Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

recent "trend" of Libertarianism

Announcements Posted on
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Hardly.

    And collectivist libertarian socialism, would, in my opinion, be a disaster. We only have to look at history (spain) to find tha out.

    Would you not be geared towards a free market anti-capitalist type of libertarianism? One which is non-coercive, like anarcho-communism and social anarchism(s) and is competely pacifist and panarchist.
    Except you will never, ever remove coercion from society. Ever.

    However, as someone who subscribes to the Austrian schools of economic thought and Georgism, I think the best form of society is one in which coercion is based around individualism and not collectivism.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Except you will never, ever remove coercion from society. Ever.

    However, as someone who subscribes to the Austrian schools of economic thought and Georgism, I think the best form of society is one in which coercion is based around individualism and not collectivism.
    Under the austrian version of an economy, which would be closest to minarchist right wing libertarianism, socialists and anarchists would be coersed into living under the private property, private land and wage labour system, in the same way that capitalists would be coerced to live in an anarhco-communist system. But by the strictest defintion of terms, anarcho-communism is less coercive as an ideology as it is not based on hierarchy (the effects are different), but when achieved it, you have to give yp you're social status, whereas the austrian school would demoratically change things, but everbody would be still forced into a hierarchical system.

    I advocate a georgist - mutualist system above the austrian school, since the anarchist version of the austrian school, anarcho-capitalist (a stupid term) is completely impossible and rothbard could not see past his own flawed priori of the non-agression principle, and Rothbard is not an anarcho capitalist in any form of definition, he calls for a central court, and anarchy + capitalism is a complete contradtion. There are non-austrian ancaps such as David Friedman, but his vision of private courts would be horrendous.

    I wish more libertarian socialists and right libertarians could see the advantages, and meet in the center ground of free market anti-capitalism, coupled with the Land value tax, it would make our cause much more effective in combatting statism, left and right.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Hardly.

    And collectivist libertarian socialism, would, in my opinion, be a disaster. We only have to look at history (spain) to find tha out.

    Would you not be geared towards a free market anti-capitalist type of libertarianism? One which is non-coercive, like anarcho-communism and social anarchism(s) and is competely pacifist and panarchist.
    Unregulated market, low taxes. Not fully libertarianism, but one of the most important thing they had - unregulated market. Why do you think, stock market won't crash again, if we deregulate everything? People forget history very quickly.

    Yes, I would not be against libertarianism which would be anti-capitalist. But I do not understand, what is the difference between libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism ? It the same thing.

    But as a Marxist, I do understand that now, the only "possible" libertarianism is pro capitalism. Why? Simply because socialism (any kind) has to have some material base (technologies) and people consciousness. I do not imagine all businessmen saying "Yay, we had enough, lets work for better society".
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Your friends are late to the party. The trend started in late 07 or early 08 when Ron Paul got popular on the internet.
    pretty much this. they are calling themself it because they think it's cool. kind of makes a change from the usual 'my parents say this but ill act like it's my own belief'
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cheese_Monster)
    This political philosophy sounds more and more utopian as people educate me about it. 'Abolishing taxes' is an absurd suggestion, how on Earth will essential emergency services/contracts/defence be enforced without public funding? Taxes essentially transfer the money necessitated for health care/general maintenance directly, if you took away taxes, the individual would still have to put this money into the same systems.
    in the usa income tax was only introduced in 1913.

    the idea is very clear, if you dont want to pay tax you shouldnt have to, as long as you didnt agree to pay taxes in exchange for the benefits they bring. however this is not what happens, if you dont pay your property tax you will see who really owns your house so fast it will make your head spin. in reality if you continue to refuse, they will break down your door and violently beat you into submission with sticks until you comply and then they will lock you up. as they say, you have freedom to do as you are told.

    i do not necessarily believe all this to be absolute, but it is an interesting thought to consider.

    if you believe in the rule of the Non-aggression principle then this should make sense to you.

    Essentially, there is no government, there is just an illusion of one. And its power exists only in the mind of the people who carry out its orders and those who obey. Essentially, the world is already anarchy. So then, where is civilization and how do we get there, if we want to.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    their not very bright as they usually the ones who want to help the poor even tho libertarianism would do even less to help those from less priviledged backgrounds
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    their not very bright as they usually the ones who want to help the poor even tho libertarianism would do even less to help those from less priviledged backgrounds
    you say that as though it is a bad thing. it isnt the governments place to interfere, and 'help'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've only recently really thought in depth about political and economic stances; libertarianism, or what I think of it to be, is just the one that I've decided to take for a number of reasons.

