Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian Socialism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:10:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is libertarian socialism more closely related to libertarianism or socialism? I know it sounds like a stupid question but I've been reading lately and have 'converted' if you would call it that. I don't know if I need to change my ideology on my profile though as it's already under socialism. Is this a stupid question?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:13:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:10:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Is libertarian socialism more closely related to libertarianism or socialism? I know it sounds like a stupid question but I've been reading lately and have 'converted' if you would call it that. I don't know if I need to change my ideology on my profile though as it's already under socialism. Is this a stupid question?

Libertarian and Socialism are one and the same when both are performed consistantly.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:14:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for most Anarchist views without necessarily having to be an Anarchist or have the negative stigma attached.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:17:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:15:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
But you will be endlessly mocked by Capitalist for being an oxymoron.

Oh well. They don't know what they're talking about.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:23:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People use words a little too freely so we can't just judge.

What does your own "Libertarian Socialism" entail.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:32:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:23:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
People use words a little too freely so we can't just judge.

What does your own "Libertarian Socialism" entail.

Me or pinko?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:35:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:14:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for most Anarchist views without necessarily having to be an Anarchist or have the negative stigma attached.

Because you ll end up using words until they become redundant. I'm guessing that a libertarian socialist is just an anarcho-socialist who believes in the existence of a "small government". "small government" being defined by the induvidual. (all, ALL, libertarians are unique)

Freedo: Malatesta the pasifist. XD
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:37:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pinko, but you can answer too if ya want.

At 4/18/2011 8:32:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
lol, your sig is Libertarian Statist
I had a radical change of heart a.k.a the libterrorists got to me!! :P
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:46:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:35:45 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/18/2011 8:14:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for most Anarchist views without necessarily having to be an Anarchist or have the negative stigma attached.

Because you ll end up using words until they become redundant.

You are right about that sir.

I'm guessing that a libertarian socialist is just an anarcho-socialist who believes in the existence of a "small government". "small government" being defined by the induvidual. (all, ALL, libertarians are unique)

Freedo: Malatesta the pasifist. XD

No, like I said, it is a broad term. Anarchists are Libertarian Socialists but a Libertarian Socialist isn't necessarily an Anarchist. It could, however be argued, that Anarchism is the full extension of Libertarian Socialism.

This statement contradicts other statements I will also stand by, by the way.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:50:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I had to fix it.

At 4/18/2011 8:35:45 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/18/2011 8:14:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for most Anarchist views without necessarily having to be an Anarchist or have the negative stigma attached.

Because you ll end up using words until they become redundant.

You are right about that sir.

I'm guessing that a libertarian socialist is just an anarcho-socialist who believes in the existence of a "small government". "small government" being defined by the induvidual. (all, ALL, libertarians are unique)

No, like I said, it is a broad term. Anarchists are Libertarian Socialists but a Libertarian Socialist isn't necessarily an Anarchist. It could, however be argued, that Anarchism is the full extension of Libertarian Socialism.

This statement contradicts other statements I will also stand by, by the way.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:52:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The more intelligent libertarian socialists, like Noam Chomsky, tend to avoid defining what exactly it is they believe, that way nobody can see how retarded it is and properly critique it. Basically, it's the philosophy that we should maybe try to be kinda like that one anarchist-ish society that sorta worked in parts of Spain in the 30's. Or something.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 8:59:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:46:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:

No, like I said, it is a broad term. Anarchists are Libertarian Socialists but a Libertarian Socialist isn't necessarily an Anarchist. It could, however be argued, that Anarchism is the full extension of Libertarian Socialism.

This statement contradicts other statements I will also stand by, by the way.
Extreme libertarianism is anarchy - ultimate freedom is the complete lack of regulation.
Socialism is a model of trade and monetary circulation not government powers. As such socialism has no 'degrees', you either socialist or not. Degrees come in when you consider how you control and inforce the socialist system. Statist Socialism is more or less Stalinism(ignoring the single state philosophy). Anrcho-socialism is like Kropotkin or modern deontological socialism.

