you provide a URL?

I presume you consider "conjecture" the idea that a libertarian "state / society" would not be viable. I don't want to go into semantics, but anarchy is not a very stable form of government and afaik it has never evolved into what we like to call libertarianism. It has almost always evolved into something worse and more brutal than wht it rplcd.. Edu FTW, then :)

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@InBonobo I write for C4SS, and there is lots of writing there, but the videos are all like 3 minutes and address some of the arguments.

[InBonobo]

@SelfOwnershipFTW "pure conjecture" - isn't that an attribute of all debates on libertarianism, given that no pure libertarian state has ever existed?

By "education" I meant not just libertarian education, but more in a general sense. Few people are able to use critical thinking when exposed to an idea and my hope is that education can improve on that.

[lotekjunky]

@InBonobo - "I, Pencil"

[InBonobo]

@lotekjunky It seems to me that "I, Pencil" is more of a counterargument than an argument. All the people who came together to build the pencil did so motivated by profit. Those who would usurp or monopolize a libertarian state would ultimately do so for profit as well.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@InBonobo If they seek to monopolize a libertarian society by force, they're criminals, and I'd see no moral problem with defending myself and peaceful others.

[AAAV92]

Don't know if you are an anarchist without adjective, but you sure as hell sound like one. that's a good thing in my book :).

[kenthandlet]

@AAAV92 ha. Yeah, pretty much. I'm not sure how people would best organize themselves if stateless. Maybe markets are superior, maybe not. I'm willing to test the empirics.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@AAAV92 The response from kenthandlet was me on my friends account by accident... :D

[urrlick]

@Stargazer5781 How can you run a business without stratification? No CEOs? How can you allow people to accumulate the wealth they earn without allowing it to become unequal, thus leading to "classes"? As long as some people are lazy and others work hard & are smart, there can be nothing but class stratification. Human beings are not equal. Nothing in nature, science, religion, society, or life experiences teach us this. It is a delusion.

[kenthandlet]

@urrlick There might be stratification as a result of differing productivity, and thats fine by me. My problem is when this stratification is done through the violence of the state and its laws!

[Stargazer5781]

I have had a lot of success talking to socialists. Progressives, on the other hand, tend to be fascists. If you push them on things you will find they are not interested in equality or helping workers. They want the benefits of the state for themselves. Talking about helping the poor and so on is mostly lip service to justify getting their own benefits. This may not be true of all progressives, but the vast majority of progressives I know who don't call themselves socialists, this is the case.

[urrlick]

Then you are an idiot. Libertarians have no problems with, in fact we even depend upon, class stratification. Socialists erroneously believe in the equality of everyone. All you need to do is walk outside and it is readily apparent that we are not. Some are smarter, faster, stupider, uglier, etc. Once you throw out the b.s. notions that everyone is equal and that equality should be monetarily based and upheld, you'll realize why libertarians & socialists can never get agree. Yes, we are at odds.

[Stargazer5781]

@urrlick Any libertarian who is in favor of class stratification is, in my opinion, not a libertarian.

[stealthswimmer]

"most businesses benefit from illegitimate state power"

Most people benefit from illegitimate state power. It's a matter of net benefits though. I think large corporations, not necessarily *all* capitalists, benefit the most (a capitalist is just a person who owns capital)

[InBonobo]

I've given you my answer on libTO.com

I simply do not see left libertarianism working. Though I have misgivings about other libertarian currents viability, Chomsky's ideas seem particularly fallacious. Carson and mutualism is a bit too simplistic and it involves regression. But hey, maybe what we all libertarians have in common is that we're wrong :)

[soapboxkid75]

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

[jrzckr]

@soapboxkid75 The socialist motto: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their lack thereof."

[BloodiCheeseCake]

I can get along with progressives/socialists, they just won't get along with me.

[VedRunFit]

Dialogue is very important. You make good points and I do agree that we are not that apart. There is one big difference. In a free market system/society you are free to organise people and pool each others money for a "greater good", but in a socialistic/progressive system you are not able/allowed/free to implement the free market.

[ilnaras]

Libertarianism isn't really supposed to be "right" as much as Centrist. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

As BryanMorton said, it's corporatists who get those government favors, and they also kill the free market. In a free market, someone should be able to start a business and, free from the burden of taxation, be able to afford to pay a fair rate,with benefits, for the labor they receive.

If we actually HAD a free market, you'd see more jobs and better pay.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Good vid.

I want to share it and help make it viral but it doesn't appear professional enough..

I don't have any easy suggestions for making it look more professional, it's just that unedited webcam videos.. even by extremely articulate people... don't go as far as videos with more ..cinematography...

Sorry... I'd much prefer to give more substantive criticism, but the content was good.

[BryanMorton]

OK, Not rigged in favor of capitalists. Rigged in favor of corporatists. There is a huge difference. Corporatism enjoys government granted privileges at the expense of the rights of life, liberty and property of others which would not be available in a truly free market system.

[FreiheitKampfer]

@BryanMorton

He is talking about capitalists as those who accrue capital for more efficient and rapid production..

In that sense, capitalists exist withing corporatism, but I agree with you.. semantics.

[SelfOwnershipFTW]

@assassinatorgirl I use it, sure, but not in any sort of "tactical" way. Tactical makes it sound like I'm trying to manipulate people. This is genuine! It is a great reason to care about liberty.