Utopian Socialism

Originally posted by @wajoma
It's really amusing that you think socialism enhances an individual's "economic freedom".

But then that's your business, as it is my business to trade with other capitalists.

Imagine how controlling a government would have to become in order to regulate and monitor every single financial transaction made and then redistribute the money as they see fit. No government has the potential to become as tyrannical as that one.

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
More or less. I've never found a libertarian who was anything but an extreme right solipsist. Unlovable people, all of them.

This answers this post and several others:

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever.

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA1.html#seca13

The whole "An Anarchist FAQ" is worth a read for those not as intellectually brainwashed as the whodeys of the world. It is at: http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/index.html

Originally posted by @no1marauder
This answers this post and several others:

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it ...[text shortened]... s the whodeys of the world. It is at: http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/index.html

WTF is with all the copy and pasting? Can you not think for yourself?

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
WTF is with all the copy and pasting? Can you not think for yourself?

If you believe that "thinking for yourself" means ignoring all previous work from political philosophers, it goes a long way to explaining your generally inane posts here.

If someone has expressed an idea or ideas that I believe is correct sufficiently, I have no problem with quoting them and identifying the source. By contrast, several right wing posters here have the habit of using a "cut and paste" without giving credit to its author - a practice known as "plagiarism".

What’s a libertarian anyways?

Financially capitalist, but morally left leaning?

Originally posted by @shavixmir
What’s a libertarian anyways?

Financially capitalist, but morally left leaning?

It's defined by the 'non-initiation of force' or 'non-aggression' principal. Financially you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's all voluntary, morally you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's voluntary.

As you can see from this message board a lot of people think they're the experts at running your life, their qualifications for this dream feeling position vary, some think because they are physicists, or lawyers, or they get their guidance from their imaginary friend in the sky, or they emmigrated to NZ and became ex teachers qualifies them, maybe they read some blogs on the internet, whatever, they all have a plan for your life and don't mind enlisting the services of state thugs to force you to conform to their dream feelings.

Libertarians don't believe in the 'f' word. Control freaks and busy bodies live by it.

Originally posted by @wajoma
It's defined by the 'non-initiation of force' or 'non-aggression' principal. Financially you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's all voluntary, morally you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's voluntary.

As you can see from this message board a lot of people think they're the experts at running your l ...[text shortened]... ings.

Libertarians don't believe in the 'f' word. Control freaks and busy bodies live by it.

One can't be truly in favor of "liberty" and defend capitalism (a system based on hierarchical relations) and private property as properly defined (that is "state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others" ).

As far as "non-initiation of force": due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. As Immanuel Wallerstein points out in The Capitalist World System (vol. 1), capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally to conquest and forcible seizure. Thus denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than 'theft'... it is outright homicide." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 187]

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB4.html

So Wajoma's type of "libertarianism" aims to protect those who wield economic power and hegemony over others (obtained by past initiations of force supported by the State) from the demands for justice and liberty of the People. In short, it is a fraud.

Originally posted by @wajoma
It's defined by the 'non-initiation of force' or 'non-aggression' principal. Financially you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's all voluntary, morally you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's voluntary.

As you can see from this message board a lot of people think they're the experts at running your l ...[text shortened]... ings.

Libertarians don't believe in the 'f' word. Control freaks and busy bodies live by it.

So, basically, it’s complete laissez-faireism?

A sort of anarchy?

Originally posted by @no1marauder
One can't be truly in favor of "liberty" and defend capitalism (a system based on hierarchical relations) and private property as properly defined (that is "state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others" ).

As far as "non-initiation of force": due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land ...[text shortened]... d by the State) from the demands for justice and liberty of the People. In short, it is a fraud.

One can't be truly in favor of "liberty" and defend socialism.

If land was seized by conquest each case needs to be assessed on it's merits, seized by who from whom? That is not the case for all property. Because some land was seized does not negate the whole concept of private property, in fact it is an argument for having strong property rights. However in a Libertarian society those that believe in socialism should cede their property to the cause, in a free society no one is stopping them from doing so, if their/your system has merit and is prosperous very soon many others will want to hand their land over to your dream feelings.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
So, basically, it’s complete laissez-faireism?

A sort of anarchy?

No, there is a role for the state. Basically; defence, justice and law.

You do not have a right to initiate force, but you do have a right to respond to the initiation of force and the state would have a role in this.

A response to the initiation of force (and objective threats of force) never an initiation.

Originally posted by @wajoma
No, there is a role for the state. Basically; defence, justice and law.

You do not have a right to initiate force, but you do have a right to respond to the initiation of force and the state would have a role in this.

A response to the initiation of force (and objective threats of force) never an initiation.

In short, the State's only real purpose is to protect the owners of private property's sacred right to exploit others. Of course, those starving to death because they not sufficiently useful to the owners of private property are not having force initiated against them and are generous recipients of "liberty".

Originally posted by @wajoma
No, there is a role for the state. Basically; defence, justice and law.

You do not have a right to initiate force, but you do have a right to respond to the initiation of force and the state would have a role in this.

A response to the initiation of force (and objective threats of force) never an initiation.

So, as No1 says, libertarianism in your definition is exactly the same as laissez-faire capitalism (the rationalism of Rand).

And as everyone knows: it doesn’t work.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
So, as No1 says, libertarianism in your definition is exactly the same as laissez-faire capitalism (the rationalism of Rand).

And as everyone knows: it doesn’t work.

And again, nope. In a free society people that have socialist ideals can band with like minded fellows form collectives and play out their fantasies. It's interesting to note that both you and No1 recognise that free people would tend towards capitalism.

In a free society no one could force capitalism on you anymore than they could force their socialist brainwaves on you.

No.1 tries over and over to conflate capitalism with being well off, there are no reputable definitions of capitalism that stipulate a minimum level of wealth, in fact the purest forms of capitalism can be experienced in the most humble dirt lot market places all over the world.

What you blokes are afraid of, what you don't want to think about is a world where you don't get to force your dream feelings on to your fellow man.

Originally posted by @wajoma
And again, nope. In a free society people that have socialist ideals can band with like minded fellows form collectives and play out their fantasies. It's interesting to note that both you and No1 recognise that free people would tend towards capitalism.

In a free society no one could force capitalism on you anymore than they could force their sociali ...[text shortened]... o think about is a world where you don't get to force your dream feelings on to your fellow man.

That's the beauty of Utopian Socialism, it's wholly voluntary. Only those bloody Marxists try to force system-wide change from the top-down. The problem is if the political system has a built in bias toward one or the other, as ours does for capitalism. That provides a structural impediment toward the playing out of socialist fantasies.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
This answers this post and several others:

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it ...[text shortened]... s the whodeys of the world. It is at: http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/index.html

Libertarians in the US are just people who want to smoke their pot and not pay taxes.