    However, I agree with your comment on the trend of libertarian support, seems to quite popular recently.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconter)
    you say that as though it is a bad thing. it isnt the governments place to interfere, and 'help'.
    why not do you want the most intelligent at the top of society? if so the clever working class kids need a boost to control for the innate disadvantages they face from birth.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Under the austrian version of an economy, which would be closest to minarchist right wing libertarianism, socialists and anarchists would be coersed into living under the private property, private land and wage labour system, in the same way that capitalists would be coerced to live in an anarhco-communist system. But by the strictest defintion of terms, anarcho-communism is less coercive as an ideology as it is not based on hierarchy (the effects are different), but when achieved it, you have to give yp you're social status, whereas the austrian school would demoratically change things, but everbody would be still forced into a hierarchical system.
    You don't seem to entirely follow.

    I contend that hierarchy is a byproduct of coercion, there is a winning party and a losing party, and that coercion will always exist in human interaction. You will never eliminate it and attempts to reduce it lead to a paradox where you are attempting to use coercion to eliminate coercion. It just doesn't work and is flawed as a tautology.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    the original meaning of libertarian is just anti-authority, which means anti-capitalism aswell
    Explain?

    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Nick Clegg is a liberal (classical)
    REALLY?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    why not do you want the most intelligent at the top of society? if so the clever working class kids need a boost to control for the innate disadvantages they face from birth.
    what disadvantages? school is free, and up until labour got rid of most of the grammar schools there was always a way for people from what ever background get education suited to them. throwing money at things does not make them better.

    toxteth was rebuilt and made nice after the riots and it is a **** hole again. you cant alter the mentality of people and 'social problems' stem from the people not their situation.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    You don't seem to entirely follow.

    I contend that hierarchy is a byproduct of coercion, there is a winning party and a losing party, and that coercion will always exist in human interaction. You will never eliminate it and attempts to reduce it lead to a paradox where you are attempting to use coercion to eliminate coercion. It just doesn't work and is flawed as a tautology.
    To quote myself "as it is not based on hierarchy (the effects are different)". Maybe I should have spelt it out. I agree with you, no system is non-cercive and non-hierarchical, its just that some are moreso than others. The system which is least coercive at the source is individualist anarchism as people as free to form whatever society they want without restriction, the socialists can't group together and start their mutual aid communes, the free marketists can start a mutualist society, the georgists have land upon which there is a single LVT, and the capitalists largely construct one similar to say Hong Kong or Singapore.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Explain?


    REALLY?
    The first anarchist, Proudhon, the first anarchist (politicised, and economically relavent anarchy, the actual ideology of no rulers has been around since sentience), was an anti-capitalist, and he was also the first to coin to word libertarian, to contrast authoritarians, as to which he saw as the state and its market.

    Nick Clegg, upon reading about him, was a classical liberal up until he became leader of the Lib dems, in fact, his proposed manifesto was very close to what Milton Freedman advocated.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Unregulated market, low taxes. Not fully libertarianism, but one of the most important thing they had - unregulated market. Why do you think, stock market won't crash again, if we deregulate everything? People forget history very quickly.

    Yes, I would not be against libertarianism which would be anti-capitalist. But I do not understand, what is the difference between libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism ? It the same thing.

    But as a Marxist, I do understand that now, the only "possible" libertarianism is pro capitalism. Why? Simply because socialism (any kind) has to have some material base (technologies) and people consciousness. I do not imagine all businessmen saying "Yay, we had enough, lets work for better society".
    You know it is now accepted the stock market crash was not the resulted of an "unregulated market" or a "lassiez faire system" (Keyenes was the first to use the term lassiez faire in this way), Friedman, Greenspan, Bernake and ever Krugman now accept it was precisely regulation and its unwanted affects that caused the collapse, Rothbard and Mises also covered it too. (will provide links if you so wish)

    The stock market also crashed in 72'.

    Libertarian socialism is a very broad church with the "index of 6" and anarcho communism is a specific subsect of libertarian socialism.

    As I have said before, I think pro-capitalist libertarians should be collaberating (Bookchin always said so) with the pro-socialist libertarians so that we can finally establish a Libertarian centre to strengthen our numbers against the statists and crony capitalists. Free market anti-capitalism - mutualism and georgism, are the ways forward in which both parties can agree on areas.

    The system is also non-coercive once implemented.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    To quote myself "as it is not based on hierarchy (the effects are different)". Maybe I should have spelt it out. I agree with you, no system is non-cercive and non-hierarchical, its just that some are moreso than others. The system which is least coercive at the source is individualist anarchism as people as free to form whatever society they want without restriction, the socialists can't group together and start their mutual aid communes, the free marketists can start a mutualist society, the georgists have land upon which there is a single LVT, and the capitalists largely construct one similar to say Hong Kong or Singapore.
    And I <3 Singapore....

    If the world was run more like Singapore, which is ironically very contradictory to my philosophies, it would be a nicer place...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    You know it is now accepted the stock market crash was not the resulted of an "unregulated market" or a "lassiez faire system" (Keyenes was the first to use the term lassiez faire in this way), Friedman, Greenspan, Bernake and ever Krugman now accept it was precisely regulation and its unwanted affects that caused the collapse, Rothbard and Mises also covered it too. (will provide links if you so wish)

    The stock market also crashed in 72'.

