Freedom from having to be concerned about how YOUR actions/inaction effects the lives of others. A non-consequentialistic philosophy, both draconian and self-serving
Libertarians can group together and form a commune BUT only if they all "choose" to, they want to retain the ability to opt out in the future if they "choose" to.
Imgaine being responsible for ONLY your own actions or inaction, possible? Rational? It would be the creation of a state of nature, as Hobbes stated -a war of all against all. A brutal selfish and decadent cut-throat inhumanity. This would be your "freedom" in the libertarian system.
you will have welfare BUT only if the libs "choose" to agree to it, ses that happening?? lol. Libertarianism is a self-serving and utterly selfish doctrine thus its doomed from the outset. Look at the U$A now, are things progressing well? How is the US debt? Studied the new indefinite detention legislation? Still want to rant and rave about "freedom"?
it will never ever be implemented. That degree of freedom is impossible and completely draconian. Freedom from state coercion? The right not to pay taxes, to be entirely free from any compulsion? To exercise freedom of choice no matter what the consequences are. That form of individualism would be diasaterous. It is a delluded fantasy and a self-serving right wing doctrine. In all practicality, it would be completely impossible
@Baldwynmayhem work for necessary things for their survival OR luxury things? Is sitting in an office all day playing with economics and manipulating money and finace "work"? Using the money of others to create more and more money for corporations, thats your idea of "work"? You must so cherish your superficial ideals of "freedom" lol
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Let's just put it this way, out of the two systems, I'd prefer Capitalism thanks, least you have a chance to rise out of poverty if you work hard. Communism, no such chance. If your a pussy who doesn't want to work, guiess you'd prefer Left leaning philosophy. Ultimately however it's human nature at it's core that is flawed, people under any system will steal/lie etc and screw things over. People will never agree, nor be moral enough overall to work as a team
@Baldwynmayhem working for capitalists is an idiots game. Its far more admirable to bludge off people you despise ie. non-revolutionaries that crawl to the capitalists.
You are a right wing fascist, you need others to kick around to make you feel real big, thus you support the right-wing derranged fanatics
That's what you didn't understand then: you don't know why Capitalism has appeared justified in the first place. The very reason goes back even to Rousseau who says that humans are fundamentally good, it is the society which corrupts them.
All human intentions beyond pathological conditions are reducible to the promotion of well-being. No one will justify his actions to himself saying he thinks it's worst that way: the intention, even behind harming, is always the better option.
You can even find a very similar proposition with Plato when he explains all evils are caused by ignorance.
The second position they also held true was that all human value derives from a free act. You see in Humboldt that if someone does something under external directions, we may admire what he does, but we despise who he is; same with Tocqueville or even Adam Smith.
Freedom is the most important thing, which is why it was called liberalism in the first place.
The actual argument that justified capitalism (or rather that people use as if it was to justify capitalism) is that because people are ultimately good, if they are free, in the pursuit of their own interests, they will yield public benefits.
The problem is that under private ownership of the means of production, you aren't free: you become a tool the owner uses, thus the pursuit of personal interest becomes the pursuit of the owner's interests.
The entire argument made by Marx revolved around freedom and the control of one's labor. To Marx, people became freer through the emancipating production that is their work and he compare societies specifically on the degree of freedom the structure allows to each member.
Again, the whole point is that people who are free will do the stuff they enjoy the most and, to Marx, it's boldly production: it's a project... and they'll even do it for very personal reasons.
If I just follow those ideas to their logical extent, what allows people to exploit one another is for relations of free associations to be replaced by some form of hierarchy. This is where many people fail to see the point of it: socialism is a critic of power in a social system. It's fundamentally anarchic and libertarian.
And the aim behind that is to put people in conditions wherein their desires and ideas will indeed yield public benefits.
@KrugmanTheKing mate ultimately, if humans were moral, did the right thing generally, then realistically, when you think about it, there wouldnt be any anxiety and a need to exchange goods for services yeah? Personally I'd prefer a world full anarchy, peace and helping one another achieve "galactic" goals for the betterment of mankind and our continued survival as a species at a baseline level, but it will never happen. Because we are human and every system is flawed imao
That's the advocacy of authority: you can't argue this way for freedom.
I would rather think that our fundamental pursuit is well-being, that no one justifies to himself a decision as being the worst options of of many and that, as such, humans are better free than not.
The whole point of the argument is specifically that people wouldn't have to forcefully pursue an altruistic gesture, but would be put into a social condition wherein a culture of community would arise.
And, apparently, we have a very good series of control experiment: history has been kind enough to provide us with a comparative ground.
There are two possible positions: either you advocate freedom or else you suppose that the masses can only harm themselves and, as such, a ruling elite ought for their own good render them docile and calm.
We owe to the second line of thought all totalitarian regimes in history.
Fascists, claimed Mussolini, were there to leave their destiny into the hands of an enlightened person; Hitler made the same discourse, opposing even publicly democracy. But those in favor of a form of polyarchy wherein only an elite could get to participate into the electoral process and political decisions also reacted in less extreme forms. For instance, Locke famously said that the greatest part cannot know and must therefore believe.
The illusion, I would suppose, is the opposite: thinking that laying power in the hands of few will yield any good when history has clearly established how the surrender of the fate of many to the good will of supposedly benevolent masters proved so great a privilege that the good will had too many reasons not to be good.
As Marx said, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Just read how the debate went and you will see what common problem repeated itself.
But it's interesting to debate politics -- well, we're almost speculating about the End of History as in what is the final stage of human societies, the one which cannot be transcended -- with someone who bothers responding calmly instead of the rants I get most of the time.
As Mill supposed, freedom of speech also has value in the right of those who could listen to what is said. It prevents us from falling into an enclosed box, don't you think?
@KrugmanTheKing Mate I think as modern day grown ups, if you can't have a friendly debate or exchange of ideas without resorting to "monkey business chest thumping" there is something wrong tbh. People get too uptight about an idea in particular. Under capitalism, I lean to classical Liberal (Libertarian) ideology, I grew up in a Social Democratic (Labour Party) voting family. I know the perils of what life can bring and the reason why people think a particular way, hence I can sympathize moreso
Someone posted a comment on a video wherein Chomsky gives an interview saying that the guy was obvious biased and dumb... it surprised me to a certain extent given how meticulous Chomsky actually is with his references and I asked him why. Try as I might, I got three days of rants and insults without a single explanation. The reasoning of the guy was fundamentally "I disagree, therefore he is wrong."
It's as if, when you speak politics or religion, the rational switch turns off.
And here is the justification for why it would work: free people prefer to build their lives around projects than in sitting at home.
Just go in a science department of a nice University... everyone is working madly and they don't get extra money for doing 70, 80 hours a week, but they do it because they love that.
And here's why the so-called socialist states all failed: they were giant transnational companies that held absolute right over everything and everyone.
People need to look up the "political Axes". Libertarianism is opposite Authoritarianism, it promotes full freedom of the individual, it can be left-right on the economic axes, just as you can have Authoritarianism on the left-right axes. i.e. (communism or fascism, notice not really much difference between the two, you have a dictator in either case and everyone works for a common cause). This is the most fundamental problem with branding people in politics.
@Baldwynmayhem wrong. I didn't look up the political axes.. I have read plenty of books on politics though. I know what the difference is between the right and left. Is actually not that difficult. Today people miss understand the concept do to the whole political (party politics) bastardization of the left and right spectrum.