Libertarian, when used with socialism, is oxymoronic because of its fiscal connotations. Likewise, libertarian when used with statism is oxymoronic because of its governmental connotations.

When you use the term "libertarian" you must define which of its qualities you are referring to: Liberatrain/Capitalist or Libertarian/Anarchist.

I am assuming Pinko is appealing to the governmental. (otherwise, this some old' Bulllllshiiiiiet)
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 9:05:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:59:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/18/2011 8:46:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:

No, like I said, it is a broad term. Anarchists are Libertarian Socialists but a Libertarian Socialist isn't necessarily an Anarchist. It could, however be argued, that Anarchism is the full extension of Libertarian Socialism.

This statement contradicts other statements I will also stand by, by the way.
Extreme libertarianism is anarchy - ultimate freedom is the complete lack of regulation.
Socialism is a model of trade and monetary circulation not government powers. As such socialism has no 'degrees', you either socialist or not. Degrees come in when you consider how you control and inforce the socialist system. Statist Socialism is more or less Stalinism(ignoring the single state philosophy). Anrcho-socialism is like Kropotkin or modern deontological socialism.

Libertarian, when used with socialism, is oxymoronic because of its fiscal connotations. Likewise, libertarian when used with statism is oxymoronic because of its governmental connotations.

When you use the term "libertarian" you must define which of its qualities you are referring to: Liberatrain/Capitalist or Libertarian/Anarchist.

I am assuming Pinko is appealing to the governmental. (otherwise, this some old' Bulllllshiiiiiet)

Direct Democracy is one form of government that can be Socialist and Statist at the same time. Besides that, I agree with everything you jut said. But I never claim a monopoly on words. There are many who call themselves Socialist but not Anarchist and language is a matter of consensus.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 9:08:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchist: *Preaching"
Me: Anarchism does work.
Anarchist: Na-ah.
Me: Really, now? People will all agree to give each other money or screw each other over?
Anarchist: Not like that... but yes, it's worked before.
Me: Where?
Anarchist: *smugly* in the Spanish Civil War

> mFfw they think some guerrilla bandits working together in a warzone with 6 different factions blitzin themselves in the world's first bomb based war is an viable economic system.

WOW
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 9:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 9:08:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Anarchist: *Preaching"
Me: Anarchism does work.
Anarchist: Na-ah.
Me: Really, now? People will all agree to give each other money or screw each other over?
Anarchist: Not like that... but yes, it's worked before.
Me: Where?
Anarchist: *smugly* in the Spanish Civil War

> mFfw they think some guerrilla bandits working together in a warzone with 6 different factions blitzin themselves in the world's first bomb based war is an viable economic system.

WOW

Unlike most Anarchists, I will never admit to it having been tried. I am an Idealist and that's all there is to it. And I almost never preach politics, I strike at their philosophy instead. My Anarchism is a philosophy more than anything.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 9:14:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 8:46:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/18/2011 8:35:45 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/18/2011 8:14:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for most Anarchist views without necessarily having to be an Anarchist or have the negative stigma attached.

Because you ll end up using words until they become redundant.

You are right about that sir.

I'm guessing that a libertarian socialist is just an anarcho-socialist who believes in the existence of a "small government". "small government" being defined by the induvidual.
In other words, Cody was a libertarian even when he was a fascist, because he believed in a smaller government than some fascists.

Yeah, that doesn't work out. I prefer words that mean something. And when you use those, say "libertarian" as "rejects initiation of force against person or property", libertarian socialism is either a contradiction or something apolitical-- the desire to form a voluntary commune within a libertarian (i.e. free market) society.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2011 9:17:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 9:05:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Direct Democracy is one form of government that can be Socialist and Statist at the same time. Besides that, I agree with everything you jut said. But I never claim a monopoly on words. There are many who call themselves Socialist but not Anarchist and language is a matter of consensus.

