Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now you have a straw man on socialism that you are using to tear down your straw man of libertarianism?
Socialism's central premise is social ownership of the means of production, where some collective, be it the state, the community, the workers making the product, what have you, own the fruits of the collective labor. There is no private ownership in ideal social economics.
The first and fundamental premise of libertarianism is self-ownership. You own you. Along with that comes the basic property right - you own you, as well as those things you acquired via mutual voluntary trade, or created with your tools, talents and effort. The painting is a good example - I buy the paints, brushes and canvases via mutual voluntary trade, and through my efforts, create something that is mine, I own it. I can trade with someone who wants it, or I can keep it, but no matter what, it is mine. The workers who made the paints, the brushes and the canvas have no ownership of what I have created.
Social economic systems, especially under the Marxist model do not function that way. Once it is created, it is "owned" by the collective, theoretically by that part of the collective that has the most need or can make the most use of it. You individually own nothing in social economics because you are not an individual, but part of a larger collective.
You couldn't find two more opposing ideologies than socialism (the real kind as espoused by Marx and the other social economic/ownership theorists) and libertarianism (the real kind, as espoused by Locke, Bastiat and Rothbard).
You need to learn more about all these political science topics before building all these straw men. Really.
Although in ideology the two are opposite, in practice they could actually perform rather similarly. In socialism, there has historically been a sort of ruling class, not total equality. While libertarianism says you have the right to your own self and to property, if the system was rigged so that certain owners owned a monopoly on basic necessities and the pathway to success, we would end back up at a situation not at all unlike socialism. Libertarianism, especially Rothbard version, does nothing to address what happens if monopolies, or bandits if I can use his terms, arise that do rig the system.
Not every market is like videogames, where perfect competition can prevail. Profit is sometimes the greatest in the long run when sacrifices are made to kill competition in the short run. See telecomm companies for an example.
That sounds like socialism to me. Socialists believe that people should be able to own the fruits of their labor, and have some leverage against landlords and employers. This is accomplished by labor being organized and by a democratic government ensuring that workers can get reasonable time off, and not be abused by their company.
Libertarian policy only favors employers and shareholders. They're not so much lovers of liberty, just haters of democracy. They will complain if the government forces them to do something, but will lick the boots of a totalitarian boss or CEO.
This isn't even close to what libertarianism is. First of all, Socialists believe that people should be able to own the fruits of each other's labors, while Liberals believe in this nonsense of organized unions "fighting for the little man". Libertarainism says don't touch my ****, I'll let you have some if I feel it necessary.
Liberatariansims also does not favor employers and shareholders. It favors anyone who is able to produce a good that others in society are willing to purchase. There is no propping up failing corporations, or giving tax breaks to fortune 500's. If GM can't produce enough quality vehicles, then GM doesn't need to exist.
The problem with all other ideologies is that you want to the government to save you from failure and punish the evil boss-man for not giving you $3 more an hour.
Although in ideology the two are opposite, in practice they could actually perform rather similarly. In socialism, there has historically been a sort of ruling class, not total equality. While libertarianism says you have the right to your own self and to property, if the system was rigged so that certain owners owned a monopoly on basic necessities and the pathway to success, we would end back up at a situation not at all unlike socialism. Libertarianism, especially Rothbard version, does nothing to address what happens if monopolies, or bandits if I can use his terms, arise that do rig the system.
Not every market is like videogames, where perfect competition can prevail. Profit is sometimes the greatest in the long run when sacrifices are made to kill competition in the short run. See telecomm companies for an example.
A rigged , or "franchised monopoly" only occurs with the power of the government to enforce it. The natural monopoly in the free market is a myth, it's never happened. I defy you to name the monopoly that has ever occurred without government protection/assistance/patronage.
Under the libertarian economic system, government does not rig the game, collude with single entities to protect them from competition, or rig the game to bar competition. What you're doing is common to these ideological discussions where libertarianism in particular is torn apart. You conjure some diabolical scenario that is actually contrary to libertarianism and with that scenario attempt to show why libertarianism itself is totally unfeasible.