@N0g0dzN0masterz So for example Ron Paul or say Nigel Farage, Libertarians (ie less authority with law making or very limited government) is left wing is it? You don't make an ounce of sense with your statements, you just don't get it, as I say, generally "Conservatives" are authoritarian in nature (UK Tories, current Republican establishment who are fascist basically, warmongering/instituting a police state grid), but so are Left wingers (communism)
@Baldwynmayhem You start with a false premise You call Ron Paul a libertarian. I don't think he is a libertarian. He is a classical liberal which in the US people have come to call libertarians. But that is only pseudo definition. Your question which is limited government is left wing? Yes limited government is left wing. I don't know where your from but Anarchist and libertarians are in the left. Communist are on both sides there are left wing and right wing. Karl Marx was right wing.
@N0g0dzN0masterz Dude Communism is full left wing Authoritarianism, i.e. everyone works and pledges all their stash to the state, the opposite of this is a Libertarian Conservative, full individualism, you haven;t lookes at the axes I told you to read have you? I'll repeat, historically as you point out, Authoritarian Conservatives and Left wingers are the flavour, the past fewe hundred years is where "freedom" has become an issue, this is not a "left wing" doctrine, it's a social paradigm
@Baldwynmayhem If you where to read some political books from the 19th century you will see what I am talking about. The libertarians where anti marxist socialist who saw the state as part of the capitalist racket. The problem is that they never got a lot of support because they are more radical. And people (the masses) tend to be more conservative so they followed the marxist socialist and that became the flavor of the day. Even today people still follow/believe in Marx's model.
Socialism hasn't worked anywhere. How about trying to build the U.S. up a little. It's been berated enough. The world would be a rotten place without this country. Here's a music vid about Obama's Socialism.
Whoever you are, you are a total ass-hole. You don't know shit about what you think you do. Grow up, and get a life. You are the kind of person who makes me feel that this world has no future.
That is WRONG: not all libertarians are opposed to socialism at all. Many libs have no problem with people wanting to form communes and collectives. Indeed, to prevent them from doing so would itself be a contravention of their liberty correct??
"civil liberties" eg negative rights. The right not to be compelled to pay tax, not to have to help the poor etc etc. Essentially, the ability to behave like a neo-fascist tyrant. It should appeal to many here on YT
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY So you don't like freedom of choice? Freedom to assemble and speak your mind? What right does an entity have to "Steal" hard earned money you make off the sweat of your brow from a baseline fundamental perspective? Don't know if you've noticed but Authoritarianism has caused absolutely every problem in human history on left-right politics. From Hitler Fascism to Lenin-Stalin Communism. Fascism is the exact opposite to Liberty and Libertarianism.
you seem to have this one-dimensional view of socialism which you confuse with authortarianism. Your gross libertarian "freedom" results(consequentialism) in adversity for many people-thus in practical reality it would never work. For instance, many libs oppose the welfare state. Imagine no welfare state, imagine millions starving and homeless. There are dozens of examples of such as this. your "freedom" carries too high a price
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY hang on you said "Essentially, the ability to behave like a neo-fascist tyrant." You bring up an extremism, so I'll bring up communism hey? To be perfectly honest, what you said at the end, is the reason why i'm really apathetic, because NO political idealogy will ever change elements of human nature sadly, the real problem, until that somehow changes in the majority, this shit will perpetuate. Personally I donate to charity.
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Getting back to full liberty. The problem atm (like any system) is corruption, it's rampant in every western country. Well meaning social programmes with a tax burden/distribution of wealth, is being embezzled to special interests. To me it's better to cut off the funds and suffer a while so it can be cleaned up, cost of living to all levels of socioeconomic scale (particularly working-middle) is borderline untenable, hence my rhetoric.
Not an oxymoron. In fact, the term "libertarian" was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in 1857 to describe himself (an anarchist). The modern term libertarianism (economic freedoms) was originally called liberalism. The term "libertarian" describes liberty (thus, the term is also used to describe metaphysical liberty within philosophy and metaphysics), and the term socialism describes a society in which wealth is fairly distributed.
@Baldwynmayhem wrong? Authoritarian (right) Libertarian (left) that's it end of story if you think I'm wrong you have no concept of political philosophy. Also the first libertarian where socialist back in the 19th century. Some of them where individualist some where collectivist. But others have already made this points.
@N0g0dzN0masterz As I said wrong. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism is a totally different axes than Left-Right spending on the populace. e.g. Communism is Authoritarian Socialism, Fascism is Authoritarian Conservatism at their extremes. Pure Anarchy Libertarian socialism, Individualism Libertarian Conservatism. The left-Right paradigm can consist of both
@Baldwynmayhem As i've said a few times here, you mix up the "spending axis" (i.e. left - right wing) with the social axis (libertarian-authoritarian). Type in "SLECO chart" and you'll see what i'm talking about, or "Political Axes" and look at the wikipedia link. Your mixing up "spending" the actual differentiation of left-right politics with social ramifications. As I say, UK Tories etc are Authoritarian, US Conservatives historically (Whigs/Classical Liberals) are both right wing.
@N0g0dzN0masterz It's just that historically generally Conservatives have been Authoritarian by nature like UK Tories for example, because they want control on the populace, whereas Whigs from England/US espoused a more Libertarian Conservative (Liberal) overtone
Firstly and lastly the word "Libertarian" is and always was a Socialist/Anarchist term. It is only since the advent of the "American Supply side economic view" i.e.Friedman, Rand, Hayek, Mises that the term was stolen and used by them! As such Socialists and anarchists are refusing to be labeled with the badge anymore. As Chomsky said what Americans and now and "small group of politically young thinkers" globally label themselves has no relationship to what the term once meant or really means.
As others have pointed out, libertarianism has had a strong link with socialism and the left since its inception. It was firsted used by Joseph Déjacque, a french anarchist communist in the 19th century.
Well one could argue that government prohibiting business executives from firing people with Hepatitis B is socialism. This would be a case where socialism ACTUALLY plays the role of minimizing unjustified authority.
You can't say "telling someone what to do" is unjust. That's way to simplistic.
What you are exposing here is that (rightwing) "Libertarianism" is incompatible with civil liberties, since without government regulation, private property becomes the setting for arbitrary discriminatory rules. Not so long ago when private property was less regulated, we were treated to such delights as "No dogs, no Blacks, no Irish" signs above the doors of private establishments.
Rightwing libertarianism, by emasculating government, only seeks to let private tyranny off the leash.
the original definition of libertarianism is a belief in minimizing all unjustified forms of authority. that doesn't necessarily mean they are against socialism.
How can you promote personal responsibility when people are born into situations they have no control over.
Libertarianism will benefit a small privileged elite, once the country starts going to shit and crime/unrest rises those civil liberties will be quickly rolled back.
RaymondDundas <- Adam Smith defended free markets because he thought that market institution without state control could be a way for a egalitarian society where people could take self control of work process, eliminating subordination of individuals. Indeed most elements of Adam Smith and David deRicardo theories are used today in different socialist schools of thought, from marxism to mutualism. You are not talking about freedom, you are talking about private feudalism and tirany.
"Libertarianism" is just a neologism product of neocon machine of propaganda. The real origin is a socialist tradition in Europe imported by some few people in north America. You don't need being libertarian for being socialist, but you need to be a socialist for being libertarian. If not, you're not. Ron Paul is not libertarian is just ultra nationalist, and pro corporative government. We europeans use to call that fascism.
socialism and libertarianism were originally sinonyms in the 19th century. in more recent history libertarianism was redefined by the anglo-saxon world to their own liking.