Socialism can't contradict any form of government. This includes Demokratsia.
Statist (depending of definition/it's just one of dem words) contradicts the concept of Direct Democracy..

FWI - Direct Democracy is horrible, even the ancien philosophers (:Rousseau and Montesquieu) knew that.

Lanuage is a matter of consensus but people can use it for obfuscation; just like J.Ken just said.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 2:39:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/18/2011 9:17:24 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Statist (depending of definition/it's just one of dem words) contradicts the concept of Direct Democracy..

Are you saying that Direct-Democracy is not a government?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 5:29:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So... On the third page, there is still not an actual definition of "Libertarian Socialism". It does seem to be oxymoronic to me, but perhaps someone can define it in a way that makes sense.

When in the past I've tried to see how Noam Chomsky defines it, he just start babbling about how it's "what 'libertarian' used to mean when it was used by anarchists" and blah and blah and blah, but avoids (consciously? For a man with his intellect, you'd have to think so...) actually defining it.

So, unless it simply means voluntary socialism, there's no sense in discussing it as long as we don't know what it is...

Oh, about anarchism and libertarianism... The way I see it, libertarianism is based on the principle of individual rights (and derived from it, the non-aggression principle, which simply means "rights are not to be violated"). Anarchism on the other hand is based on the principle of abolition of any authority, necessarily including the authority of the principle of individual rights and everything derived from it.
Idividual rights (which means libertarianism) cannot be compatible with anarchism (which means, at best, that individual rights are whatever you can defend - might makes right).
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 7:26:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/19/2011 5:29:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:

Idividual rights (which means libertarianism) cannot be compatible with anarchism (which means, at best, that individual rights are whatever you can defend - might makes right).

States systematically violate individual rights. They are by definition aggressive monopolies on provision of legal services. So a state cannot be compatible with libertarianism.

Anarchism might be a "free for all". Your rights could get violated. Anarcho-capitalists have extensively outlined the economic and game theoretic dynamics of non-state legal systems.

The only reason a state is not a "free for all" is that someone has already won, is violating your rights, and you have no recourse against them.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 7:27:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think what it means is a get out for socialists who don't want to be accused of being authoritarian morons, or libertarians who don't want to be accused of being unempathatic douches.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 7:48:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/19/2011 7:26:32 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/19/2011 5:29:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
Idividual rights (which means libertarianism) cannot be compatible with anarchism (which means, at best, that individual rights are whatever you can defend - might makes right).

States systematically violate individual rights. They are by definition aggressive monopolies on provision of legal services. So a state cannot be compatible with libertarianism.
Leaving aside the issue of taxation for now - why exactly is a state not compatible with individual rights? What is it about a state that inherently violates these rights?

I'm not saying a state can't violate individual rights, I'm asking why you think it has to.

Anarchism might be a "free for all". Your rights could get violated. Anarcho-capitalists have extensively outlined the economic and game theoretic dynamics of non-state legal systems.
I have yet to find an explanation that makes sense, that is, an explanation that doesn't conflate the power of the dollar and the power of the gun.
You claim that a state is inherently a violation of individual rights - why doesn't this apply to anybody powerful enough to coerce others? Don't tell me that wouldn't exist under anarchism, even the whole anarcho-capitalist theory is based on the assumption that people would coerce each other.
Why is it illegitimate for a state to coerce me but legitimate for a privately funded "security agency" to which I have no connection whatsoever?

The only reason a state is not a "free for all" is that someone has already won, is violating your rights, and you have no recourse against them.
Wrong. The state is the means by which you are guaranteed that recourse. Not saying it works well but it is a whole lot better than just abolishing the idea of recourse...

Anyway, we're getting of the subject - I guess that's my fault for bringing it up here.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 7:55:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/19/2011 7:27:23 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
I think what it means is a get out for socialists who don't want to be accused of being authoritarian morons, or libertarians who don't want to be accused of being unempathatic douches.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 10:39:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/19/2011 7:48:37 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:

Leaving aside the issue of taxation for now - why exactly is a state not compatible with individual rights? What is it about a state that inherently violates these rights?