Right past self-ownership and the non-aggression axiom is the "smallest, least intrusive government necessary to protect, defend and secure the NATURAL INDIVIDUAL rights of the citizen" theory. Nowhere in any of these three central tenets does "rigging the game for basic necessities" occur, become authorized, or make any sense whatsoever.
Or is this an attempt to make libertarian = anarchy? Which once again, would be a straw man, just with different straw.
The problem with all other ideologies is that you want to the government to save you from failure and punish the evil boss-man for not giving you $3 more an hour.
And the problem with the reality of US corporatism is that everyone sees any form of government, any ideology, and really any theory contrary to our corporatist/lobbyist version of Stalinism always converging right back to it.
If I say libertarian, I get "well what happens when government intrudes, and...."
If I say freedom, I get "well what happens when government intrudes, and...."
If I say competition, profit motive, laissez faire, etc, I get "well what happens when government intrudes, and...."
The assumption, and not an entirely incorrect one, is that at some point the government is going to interfere to get their grubby mitts on the system, so why even consider systems where their grubbies don't start there? There's a pragmatism to that I cannot deny, but it's fatalist and nihilist imho, and it also tries to force my acquiescence and agreement,and I won't do it. The one thing the government simply cannot do is get me to stop arguing that their meddling IS THE PROBLEM. I may not be able to stop the meddling, but I never have to agree that it's proper.
SO when these theoretical ideology threads pop, I'll keep defending libertarian theory within a reality that says government will come along and fark it all up at some point. The government's meddling is not part of the theory, it's simply an end point reality to ANY IDEOLOGICAL THEORY.
If not in theory, in practice Ron Paul's America would pretty much be exactly like the Soviet Union. Why?
If America was run on "libertarian" principles as espoused by Ron and the Tea Party, you would see the withering of the elected democratic state, replaced by a merger of the military and major corporations into a new, "pro-liberty" totalitarian government by and for the shareholders, who would become the new politicians.
The military is the only part of the government libertarians respect and would be the only power that could defend Walmart, Apple, etc from "aggressors" so this would be a natural alliance. Much like Pinochet, Ron Paul would still be the "Commander in Chief" and would essentially be a dictator even with the much loathed Congress and Supreme Court disbanded.
In the Soviet Union the military and government also merged with big industry, though in the opposite direction. The end result was essentially the same as what happened in Chile and would happen with Ron Paul - a small number of capital owners and their entourages would lord over and abuse the masses.
In the Soviet Union the Communist Party was free to kill, enslave or imprison anyone they considered "enemies of the people". In Ron Paul's military dictatorship Ron and his cronies would be able to kill or jail anyone who was an "aggressor against property", tried to organize labor or threatened laissez-faire capitalism or "liberty" in any way. And knowing how trigger happy American conservatives are, I doubt this would be an infrequent occurrence.
Keep in mind that libertarianism and authoritarian communism are very similar in many ways. They're both streams of anarchism. Both support the withering of the state and put an emphasis on self-reliance and hard work. Perhaps most importantly, both are highly anti-democratic and if given the power would persecute people with opposing points of view.
The only real difference is that authoritarian communists want the state to own the means of production, while libertarians want the owners of the means of production to become the new "state", except they'd call it a "market" instead.
A rigged , or "franchised monopoly" only occurs with the power of the government to enforce it. The natural monopoly in the free market is a myth, it's never happened. I defy you to name the monopoly that has ever occurred without government protection/assistance/patronage.
This is true. Monopolies are a government creation.
In the Soviet Union the Communist Party was free to kill, enslave or imprison anyone they considered "enemies of the people". In Ron Paul's military dictatorship Ron and his cronies would be able to kill or jail anyone who was an "aggressor against property", tried to organize labor or threatened laissez-faire capitalism or "liberty" in any way.And knowing how trigger happy American conservatives are, I doubt this would be an infrequent occurrence.
I think you're wrong about the bolded text. When is the last time in recent history that conservatives have banded together to try to overthrow anyone, or anything? People are all talk nowadays, with absolutely no action. There is also the issue of the surveillance state that is still growing around us.
Are you going to address the leaps in techology that have occurred since the Soviet Union, that you are using as a comparison?
