Socialism infiltrating Libertarianism?

British Libertarians who want to be politically active may consider getting involved with civil liberties groups, but we must be aware of the socialists!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Libertarianism
• Socialism
• Civil
• Liberties
• Chris
• Atkins
• Charter
• 88
• Amnesty
• International
• Constitutionalism

[fede2]

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.

[badong28]

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.

[KrazyKommieKiller]

I'm glad I live in the US where open socialism is rare and marginalized.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@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.

[Baldwynmayhem]

@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

[KrugmanTheKing]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[Baldwynmayhem]

@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

[KrugmanTheKing]

@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.