I'm not saying a state can't violate individual rights, I'm asking why you think it has to.

States reserve the right to arbitrate all disputes between whoever it claims as its "citizens". Citizens have no right to seek alternative legal recourse. This is a denial of self ownership.

Anarchism might be a "free for all". Your rights could get violated. Anarcho-capitalists have extensively outlined the economic and game theoretic dynamics of non-state legal systems.

I have yet to find an explanation that makes sense, that is, an explanation that doesn't conflate the power of the dollar and the power of the gun.
There is no might other than might. There is no such system that does not advantage the powerful.

Statism as a philosophy persists as a hypothetical where you can make laws by snapping your fingers. Of course the world would be better if the state ruled justly. It would also be nice if serial killers stopped murdering. But you actually have to figure out what structural incentives people face and then deal with the consequences. A monopoly, particularly a legal monopoly, is not a good starting place.

You claim that a state is inherently a violation of individual rights - why doesn't this apply to anybody powerful enough to coerce others? Don't tell me that wouldn't exist under anarchism, even the whole anarcho-capitalist theory is based on the assumption that people would coerce each other.

There would probably be rights violations under anarchy.

Anarcho capitalism says people are ALLOWED to coerce one another and still be called anarchists. I don't know how prevalent coercion would actually be under anarcho capitalism. If an agent believes property rights are a generally good thing, getting him to respect them via pure arbitrage is possible, but unfortunately a public goods problem. Libertarian coercion is just an expedient shortcut.

Why is it illegitimate for a state to coerce me but legitimate for a privately funded "security agency" to which I have no connection whatsoever?

Whatever the state does, be it protecting property rights or saving kittens, is categorically a violation of rights because a state is an aggressive legal monopoly. A private security agency can also be wrong and violate your rights, but it doesn't have to.

The only reason a state is not a "free for all" is that someone has already won, is violating your rights, and you have no recourse against them.
Wrong. The state is the means by which you are guaranteed that recourse. Not saying it works well but it is a whole lot better than just abolishing the idea of recourse...

No, recourse against the state is a joke. The state is judge in its own case. I mean the King could rule against himself... but then we'd just have anarchy because he'd find himself guilty of theft and abolish the office.

But notice its still aggression in the first place because you HAVE to use the state's courts to get at the state. Or more generally, the state has to approve its own critics.

But right-assertion should not depend on formal recognition. So the state's claim that all rights flow from itself is necessary a violation of all rights theories.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 11:02:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
One interesting thing about politics is how evasive the language is. In order to have a proper conversation, two people must agree on terminology; otherwise you get a protracted squabble about details until it finally is uncovered that definitions must be set.

I consider myself anarcho communist, which is what the very first usage of 'libertarianism' was aimed at meaning. I also have not yet discovered any real difference between anarcho communism and libertarian socialism, and Wikipedia essentially uses them as synonyms. I would designate Ragnar et al. as "American Libertarians." However grouping people this way only works from the top-down; you can say "we are libertarians because of x,y, and z," but x y and z must be very specific and two libertarians may very well disagree on a through w. Although there is a wealth of difference between ideologies on DDO, there does appear to be an elusive 'theory of everything,' if you will, that would agree with all our different perspectives. Our disagreements lie not in the substance of our beliefs but in how we define, organize, and prioritize these beliefs.
kfc
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 1:51:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/19/2011 11:02:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
In order to have a proper conversation, two people must agree on terminology;

I consider myself anarcho communist, which is what the very first usage of 'libertarianism' was aimed at meaning. I also have not yet discovered any real difference between anarcho communism and libertarian socialism, and Wikipedia essentially uses them as synonyms.
Alright then, how do you define anarcho-communism/librtarian socialism?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2011 2:09:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sieben: http://www.debate.org...
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)