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.
It depends on what your goal is, if you want to persuade people you would want to use the words and phrases they are familiar with. If your goal is to engage is left/right partisan bickering than use what ever you want.
I'm a member of The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The IWW, with its reliance on direct action, is the perfect example of what I would define as libertarian socialism in practice. To the extent that the mainstream media knows anything about the IWW, it tends to define us as a "Marxist", "socialist", "communist", or "anarchist" (a bit of truth in the last one) organization. Yet, on the rare occasion when they actually do some journalistic work, they realize that we espouse no political views whatsoever. It is a violation of our constitution for the IWW, or any of its branches, to give even one cent to any political party or candidate. Likewise, we are prohibited, as an organization, from making endorsements for any political office.
I think the whole point is to let others come to recognize on their own, that libertarian socialism doesn't address issues from a "left/right" perspective. That probably involves some research on their part, and a willingness to back away from politically-charged terminology. It also means listening and reading with an open mind.
Then you are not a Libertarian. That's like a tiger without stripes telling everyone he is a tiger or a thief telling people he doesn't believe in stealing.
You cannot be a Libertarian if you oppose private property.
Do you own property and PAY TAXES on it? If so, how does that make you feel?
Good question! Can you elaborate on "practice capitalism?" What are your thoughts on corporations?
It is probably eiaser for me to answer the corporation question, this should answer the capitalist question.
If individuals want to contractually join together to conduct business, I have no problem with that. If they ask for free government protection of their liability, I would either say no, or in some cases it may be preferable to charge for such protection. The same with criminal liability, they would not be able to get around hurting others via a corporate shield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
The Government would own all the land.
The Government would determine who would use it, and how it would be used.
The Government is wise.
Wise-acre under Georgist philosophy.
Not all georgist want the government to own land. It could still be privately owned the government would simply charge for the deed protection.
Other models such as Arden Delaware have a trust own the land and individuals lease it.
Interestingly enough even through many libertarians seem to quote Ayn Rand as scripture, very few acknowledge that Galt's Gulch was financed by land rents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
I'm a member of The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The IWW, with its reliance on direct action, is the perfect example of what I would define as libertarian socialism in practice. To the extent that the mainstream media knows anything about the IWW, it tends to define us as a "Marxist", "socialist", "communist", or "anarchist" (a bit of truth in the last one) organization. Yet, on the rare occasion when they actually do some journalistic work, they realize that we espouse no political views whatsoever. It is a violation of our constitution for the IWW, or any of its branches, to give even one cent to any political party or candidate. Likewise, we are prohibited, as an organization, from making endorsements for any political office.
I think the whole point is to let others come to recognize on their own, that libertarian socialism doesn't address issues from a "left/right" perspective. That probably involves some research on their part, and a willingness to back away from politically-charged terminology. It also means listening and reading with an open mind.
Sounds interesting, I have met several libertarians that come from your direction.
It is probably eiaser for me to answer the corporation question, this should answer the capitalist question.
If individuals want to contractually join together to conduct business, I have no problem with that. If they ask for free government protection of their liability, I would either say no, or in some cases it may be preferable to charge for such protection. The same with criminal liability, they would not be able to get around hurting others via a corporate shield.
I'm not sure!
I have heard this discussed before by an Anarcho-Capitalist named Stefan Molyneux. At least I'm pretty sure he's one. Are you familiar with him?
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.