More importantly while the government didn't have a clear welfare policy the local governments, thus the people had them.
The communities were often built on christian theology and formed laws and rules around them but most importantly a "social continium".
Indeed if your child was poor he or she recived free education, if your house burned down the community would help you build a new and so on. Todays people have stepped far away from this understanding and often need a government.
Libertarianism was once true libertarian socialism. It has been corrupted by the corporations.
America was t'lll the mid 1800'th century libertarian. But not as defined by morons like Ron Paul. While it had a very small government it had an extremely regulative government. Corporations all needed to beg to be able to exist and where only allowed to exist for short periods of time for large projects like building railways.
In the forms we have seen I agree. I mean whether that be USSR, Cuba or the West. But if we take examples like syndicalism in Spain 1936 or Hungary 1956 (against the USSR!) it is simply not true. We haven't seen anything like democracy in that "large" scale ever since.
If "civil libertarian" derived from socialism and social democracy, then everything I believed about socialism is true after all. I consider myself a civil libertarian on social issue and a democratic socialist on economic issues. As for the British Labour Party being socialist, I wish they could return to those days. Clement Attlee was a hero of mine. Long live LIBERTY, SOCIALISM, and DEMOCRACY.
To both. The company is a property of the owner, so as an owner he can do whatever he wants with the company. He can negotiate with the workers but the final statement about salary is his. If the salary will be too low nobody would came to work for him. The owner can't abuse however workes becouse it's against the main rule of libertarianism "my freedom ends on yours". Same way you can't just murder someone only becouse he's in your house.
Individual liberty matched with personal responsibility. This is a great concept, but the lower aspects of human nature trumps personal responsibility. Thoreau did say that the best government is no government, however libertarians often miss the second part of what he said, meaning that such a government will only work when humanity is evolved enough to handle themselves - which they are not, clearly.
From your work. Always from work. Span hooked so much Gold from south america in XVI-XVII century and they thught they'll rule the Europe, that they can buy every duchy. But what happened - when they started using this gold it's price fastly fell down becouse of growing supply of gold in Europe and Spain returned to the starting point.
economy works like linked glass, the level will always return to previous state. example: rich car dealer sells cars (price 10000), there comes government saying "Youre too rich, Smith is too poor, so you're going to pay us 1000 for each sold car so we can give 800 to mr. Smith" What does the car dealer now? He rises his car prices to 11000! This way it's the poor Smith paying the taxes put on the rich - all thanks to socialists! He also supports the officials families.
Libertarianism is not about a few individuals controlling the economic needs of millions. In fact, principled libertarianism often stands in opposition to such structures.
Labor theory of value has been discredited on multiple occasions if that is what you mean by exploit. And how is the first sentence a refutation of voluntary? You'll find that the more radical libertarians tend to actually NOT be bosses and CEO's, but exist probably in the middle to lower classes.
I don't think you have any idea what libertarianism is, or what the ideals it stands for if you believe that libertarianism is for the wealthy and powerful.
Exactly! And libertarian used to mean libertarian SOCIALIST(!) or the more "scary" one: Libertarian COMMUNIST(!!!!). I feel no shame in calling myself libertarian (communist), the legacy of none other than Pëtr Kropotkin himself. As a libertarian I am a strong suporter of full-scale anarchist-socialism, anarchist-communism, anarcho-syndicalism or whatever it is called. Socialists did not infiltrate libertarianism, but Capitalists did.
On the contrary. "Libertarian" was first used to describe existentialists. Capitalists are just as guilty of the theft of that word as socialists. But why complain? Socialists stole the word "liberal" from us. Doesn't that give us capitalists to use the word "libertarian"?
It is interesting, but can you give evidence for it? This is from chemistrydaily: "Originally, it [libertarian until the 1950s] referred to a variant of anarchist socialism. After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Proudhon from New Orleans." But logically it ought to mean the opposite of authoritarian in any case, right?
The word "libertarian" was first used in an essay by William Belsham to describe the philosophy of free will as opposed to necessitarianism.
And I never stole the word "liberal" from Adam Smith because I don't describe myself as a "liberal" due to the obfuscation of the word by filthy rat socialists. What the fuck brought you to that conclusion?
Well, it was sort of a "turnspeak" as you said "socialists stole 'liberal' from us". I will give you that that you did not address me in particular in that sentence. But that (liberal) is what followers of Adam Smith ideology in my country are called. I am sorry for that confusion. He thought his idea would lead to equality. I am quite confident that he was wrong, but he aimed at equality.
You are right about that of existentialism, but in a political sense libertarian was used by the anarchists. So the conclusion is: We (anarchists) are not invading "Libertarianism": We used the term since much earlier. I do not know if other "socialists" are invading "Libertarianism" though. I hope they will return the term to us and leave it alone then. XD
We are neither in the rack of left-wing liberals, Leninists, nationalists or any other pro-monetarist. Some call us left-libertarians.
I doubt that, the same ratio of social mobility exists the world over. What Cmrd. Eastcombe was implying, is that if you have a better footing to begin with, you have more chance of staying where you are or being better, than those in the working class who generally have an underfunded education, shocking public services and no democracy, excepting once every four or five years (as local councils have no power anymore - ta Maggie!). Just go to the poor areas of the UK, where most live, and see.
Have you never heard of Left wing libertarians like Edward Carpenter? There is a very long tradition of left wing libertarianism.
However, most libertarian arguments today like legalising drugs and decriminalising child pornography/consensual paedophilia etc. are so supportive of the rights of abusers and potential corporate interests that the genuine Left are backing away.
lol. look at how the degenerates voted down my comment?
libertarians favour policies which as they are implemented in the real world result in increasingly damaging disasters. for example, free trade to child labour and starvation is a libertarian-right notion.
What's wrong with there being elements of socialism in all institutions? I think that's a good thing, not a bad one. That is a way funky haircut for a barrister... I like it. Seems unconventional for a lawyer. They are more button up types here. I was going to dye my hair kind of like yours recently, but then I thought, "graduation is coming up and my parents will kill me."
Always fascinating to hear libertarians in the old world struggle against those who claim to own wholly the term "libertarian" in its 19th century sense, even though that sense is ostensibly more laissez-faire than modern "socialist". Read your Spooner and your Tucker, then move on to Rothbard and Nozick, never forgetting von Mises and von Hayek. Therein lies an excellent foundation for the freedom philosophy. And good luck in the UK, y'all have a great struggle ahead.
The bases of capitalism are VOLUNTARY transactions that are based on MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TERMS. Both parties of any transaction are protected from exploitation by the fact that either can WALK AWAY. A business-owner who purchases the services of someone else's labor is as protected as the laborer. As soon as either party has no choice but to acquiesce to the terms of a transaction, as is the case with socialism, unions, etc, only then can legitimate exploitation take place.
I agree philosophermax. But only from a legal/political standpoint. Philosophically speaking, one can still WALK AWAY from socialist coercion even though the consequences of violating the mandates of the state may be severe.
My point is that human liberty is NOT dependent on a given social/economic system (be it capitalism, socialist, etc) But rather that human liberty exists irregardless of whether you live in a state that recognizes it or not.