    Libertarian socialism is a very broad church with the "index of 6" and anarcho communism is a specific subsect of libertarian socialism.

    As I have said before, I think pro-capitalist libertarians should be collaberating (Bookchin always said so) with the pro-socialist libertarians so that we can finally establish a Libertarian centre to strengthen our numbers against the statists and crony capitalists. Free market anti-capitalism - mutualism and georgism, are the ways forward in which both parties can agree on areas.

    The system is also non-coercive once implemented.
    I would be really glad if you give me the links before I say something.

    All markets crash time to time, because of capitalism. Remove the state, you will still get crises all the time. By saying, that anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism is just denying the fact.

    Pro-capitalists collaborate with pro-socialists ? It is really naive to say that, since capitalism and socialism objectives are completely different. What we gonna do with private property? If you let private property, just wait and you will see somebody gaining more power over the other (oligarchy, monopoly). Moreover, inequality will rise. I do not see how left and right libertarians could agree together.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Pro-capitalists collaborate with pro-socialists ? It is really naive to say that, since capitalism and socialism objectives are completely different..
    Wrong.

    Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. They are means. They are methodologies. They are not ideologies. They are not ends.

    Some people support capitalism because it operates for the common good. It is a system which improves the lives of all. To quote Adam Smith.

    ''In competition individual ambition serves the common good''

    Many socialists are also concerned with the common good. The objectives of capitalists and socialists are often precisely the same. The capitalists are just smart enough to recognise the subtle power of the price mechanism whilst the socialists are brutish thinkers who think government can do the job.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Wrong.

    Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. They are means. They are methodologies. They are not ideologies. They are not ends.

    Some people support capitalism because it operates for the common good. It is a system which improves the lives of all. To quote Adam Smith.

    ''In competition individual ambition serves the common good''

    Many socialists are also concerned with the common good. The objectives of capitalists and socialists are often precisely the same. The capitalists are just smart enough to recognise the subtle power of the price mechanism whilst the socialists are brutish thinkers who think government can do the job.
    "'In competition individual ambition serves the common good" - is really a great quote. But in reality, common good in capitalism is created by coincidence and not on purpose, and even only sometimes. I may have not made clear what I meant.

    Furthermore, the biggest wealth is created by exploiting workers all across the globe. Really, common good?

    I do not think capitalist is thinking that he is doing business for common good. The most important thing is money, common good is the last thing he thinks.

    Well, by calling socialists "brutish thinkers" you showed how ignorant you are. Socialists recognize price mechanism, but it is not needed in socialism, because there would be planning (I do not mean soviet type planning) by demand. Markets will exists, but it will be much more different compared to what we have now.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Since you have made you're mind up about public services I won't try to convince you otherwise, I used to be on that side of the argument too but its taken me a few years and a few books to get me to where I am.

    I, as a TSR user, won't convince you in one post haha.

    So I've just enboldened some bits I'll respond to

    If you took away taxes, yes, people would still have to spend their money on services, but the point is they are more voluntary with more choice then when the state points a gun at you're head for taxes, and says you have to give them you're money. To put it in perspective, imagine if three blokes turned up at you're house, and said they will beat you up and thrown you in a cage if you don't give them you're money to pay for you're future healthcare (even if you didn't want it or need it) AND to pay for old lady doris down the road. You would be outraged, and call the police. Well, that example is essentially what the state and the police do, the state demands money through taxes, to pay for healthcare on you're behalf (depite the fact you may not use it), and to pay for other people, and the actual police force, are the tool they threaten you with if you don't cough up the cash. The only difference is, we have grown up with this model as a societal norm, and the government has the law, which it invented for itself, on its side.

    I could go into where you're tax money goes aswell (not what you think), will on request.

    In a libt society, you don't have to be forced to cover for people, you have choice of care, and you spend you're money when you need it. Additionally, what it forces you do to is act more responsibly, so that you won't need to spend you're cash at all. And you are spending it on you're behalf, and no-one is forcing you.

    And for the second enboldened part, I actually, agree, libertarianism would work better, in my opinion, if we were starting off a society from scratch (or as you say in a different time or context). Which is where the argument arises between (right wing) libertarians such as agorists (market anarchsits), anarcho capitalists and minarchists (minimal state, who favour democracy), the first two are revolutionary, the 3rd is democratic.

    In my personal opinion, if a libertarian government was democratically elected right now, it would be a disaster in the short term.
    No doubt you've heard it all before, but how do you respond to the arguments that (1) healthcare is a merit good and therefore cannot be left to individual economic agents if you want efficiency; and (2) that the benefits of not attending to your own healthcare adequately are more salient and more immediate than the costs and people cannot therefore be trusted to make rational decisions about it?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 14, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.