We have smartphones that have cameras that can see our faces at any time of day, we have voice recognition technology, Smart TVs that track who is in the room, everyone who is on the internet has data about themselves stored somewhere that can be accessed by hackers or govt agencies, or corporations... We live in a time where privacy is practically a thing of the past.
It doesn't make any sense to compare the present times with the Soviet Union, because of the 1984-type of surveillance that is available in our society. If this type of surveillance existed in Colonial America, it's possible the Revolution never would have happened because Britain intelligence would have known right away who was trying to stage a coup or revolt, and would have taken out those dissenters before they ever even acted.
We are living in a society where revolution is not possible anymore, because the communication that has to happen to drum up support for revolution is nearly impossible to keep secret.
If not in theory, in practice Ron Paul's America would pretty much be exactly like the Soviet Union. Why?
If America was run on "libertarian" principles as espoused by Ron and the Tea Party, you would see the withering of the elected democratic state, replaced by a merger of the military and major corporations into a new, "pro-liberty" totalitarian government by and for the shareholders, who would become the new politicians.
The military is the only part of the government libertarians respect and would be the only power that could defend Walmart, Apple, etc from "aggressors" so this would be a natural alliance. Much like Pinochet, Ron Paul would still be the "Commander in Chief" and would essentially be a dictator even with the much loathed Congress and Supreme Court disbanded.
In the Soviet Union the military and government also merged with big industry, though in the opposite direction. The end result was essentially the same as what happened in Chile and would happen with Ron Paul - a small number of capital owners and their entourages would lord over and abuse the masses.
In the Soviet Union the Communist Party was free to kill, enslave or imprison anyone they considered "enemies of the people". In Ron Paul's military dictatorship Ron and his cronies would be able to kill or jail anyone who was an "aggressor against property", tried to organize labor or threatened laissez-faire capitalism or "liberty" in any way. And knowing how trigger happy American conservatives are, I doubt this would be an infrequent occurrence.
Keep in mind that libertarianism and authoritarian communism are very similar in many ways. They're both streams of anarchism. Both support the withering of the state and put an emphasis on self-reliance and hard work. Perhaps most importantly, both are highly anti-democratic and if given the power would persecute people with opposing points of view.
The only real difference is that authoritarian communists want the state to own the means of production, while libertarians want the owners of the means of production to become the new "state", except they'd call it a "market" instead.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and I highly suggest you go to Libertarian sites to learn what it is all about. Comparing Libertarianism and Marxism is like comparing an apple to a guitar.
I think you're wrong about the bolded text. When is the last time in recent history that conservatives have banded together to try to overthrow anyone, or anything? People are all talk nowadays, with absolutely no action. There is also the issue of the surveillance state that is still growing around us.
Are you going to address the leaps in techology that have occurred since the Soviet Union, that you are using as a comparison?
We have smartphones that have cameras that can see our faces at any time of day, we have voice recognition technology, Smart TVs that track who is in the room, everyone who is on the internet has data about themselves stored somewhere that can be accessed by hackers or govt agencies, or corporations... We live in a time where privacy is practically a thing of the past.
It doesn't make any sense to compare the present times with the Soviet Union, because of the 1984-type of surveillance that is available in our society. If this type of surveillance existed in Colonial America, it's possible the Revolution never would have happened because Britain intelligence would have known right away who was trying to stage a coup or revolt, and would have taken out those dissenters before they ever even acted.
We are living in a society where revolution is not possible anymore, because the communication that has to happen to drum up support for revolution is nearly impossible to keep secret.
I think a peaceful revolution is possible, at least for now. Spreading ideas leads to cultural change, so as long as we're still allowed to talk about ideas without fear of punishment I'd say that's the way to go.
It is pretty telling about the motivation of government, though. They don't care as much about helping the citizens as they care about keeping order, making their own jobs easier, and maintaining their own power and control.
A lot of them aren't even doing it with bad intentions, that's just the nature of government. Their entire job is to control people and manage their lives. As Jefferson said, the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and for government to gain ground...and people are still surprised when they advocate more regulation and policy and the result is more police, more military, more taxes, etc...less choice in their own lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Socialists believe that people should be able to own the fruits of their labor, and have some leverage against landlords and employers. This is accomplished by labor being organized and by a democratic government ensuring that workers can get reasonable time off, and not be abused by their company. 