"socialist coercion" - then all society is coercion by this standard, otherwise the definition of capitalism provided by Max would presume going back to America in 1870 rather than that of today, where clearly the mass of all economic power is split among a few groups and working to live on any wage is needed to live. So if the capital doesn't belong to the worker, then he is coerced into labour. This guy is reaaally boring.
So you're saying there is no difference between economic coercion in a free society and economic coercion under the LAW of the state?
I'm currently reading the communist manifesto so I understand what you're saying. But doesn't big government have the potential to exploit the working class just as much as a big business? What makes you think that a state monopoly on capital will end proletarian exploitation?
Give me ONE example of pure Marxism exercised in the real world.
The communist manifesto is a generally unimportant document, try reading the German Ideology, the Paris Manuscripts or the Paris Commune. Socialism does rely on the explotation of all for the benefit of all (public transportation, worker's rights and unions), rather than the exploitation of all for the direct benefit of a few and the indirect and quite fluctuationary benefits of the majory (see current economic crises). We only ferar our lack of democracy under our "free" system. CNWP FTW!!
Very important you read! Don't just vote, vote with a cause.....otherwise, stay at home and enjoy the day. It would be better than voting for one of these two war, loss of liberties, high tax candidates! Instead vote for libertarian Bob Barr and make your voice heard! Barr will be on all 50 state ballots and write-in votes are thrown away!
Capitalism can never be libertarian as the tyranny of property will always exist under capitalim. The people who own most property will always control the state and the media therefore curtailing the liberties and rights of the working class and the opressed and reducing democracy to an empty facade. As long as capitalsim exists human kind will not be free
What do you mean with capitalism in that question? Capitalism in an austrian-economical sense means to have capital, to have money and that is what anarcho-capitalism terminology uses. Not the coercive fascistic relationship between corporations and the government.
Anarcho-capitalism is a market anarchistic philosophy that accepts every voluntary choice of individuals based on moral and justly obtained property as a belief that people holds property deer in a free world as a part of human natur
The terminology is just confusing... Anarcho-capitalists uses a vocabulary that is somewhat scewed by contemporary use and its historical roots from how the austrian economic lingo uses the language.
good video, i had no idea just a hunch. I think the constitution doesn't need reformation the constitution's "spokespeople" seem more like hired puppets trying to spin the understanding of libertarianism
I believe in freedom under the law, free markets must operate within a legal framework. The state is responsible to secure the peace and uphold justice so liberty is possible. But regarding economics, the state should have no role.
@AndrewFraserEsq and socialists would agree with you there. of course libertarian socialists, also known as left marxists and anarchists, take it a step further and say that there is no need for the state and that its functions can be handled collectively by the people. socialists vehemently oppose the state having a role in economics as socialism means "workers' control over the means of production". we support worker owned and operated businesses and that laborers receive the full product...
In a post-industrial society, common ownership of the means of production is now obsolete; we just don't manufacture anymore. We leave that to China! For the west at least, socialism is dead, if it ever was truly alive.
Now you say private property if theft from this abstract term "collective"? Now what do you mean by property? My watch is my possession, I assume mine to enjoy myself, or does the "collective" get to use it too? I assume you mean the means of the production when talking about property.
"Capitalism", what is it really? Private individuals, like you and me, mutually benefiting from the exchange of goods and services without the government being involved in the process. Yes you can call those private individuals capitalists, but it's a bit unfair to call all of them barbarians don't you think? I'm sure there are some friendly capitalists out there.
Oh dear, have you ever read Capital and The Communist Manifesto by Marx? If you think Marxist socialism is all about a big government taking control of exchange of goods, then i really doubt you have read anything. If you want to look at how capitalism exploits workers, then just look at who ownes the means of production and who decides where the socially earned "profit" goes to.
"state capitalism" is an oxymoron: capitalism = private enterprise, socialism public enterprise. Capitalists do not accept the government interfering in the state economy AT ALL. Once the state interferes on a small scale in the economy, the market is no longer free and the state becomes a mixed economy, both public and private enterprise.
Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.
OK, in the video blog, did I say I was using libertarianism in one historical definition? Check out my blog series: The libertarianism I discuss has it's heritage in classical liberalism and constitutionalism. Again, do some research on terms and the terms of historical and current usages.
Anarcho-Syndicalists and the co-operative movement which is also socialist interpret common ownership as the people, or groups people commonly owning the means of production: notice the difference? One form of socialism requires the state, the other doesn't. Hence the necessary term to distinguish, state socialism!
OK when I type terms, I don't make them up, they're political terms. What you should do is go to a source like wikipedia and research the term!
A fundamental principle of socialism is common ownership, the means of production owned collectively. State socialism interprets this as the government owning the means of production, therefore nationalisation.
I made the distinction: All my criticism of socialism is "state socialism", I have have no problem with co-operatives for example because that's nothing to do with the state. Surely you are a critic of state socialism aswell?
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Libertarianism is in support of INDIVIDUAL rights, which is a very soul of capitalism. So-called "democratic control" over production is just another version of group supremacy over individuals.
You're simply wrong and it is unhelpful to use the outdated terms "left-wing" and "right-wing". Libertarianism emerged out of Classical Liberalism and some say they are synonyms. Libertarians support Capitalism, the free market! Libertarians are not Anarchist because we do support state although in a limited sense. Look to the works of Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Von Mises. The Libertarians here come from this tradition; I am saying nothing controversial about libertarianism.
I'm glad I live in the US where open socialism is rare and marginalized.
KrazyKommieKiller 1 month ago
Freedom from having to be concerned about how YOUR actions/inaction effects the lives of others. A non-consequentialistic philosophy, both draconian and self-serving
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
Libertarians can group together and form a commune BUT only if they all "choose" to, they want to retain the ability to opt out in the future if they "choose" to.
Imgaine being responsible for ONLY your own actions or inaction, possible? Rational? It would be the creation of a state of nature, as Hobbes stated -a war of all against all. A brutal selfish and decadent cut-throat inhumanity. This would be your "freedom" in the libertarian system.
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
you will have welfare BUT only if the libs "choose" to agree to it, ses that happening?? lol. Libertarianism is a self-serving and utterly selfish doctrine thus its doomed from the outset. Look at the U$A now, are things progressing well? How is the US debt? Studied the new indefinite detention legislation? Still want to rant and rave about "freedom"?
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
it will never ever be implemented. That degree of freedom is impossible and completely draconian. Freedom from state coercion? The right not to pay taxes, to be entirely free from any compulsion? To exercise freedom of choice no matter what the consequences are. That form of individualism would be diasaterous. It is a delluded fantasy and a self-serving right wing doctrine. In all practicality, it would be completely impossible
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY It isn't if people get off their lazy arses and work.
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem work for necessary things for their survival OR luxury things? Is sitting in an office all day playing with economics and manipulating money and finace "work"? Using the money of others to create more and more money for corporations, thats your idea of "work"? You must so cherish your superficial ideals of "freedom" lol
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Let's just put it this way, out of the two systems, I'd prefer Capitalism thanks, least you have a chance to rise out of poverty if you work hard. Communism, no such chance. If your a pussy who doesn't want to work, guiess you'd prefer Left leaning philosophy. Ultimately however it's human nature at it's core that is flawed, people under any system will steal/lie etc and screw things over. People will never agree, nor be moral enough overall to work as a team
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem working for capitalists is an idiots game. Its far more admirable to bludge off people you despise ie. non-revolutionaries that crawl to the capitalists.
You are a right wing fascist, you need others to kick around to make you feel real big, thus you support the right-wing derranged fanatics
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem
That's what you didn't understand then: you don't know why Capitalism has appeared justified in the first place. The very reason goes back even to Rousseau who says that humans are fundamentally good, it is the society which corrupts them.
All human intentions beyond pathological conditions are reducible to the promotion of well-being. No one will justify his actions to himself saying he thinks it's worst that way: the intention, even behind harming, is always the better option.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem
You can even find a very similar proposition with Plato when he explains all evils are caused by ignorance.
The second position they also held true was that all human value derives from a free act. You see in Humboldt that if someone does something under external directions, we may admire what he does, but we despise who he is; same with Tocqueville or even Adam Smith.
Freedom is the most important thing, which is why it was called liberalism in the first place.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem
The actual argument that justified capitalism (or rather that people use as if it was to justify capitalism) is that because people are ultimately good, if they are free, in the pursuit of their own interests, they will yield public benefits.
The problem is that under private ownership of the means of production, you aren't free: you become a tool the owner uses, thus the pursuit of personal interest becomes the pursuit of the owner's interests.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem
The entire argument made by Marx revolved around freedom and the control of one's labor. To Marx, people became freer through the emancipating production that is their work and he compare societies specifically on the degree of freedom the structure allows to each member.
Again, the whole point is that people who are free will do the stuff they enjoy the most and, to Marx, it's boldly production: it's a project... and they'll even do it for very personal reasons.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem
If I just follow those ideas to their logical extent, what allows people to exploit one another is for relations of free associations to be replaced by some form of hierarchy. This is where many people fail to see the point of it: socialism is a critic of power in a social system. It's fundamentally anarchic and libertarian.
And the aim behind that is to put people in conditions wherein their desires and ideas will indeed yield public benefits.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing mate ultimately, if humans were moral, did the right thing generally, then realistically, when you think about it, there wouldnt be any anxiety and a need to exchange goods for services yeah? Personally I'd prefer a world full anarchy, peace and helping one another achieve "galactic" goals for the betterment of mankind and our continued survival as a species at a baseline level, but it will never happen. Because we are human and every system is flawed imao
Baldwynmayhem 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
That's the advocacy of authority: you can't argue this way for freedom.
I would rather think that our fundamental pursuit is well-being, that no one justifies to himself a decision as being the worst options of of many and that, as such, humans are better free than not.
The whole point of the argument is specifically that people wouldn't have to forcefully pursue an altruistic gesture, but would be put into a social condition wherein a culture of community would arise.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
And, apparently, we have a very good series of control experiment: history has been kind enough to provide us with a comparative ground.
There are two possible positions: either you advocate freedom or else you suppose that the masses can only harm themselves and, as such, a ruling elite ought for their own good render them docile and calm.
We owe to the second line of thought all totalitarian regimes in history.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
Fascists, claimed Mussolini, were there to leave their destiny into the hands of an enlightened person; Hitler made the same discourse, opposing even publicly democracy. But those in favor of a form of polyarchy wherein only an elite could get to participate into the electoral process and political decisions also reacted in less extreme forms. For instance, Locke famously said that the greatest part cannot know and must therefore believe.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
The illusion, I would suppose, is the opposite: thinking that laying power in the hands of few will yield any good when history has clearly established how the surrender of the fate of many to the good will of supposedly benevolent masters proved so great a privilege that the good will had too many reasons not to be good.
As Marx said, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Just read how the debate went and you will see what common problem repeated itself.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
But it's interesting to debate politics -- well, we're almost speculating about the End of History as in what is the final stage of human societies, the one which cannot be transcended -- with someone who bothers responding calmly instead of the rants I get most of the time.
As Mill supposed, freedom of speech also has value in the right of those who could listen to what is said. It prevents us from falling into an enclosed box, don't you think?
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@KrugmanTheKing Mate I think as modern day grown ups, if you can't have a friendly debate or exchange of ideas without resorting to "monkey business chest thumping" there is something wrong tbh. People get too uptight about an idea in particular. Under capitalism, I lean to classical Liberal (Libertarian) ideology, I grew up in a Social Democratic (Labour Party) voting family. I know the perils of what life can bring and the reason why people think a particular way, hence I can sympathize moreso
Baldwynmayhem 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
Someone posted a comment on a video wherein Chomsky gives an interview saying that the guy was obvious biased and dumb... it surprised me to a certain extent given how meticulous Chomsky actually is with his references and I asked him why. Try as I might, I got three days of rants and insults without a single explanation. The reasoning of the guy was fundamentally "I disagree, therefore he is wrong."
It's as if, when you speak politics or religion, the rational switch turns off.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@Baldwynmayhem
And here is the justification for why it would work: free people prefer to build their lives around projects than in sitting at home.
Just go in a science department of a nice University... everyone is working madly and they don't get extra money for doing 70, 80 hours a week, but they do it because they love that.
And here's why the so-called socialist states all failed: they were giant transnational companies that held absolute right over everything and everyone.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem no one in capitalism should work, the entire system should be boycotted
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
People need to look up the "political Axes". Libertarianism is opposite Authoritarianism, it promotes full freedom of the individual, it can be left-right on the economic axes, just as you can have Authoritarianism on the left-right axes. i.e. (communism or fascism, notice not really much difference between the two, you have a dictator in either case and everyone works for a common cause). This is the most fundamental problem with branding people in politics.
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem wrong. I didn't look up the political axes.. I have read plenty of books on politics though. I know what the difference is between the right and left. Is actually not that difficult. Today people miss understand the concept do to the whole political (party politics) bastardization of the left and right spectrum.
N0g0dzN0masterz 2 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz So for example Ron Paul or say Nigel Farage, Libertarians (ie less authority with law making or very limited government) is left wing is it? You don't make an ounce of sense with your statements, you just don't get it, as I say, generally "Conservatives" are authoritarian in nature (UK Tories, current Republican establishment who are fascist basically, warmongering/instituting a police state grid), but so are Left wingers (communism)
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem You start with a false premise You call Ron Paul a libertarian. I don't think he is a libertarian. He is a classical liberal which in the US people have come to call libertarians. But that is only pseudo definition. Your question which is limited government is left wing? Yes limited government is left wing. I don't know where your from but Anarchist and libertarians are in the left. Communist are on both sides there are left wing and right wing. Karl Marx was right wing.
N0g0dzN0masterz 2 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz Dude Communism is full left wing Authoritarianism, i.e. everyone works and pledges all their stash to the state, the opposite of this is a Libertarian Conservative, full individualism, you haven;t lookes at the axes I told you to read have you? I'll repeat, historically as you point out, Authoritarian Conservatives and Left wingers are the flavour, the past fewe hundred years is where "freedom" has become an issue, this is not a "left wing" doctrine, it's a social paradigm
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem If you where to read some political books from the 19th century you will see what I am talking about. The libertarians where anti marxist socialist who saw the state as part of the capitalist racket. The problem is that they never got a lot of support because they are more radical. And people (the masses) tend to be more conservative so they followed the marxist socialist and that became the flavor of the day. Even today people still follow/believe in Marx's model.
N0g0dzN0masterz 2 months ago
Socialism hasn't worked anywhere. How about trying to build the U.S. up a little. It's been berated enough. The world would be a rotten place without this country. Here's a music vid about Obama's Socialism.
jojmanful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whoever you are, you are a total ass-hole. You don't know shit about what you think you do. Grow up, and get a life. You are the kind of person who makes me feel that this world has no future.
Magic1210able 7 months ago
That is WRONG: not all libertarians are opposed to socialism at all. Many libs have no problem with people wanting to form communes and collectives. Indeed, to prevent them from doing so would itself be a contravention of their liberty correct??
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 8 months ago 2
why is your hair white? Is this all part of the aryan eugenic grid and natural selection
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 8 months ago
"civil liberties" eg negative rights. The right not to be compelled to pay tax, not to have to help the poor etc etc. Essentially, the ability to behave like a neo-fascist tyrant. It should appeal to many here on YT
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 8 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY So you don't like freedom of choice? Freedom to assemble and speak your mind? What right does an entity have to "Steal" hard earned money you make off the sweat of your brow from a baseline fundamental perspective? Don't know if you've noticed but Authoritarianism has caused absolutely every problem in human history on left-right politics. From Hitler Fascism to Lenin-Stalin Communism. Fascism is the exact opposite to Liberty and Libertarianism.
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem 'So you don't like freedom of choice?'
you seem to have this one-dimensional view of socialism which you confuse with authortarianism. Your gross libertarian "freedom" results(consequentialism) in adversity for many people-thus in practical reality it would never work. For instance, many libs oppose the welfare state. Imagine no welfare state, imagine millions starving and homeless. There are dozens of examples of such as this. your "freedom" carries too high a price
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY hang on you said "Essentially, the ability to behave like a neo-fascist tyrant." You bring up an extremism, so I'll bring up communism hey? To be perfectly honest, what you said at the end, is the reason why i'm really apathetic, because NO political idealogy will ever change elements of human nature sadly, the real problem, until that somehow changes in the majority, this shit will perpetuate. Personally I donate to charity.
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Getting back to full liberty. The problem atm (like any system) is corruption, it's rampant in every western country. Well meaning social programmes with a tax burden/distribution of wealth, is being embezzled to special interests. To me it's better to cut off the funds and suffer a while so it can be cleaned up, cost of living to all levels of socioeconomic scale (particularly working-middle) is borderline untenable, hence my rhetoric.
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
no libertarians in the UK lol man are you joking? What an incredibly broad assertion
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 8 months ago
Not an oxymoron. In fact, the term "libertarian" was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in 1857 to describe himself (an anarchist). The modern term libertarianism (economic freedoms) was originally called liberalism. The term "libertarian" describes liberty (thus, the term is also used to describe metaphysical liberty within philosophy and metaphysics), and the term socialism describes a society in which wealth is fairly distributed.
not a contradiction.
ps: nice haircut
bleachfan32ser 8 months ago
LOL this is so funny. Libertarians are the left always been till some of this rich capitalist stole the term.
N0g0dzN0masterz 9 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz wrong
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem wrong? Authoritarian (right) Libertarian (left) that's it end of story if you think I'm wrong you have no concept of political philosophy. Also the first libertarian where socialist back in the 19th century. Some of them where individualist some where collectivist. But others have already made this points.
N0g0dzN0masterz 2 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz As I said wrong. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism is a totally different axes than Left-Right spending on the populace. e.g. Communism is Authoritarian Socialism, Fascism is Authoritarian Conservatism at their extremes. Pure Anarchy Libertarian socialism, Individualism Libertarian Conservatism. The left-Right paradigm can consist of both
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem As i've said a few times here, you mix up the "spending axis" (i.e. left - right wing) with the social axis (libertarian-authoritarian). Type in "SLECO chart" and you'll see what i'm talking about, or "Political Axes" and look at the wikipedia link. Your mixing up "spending" the actual differentiation of left-right politics with social ramifications. As I say, UK Tories etc are Authoritarian, US Conservatives historically (Whigs/Classical Liberals) are both right wing.
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz It's just that historically generally Conservatives have been Authoritarian by nature like UK Tories for example, because they want control on the populace, whereas Whigs from England/US espoused a more Libertarian Conservative (Liberal) overtone
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wtfjaftw "Um your dumb libertarian comes from liberty freedom?"
yeah, it's still question-begging. the definition is context-independent.
fede2 1 year ago
Firstly and lastly the word "Libertarian" is and always was a Socialist/Anarchist term. It is only since the advent of the "American Supply side economic view" i.e.Friedman, Rand, Hayek, Mises that the term was stolen and used by them! As such Socialists and anarchists are refusing to be labeled with the badge anymore. As Chomsky said what Americans and now and "small group of politically young thinkers" globally label themselves has no relationship to what the term once meant or really means.
franks2732 1 year ago 2
Socialists all believe their weenies come from heaven.
In their deluded minds, this gives them some sanctified excuse to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for their gods of communism (themselves).
Socialists are no different than any tyrant that arose from Soviet Socialism, National Socialism, or Ba'ath Socialism...
Monarchy would be preferable to socialism - - at least we know who defines our liberties and who takes their place when they fail to define them...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
As others have pointed out, libertarianism has had a strong link with socialism and the left since its inception. It was firsted used by Joseph Déjacque, a french anarchist communist in the 19th century.
almanacofsleep 1 year ago
Well one could argue that government prohibiting business executives from firing people with Hepatitis B is socialism. This would be a case where socialism ACTUALLY plays the role of minimizing unjustified authority.
You can't say "telling someone what to do" is unjust. That's way to simplistic.
pdaniels9000 2 years ago
What you are exposing here is that (rightwing) "Libertarianism" is incompatible with civil liberties, since without government regulation, private property becomes the setting for arbitrary discriminatory rules. Not so long ago when private property was less regulated, we were treated to such delights as "No dogs, no Blacks, no Irish" signs above the doors of private establishments.
Rightwing libertarianism, by emasculating government, only seeks to let private tyranny off the leash.
TimeTelescope 2 years ago
the original definition of libertarianism is a belief in minimizing all unjustified forms of authority. that doesn't necessarily mean they are against socialism.
pdaniels9000 2 years ago
How can you promote personal responsibility when people are born into situations they have no control over.
Libertarianism will benefit a small privileged elite, once the country starts going to shit and crime/unrest rises those civil liberties will be quickly rolled back.
badong28 2 years ago 5
RaymondDundas <- Adam Smith defended free markets because he thought that market institution without state control could be a way for a egalitarian society where people could take self control of work process, eliminating subordination of individuals. Indeed most elements of Adam Smith and David deRicardo theories are used today in different socialist schools of thought, from marxism to mutualism. You are not talking about freedom, you are talking about private feudalism and tirany.
albertox1980 2 years ago 2
"Libertarianism" is just a neologism product of neocon machine of propaganda. The real origin is a socialist tradition in Europe imported by some few people in north America. You don't need being libertarian for being socialist, but you need to be a socialist for being libertarian. If not, you're not. Ron Paul is not libertarian is just ultra nationalist, and pro corporative government. We europeans use to call that fascism.
albertox1980 2 years ago 3
Im not going to post my comments but Socialism < Capitalism. BTW Nice hair!
Xylogeist 2 years ago
socialism and libertarianism were originally sinonyms in the 19th century. in more recent history libertarianism was redefined by the anglo-saxon world to their own liking.
fede2 2 years ago 12
More importantly while the government didn't have a clear welfare policy the local governments, thus the people had them.
The communities were often built on christian theology and formed laws and rules around them but most importantly a "social continium".
Indeed if your child was poor he or she recived free education, if your house burned down the community would help you build a new and so on. Todays people have stepped far away from this understanding and often need a government.
omfg4000 2 years ago
Libertarianism was once true libertarian socialism. It has been corrupted by the corporations.
America was t'lll the mid 1800'th century libertarian. But not as defined by morons like Ron Paul. While it had a very small government it had an extremely regulative government. Corporations all needed to beg to be able to exist and where only allowed to exist for short periods of time for large projects like building railways.
omfg4000 2 years ago 3
Of course not. You just invent a truth. That's called scientific method.
RSFO 2 years ago
In the forms we have seen I agree. I mean whether that be USSR, Cuba or the West. But if we take examples like syndicalism in Spain 1936 or Hungary 1956 (against the USSR!) it is simply not true. We haven't seen anything like democracy in that "large" scale ever since.
RSFO 2 years ago
If "civil libertarian" derived from socialism and social democracy, then everything I believed about socialism is true after all. I consider myself a civil libertarian on social issue and a democratic socialist on economic issues. As for the British Labour Party being socialist, I wish they could return to those days. Clement Attlee was a hero of mine. Long live LIBERTY, SOCIALISM, and DEMOCRACY.
PsychoPunk1965 3 years ago
BWAHAHAHA
We are everywhere. Fear us, spoiled petit-bourgeois kids!
misterelsh 3 years ago
To both. The company is a property of the owner, so as an owner he can do whatever he wants with the company. He can negotiate with the workers but the final statement about salary is his. If the salary will be too low nobody would came to work for him. The owner can't abuse however workes becouse it's against the main rule of libertarianism "my freedom ends on yours". Same way you can't just murder someone only becouse he's in your house.
klf2233 3 years ago
Individual liberty matched with personal responsibility. This is a great concept, but the lower aspects of human nature trumps personal responsibility. Thoreau did say that the best government is no government, however libertarians often miss the second part of what he said, meaning that such a government will only work when humanity is evolved enough to handle themselves - which they are not, clearly.
Coinneach2 3 years ago
From your work. Always from work. Span hooked so much Gold from south america in XVI-XVII century and they thught they'll rule the Europe, that they can buy every duchy. But what happened - when they started using this gold it's price fastly fell down becouse of growing supply of gold in Europe and Spain returned to the starting point.
klf2233 3 years ago
economy works like linked glass, the level will always return to previous state. example: rich car dealer sells cars (price 10000), there comes government saying "Youre too rich, Smith is too poor, so you're going to pay us 1000 for each sold car so we can give 800 to mr. Smith" What does the car dealer now? He rises his car prices to 11000! This way it's the poor Smith paying the taxes put on the rich - all thanks to socialists! He also supports the officials families.
klf2233 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not, you'r an example
klf2233 3 years ago
bull shit, nice lie coming from a socialist pig.
man95000 3 years ago
socialists are just jealous that other people succeed in their lifes. idiots
klf2233 3 years ago
if you dont like your work you can start youw own company idiot
klf2233 3 years ago
Libertarianism is not about a few individuals controlling the economic needs of millions. In fact, principled libertarianism often stands in opposition to such structures.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Labor theory of value has been discredited on multiple occasions if that is what you mean by exploit. And how is the first sentence a refutation of voluntary? You'll find that the more radical libertarians tend to actually NOT be bosses and CEO's, but exist probably in the middle to lower classes.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Ah.... NO!
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
I don't think you have any idea what libertarianism is, or what the ideals it stands for if you believe that libertarianism is for the wealthy and powerful.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Libertarian also means freedom from exploitation.
Giles20 3 years ago 5
Exactly! And libertarian used to mean libertarian SOCIALIST(!) or the more "scary" one: Libertarian COMMUNIST(!!!!). I feel no shame in calling myself libertarian (communist), the legacy of none other than Pëtr Kropotkin himself. As a libertarian I am a strong suporter of full-scale anarchist-socialism, anarchist-communism, anarcho-syndicalism or whatever it is called. Socialists did not infiltrate libertarianism, but Capitalists did.
RSFO 3 years ago 2
On the contrary. "Libertarian" was first used to describe existentialists. Capitalists are just as guilty of the theft of that word as socialists. But why complain? Socialists stole the word "liberal" from us. Doesn't that give us capitalists to use the word "libertarian"?
RaymondDundas 2 years ago
It is interesting, but can you give evidence for it? This is from chemistrydaily: "Originally, it [libertarian until the 1950s] referred to a variant of anarchist socialism. After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Proudhon from New Orleans." But logically it ought to mean the opposite of authoritarian in any case, right?
RSFO 2 years ago
Btw: I think you stole the word liberal from Adam Smith. ^_^ In Denmark the term "liberal" rarely is associated with socialism in any form.
RSFO 2 years ago
The word "libertarian" was first used in an essay by William Belsham to describe the philosophy of free will as opposed to necessitarianism.
And I never stole the word "liberal" from Adam Smith because I don't describe myself as a "liberal" due to the obfuscation of the word by filthy rat socialists. What the fuck brought you to that conclusion?
RaymondDundas 2 years ago
Well, it was sort of a "turnspeak" as you said "socialists stole 'liberal' from us". I will give you that that you did not address me in particular in that sentence. But that (liberal) is what followers of Adam Smith ideology in my country are called. I am sorry for that confusion. He thought his idea would lead to equality. I am quite confident that he was wrong, but he aimed at equality.
RSFO 2 years ago
You are right about that of existentialism, but in a political sense libertarian was used by the anarchists. So the conclusion is: We (anarchists) are not invading "Libertarianism": We used the term since much earlier. I do not know if other "socialists" are invading "Libertarianism" though. I hope they will return the term to us and leave it alone then. XD
We are neither in the rack of left-wing liberals, Leninists, nationalists or any other pro-monetarist. Some call us left-libertarians.
RSFO 2 years ago
I doubt that, the same ratio of social mobility exists the world over. What Cmrd. Eastcombe was implying, is that if you have a better footing to begin with, you have more chance of staying where you are or being better, than those in the working class who generally have an underfunded education, shocking public services and no democracy, excepting once every four or five years (as local councils have no power anymore - ta Maggie!). Just go to the poor areas of the UK, where most live, and see.
pastrychef1985 3 years ago
Have you never heard of Left wing libertarians like Edward Carpenter? There is a very long tradition of left wing libertarianism.
However, most libertarian arguments today like legalising drugs and decriminalising child pornography/consensual paedophilia etc. are so supportive of the rights of abusers and potential corporate interests that the genuine Left are backing away.
egapnala65 3 years ago
lol. look at how the degenerates voted down my comment?
libertarians favour policies which as they are implemented in the real world result in increasingly damaging disasters. for example, free trade to child labour and starvation is a libertarian-right notion.
heroicsteve 3 years ago
What's wrong with there being elements of socialism in all institutions? I think that's a good thing, not a bad one. That is a way funky haircut for a barrister... I like it. Seems unconventional for a lawyer. They are more button up types here. I was going to dye my hair kind of like yours recently, but then I thought, "graduation is coming up and my parents will kill me."
WeloveourJohnny 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
libertarians is the most evil ideology the world has ever seen.
heroicsteve 3 years ago
Always fascinating to hear libertarians in the old world struggle against those who claim to own wholly the term "libertarian" in its 19th century sense, even though that sense is ostensibly more laissez-faire than modern "socialist". Read your Spooner and your Tucker, then move on to Rothbard and Nozick, never forgetting von Mises and von Hayek. Therein lies an excellent foundation for the freedom philosophy. And good luck in the UK, y'all have a great struggle ahead.
sakrelije 3 years ago 2
We'll need a lot more than luck. A civil war is more appropriate.
HarryBallbag 3 years ago
The bases of capitalism are VOLUNTARY transactions that are based on MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TERMS. Both parties of any transaction are protected from exploitation by the fact that either can WALK AWAY. A business-owner who purchases the services of someone else's labor is as protected as the laborer. As soon as either party has no choice but to acquiesce to the terms of a transaction, as is the case with socialism, unions, etc, only then can legitimate exploitation take place.
philosophermax 3 years ago
I agree philosophermax. But only from a legal/political standpoint. Philosophically speaking, one can still WALK AWAY from socialist coercion even though the consequences of violating the mandates of the state may be severe.
My point is that human liberty is NOT dependent on a given social/economic system (be it capitalism, socialist, etc) But rather that human liberty exists irregardless of whether you live in a state that recognizes it or not.
VforVideo 3 years ago
"socialist coercion" - then all society is coercion by this standard, otherwise the definition of capitalism provided by Max would presume going back to America in 1870 rather than that of today, where clearly the mass of all economic power is split among a few groups and working to live on any wage is needed to live. So if the capital doesn't belong to the worker, then he is coerced into labour. This guy is reaaally boring.
pastrychef1985 3 years ago
So you're saying there is no difference between economic coercion in a free society and economic coercion under the LAW of the state?
I'm currently reading the communist manifesto so I understand what you're saying. But doesn't big government have the potential to exploit the working class just as much as a big business? What makes you think that a state monopoly on capital will end proletarian exploitation?
Give me ONE example of pure Marxism exercised in the real world.
VforVideo 3 years ago
The communist manifesto is a generally unimportant document, try reading the German Ideology, the Paris Manuscripts or the Paris Commune. Socialism does rely on the explotation of all for the benefit of all (public transportation, worker's rights and unions), rather than the exploitation of all for the direct benefit of a few and the indirect and quite fluctuationary benefits of the majory (see current economic crises). We only ferar our lack of democracy under our "free" system. CNWP FTW!!
pastrychef1985 3 years ago
Videos very few people get to see!
watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw
watch?v=SzTozC3PCF4
watch?v=kKPkqs-ZgPQ
watch?v=Im0Wqj3BSvU#
Very important you read! Don't just vote, vote with a cause.....otherwise, stay at home and enjoy the day. It would be better than voting for one of these two war, loss of liberties, high tax candidates! Instead vote for libertarian Bob Barr and make your voice heard! Barr will be on all 50 state ballots and write-in votes are thrown away!
lpf(dot)org/wastedvote(dot)htm
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Capitalism can never be libertarian as the tyranny of property will always exist under capitalim. The people who own most property will always control the state and the media therefore curtailing the liberties and rights of the working class and the opressed and reducing democracy to an empty facade. As long as capitalsim exists human kind will not be free
eastcombe127 3 years ago
Anarchism can't be capitalist, and libertarianism means socialist everywhere except the USA and apparently the UK now. Bleh.
RebelWithoutASauce 3 years ago
What do you mean with capitalism in that question? Capitalism in an austrian-economical sense means to have capital, to have money and that is what anarcho-capitalism terminology uses. Not the coercive fascistic relationship between corporations and the government.
Anarcho-capitalism is a market anarchistic philosophy that accepts every voluntary choice of individuals based on moral and justly obtained property as a belief that people holds property deer in a free world as a part of human natur
lordmetroid 4 years ago
The terminology is just confusing... Anarcho-capitalists uses a vocabulary that is somewhat scewed by contemporary use and its historical roots from how the austrian economic lingo uses the language.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
good video, i had no idea just a hunch. I think the constitution doesn't need reformation the constitution's "spokespeople" seem more like hired puppets trying to spin the understanding of libertarianism
unansweredQUESTI0NS 4 years ago
Liberarianism is a term historically used to describe anarchism or else libertarian socialism and it is still used that way in most languages.
Libertarian socialism is the one that has it's heritage in classical liberalism.
drizztf88 4 years ago
I believe in freedom under the law, free markets must operate within a legal framework. The state is responsible to secure the peace and uphold justice so liberty is possible. But regarding economics, the state should have no role.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
@AndrewFraserEsq and socialists would agree with you there. of course libertarian socialists, also known as left marxists and anarchists, take it a step further and say that there is no need for the state and that its functions can be handled collectively by the people. socialists vehemently oppose the state having a role in economics as socialism means "workers' control over the means of production". we support worker owned and operated businesses and that laborers receive the full product...
eboyd32 1 year ago
...of their labor.
eboyd32 1 year ago
In a post-industrial society, common ownership of the means of production is now obsolete; we just don't manufacture anymore. We leave that to China! For the west at least, socialism is dead, if it ever was truly alive.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Now you say private property if theft from this abstract term "collective"? Now what do you mean by property? My watch is my possession, I assume mine to enjoy myself, or does the "collective" get to use it too? I assume you mean the means of the production when talking about property.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
"Capitalism", what is it really? Private individuals, like you and me, mutually benefiting from the exchange of goods and services without the government being involved in the process. Yes you can call those private individuals capitalists, but it's a bit unfair to call all of them barbarians don't you think? I'm sure there are some friendly capitalists out there.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Oh dear, have you ever read Capital and The Communist Manifesto by Marx? If you think Marxist socialism is all about a big government taking control of exchange of goods, then i really doubt you have read anything. If you want to look at how capitalism exploits workers, then just look at who ownes the means of production and who decides where the socially earned "profit" goes to.
Giles20 3 years ago
"state capitalism" is an oxymoron: capitalism = private enterprise, socialism public enterprise. Capitalists do not accept the government interfering in the state economy AT ALL. Once the state interferes on a small scale in the economy, the market is no longer free and the state becomes a mixed economy, both public and private enterprise.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
OK, in the video blog, did I say I was using libertarianism in one historical definition? Check out my blog series: The libertarianism I discuss has it's heritage in classical liberalism and constitutionalism. Again, do some research on terms and the terms of historical and current usages.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Anarcho-Syndicalists and the co-operative movement which is also socialist interpret common ownership as the people, or groups people commonly owning the means of production: notice the difference? One form of socialism requires the state, the other doesn't. Hence the necessary term to distinguish, state socialism!
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
OK when I type terms, I don't make them up, they're political terms. What you should do is go to a source like wikipedia and research the term!
A fundamental principle of socialism is common ownership, the means of production owned collectively. State socialism interprets this as the government owning the means of production, therefore nationalisation.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
I made the distinction: All my criticism of socialism is "state socialism", I have have no problem with co-operatives for example because that's nothing to do with the state. Surely you are a critic of state socialism aswell?
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Libertarianism is in support of INDIVIDUAL rights, which is a very soul of capitalism. So-called "democratic control" over production is just another version of group supremacy over individuals.
alisher1984 4 years ago
Well said alisher1984. I will second that!
SeppDietrich555 4 years ago
You're simply wrong and it is unhelpful to use the outdated terms "left-wing" and "right-wing". Libertarianism emerged out of Classical Liberalism and some say they are synonyms. Libertarians support Capitalism, the free market! Libertarians are not Anarchist because we do support state although in a limited sense. Look to the works of Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Von Mises. The Libertarians here come from this tradition; I am saying nothing controversial about libertarianism.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Iggmister, you are mistaken.
ithinkronpaulissmart 4 years ago