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

Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate.

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Libertarianism - (longer as less people know about it)

    Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
    Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
    Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

    Socialism - ( I'm sure most know what it is about, so its shorter)
    A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole


    My questions to you socliasts and libertarians are the following;

    1)Which is the better system and why?
    (This includes the following, economic, social and environmental factors)

    2)Why do you support this system?

    3)And why is the other wrong/ worse than yours?

    Edit, why have you negged me for starting a great and informative debate? I am not taking sides here, I am merely seeing which one is better. This is evident through all my posts.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I am a libertarian. I believe the role of a government should be to ensure that its citizens are as free as possible. This is economically better than socialism as it promotes individual enterprise and individual responsibility, which is far more efficient than government mandated spending (see Milton Friedman's 4 ways of spending money)

    Socially, libertarianism is about freeing people to live their lives as they see fit, rather than having the government impose an arbitrary code of morality on the populace. I find the idea of government implemented morality supremely arrogant, as it suggests that electoral victory makes you a moral authority (wheras lack of morality often helps win elections).

    Environmentally, there exists the scope within libertarianism for much greater diversity and efficiency within the fields of green tech and power, as cleaner nuclear power would be allowed rather than inefficient and environmentally damaging solar and wind initiatives (they damage the environment indirectly, by providing a feeling of having solved the problem without actually being a solution)

    Socialism is run by people, for people, Libertarianism is about allowing each person to run their own affairs as much as possible. To quote agent K from MIB 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it'.
    • Thread Starter
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Personally, I am a libertarian. I believe the role of a government should be to ensure that its citizens are as free as possible. This is economically better than socialism as it promotes individual enterprise and individual responsibility, which is far more efficient than government mandated spending (see Milton Friedman's 4 ways of spending money)

    Socially, libertarianism is about freeing people to live their lives as they see fit, rather than having the government impose an arbitrary code of morality on the populace. I find the idea of government implemented morality supremely arrogant, as it suggests that electoral victory makes you a moral authority (wheras lack of morality often helps win elections).

    Environmentally, there exists the scope within libertarianism for much greater diversity and efficiency within the fields of green tech and power, as cleaner nuclear power would be allowed rather than inefficient and environmentally damaging solar and wind initiatives (they damage the environment indirectly, by providing a feeling of having solved the problem without actually being a solution)

    Socialism is run by people, for people, Libertarianism is about allowing each person to run their own affairs as much as possible. To quote agent K from MIB 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it'.
    Any Socialists going to counter that?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I consider myself a socialist. I can understand the arguments about libertarianism but it gets hazy as to where freedom stops. Should paedophilia be legalised if the child consents to it? Should people be forced to pay for their own health care like in America?

    The poster above said that the government shouldn't impose morality on the people? I find it hard to accept that someone would want to not have democratically voted laws based on morality of the majority and what society deems moral.
    • Thread Starter
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Personally, I am a libertarian. I believe the role of a government should be to ensure that its citizens are as free as possible. This is economically better than socialism as it promotes individual enterprise and individual responsibility, which is far more efficient than government mandated spending (see Milton Friedman's 4 ways of spending money)

    Socially, libertarianism is about freeing people to live their lives as they see fit, rather than having the government impose an arbitrary code of morality on the populace. I find the idea of government implemented morality supremely arrogant, as it suggests that electoral victory makes you a moral authority (wheras lack of morality often helps win elections).

    Environmentally, there exists the scope within libertarianism for much greater diversity and efficiency within the fields of green tech and power, as cleaner nuclear power would be allowed rather than inefficient and environmentally damaging solar and wind initiatives (they damage the environment indirectly, by providing a feeling of having solved the problem without actually being a solution)

    Socialism is run by people, for people, Libertarianism is about allowing each person to run their own affairs as much as possible. To quote agent K from MIB 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it'.
    The bellow has got a good point there.

    (Original post by Tedaus)
    I consider myself a socialist. I can understand the arguments about libertarianism but it gets hazy as to where freedom stops. Should paedophilia be legalised if the child consents to it? Should people be forced to pay for their own health care like in America?

    The poster above said that the government shouldn't impose morality on the people? I find it hard to accept that someone would want to not have democratically voted laws based on morality of the majority and what society deems moral.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would support libertarianism if poverty didn't exist. but it does.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumos)
    I would support libertarianism if poverty didn't exist. but it does.
    Exactly. Lower classes would be destroyed in a Libertarian society and (I know it's the old cliché) the gap between the richest and poorest would be incredible.

    That's not a fair society for me. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a Marxist because of how strongly I feel about class injustice.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I could write out the standard arguements about freedom and effciency but I think but I think the main reason I am a libertarian is that I don't care about people I don't know. I can help people out who I know and like and others can help out people they know and like and if people want to help out people they don't know then good for them but why should I have to give money to people I dont care about? A proportion of my tax revenue goes to help out people who I would dislike if I met.
    • Thread Starter
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumos)
    I would support libertarianism if poverty didn't exist. but it does.

    (Original post by Tedaus)
    Exactly. Lower classes would be destroyed in a Libertarian society and (I know it's the old cliché) the gap between the richest and poorest would be incredible.

    That's not a fair society for me. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a Marxist because of how strongly I feel about class injustice.
    What do you think about libbys removing the minimum wage?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Libertarianism is the only way forward in today's world. The most successful world economies have been achieved through economic freedom, entrepreneurship, and a positive work ethic.

    Socialism is taking money off hard working people, and giving it to underachievers. Every country that has tried to be socialist has crumbled.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tedaus)
    I consider myself a socialist. I can understand the arguments about libertarianism but it gets hazy as to where freedom stops. Should paedophilia be legalised if the child consents to it? Should people be forced to pay for their own health care like in America?

    The poster above said that the government shouldn't impose morality on the people? I find it hard to accept that someone would want to not have democratically voted laws based on morality of the majority and what society deems moral.
    Well, the balance of freedoms argument can solve most moral quandaries, but on things like child protection it is a matter of when you deem the person to be mentally competent to make a decision. Pedophilia laws are based on the assumption that a child is unable to consent to sex as they do not understand it, and there is little reason to change this from a libertarian point of view.

    The way I view moral issues, to clarify is this: If x was to be banned, would the freedoms removed be more, or more fundamental, than the freedoms protected.

    2 cases in point:

    1) Murder- Freedoms lost through criminalisation: freedom to kill others
    Freedoms protected: freedom to live

    Freedom to live, as the most fundamental of all freedoms, trumps freedom to kill, so murder is criminalized (or remains so).

    2) Marijuana: Freedoms lost through criminalisation: Freedom to trade in marijuana, freedom to safely buy the same, freedom to grow for personal or commercial use. Freedom to regulate what you put into your body.

    Freedoms protected: Possible reduction to healthcare bill.

    Thus Marijuana would be legalised.
    • Thread Starter
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    Libertarianism is the only way forward in today's world. The most successful world economies have been achieved through economic freedom, entrepreneurship, and a positive work ethic.

    Socialism is taking money off hard working people, and giving it to underachievers.

    Every country that has tried to be socialist has crumbled.
    Could you remember to include social and environmental aspects as well. See my first post.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I could write out the standard arguements about freedom and effciency but I think but I think the main reason I am a libertarian is that I don't care about people I don't know. I can help people out who I know and like and others can help out people they know and like and if people want to help out people they don't know then good for them but why should I have to give money to people I dont care about? A proportion of my tax revenue goes to help out people who I would dislike if I met.
    But that's the point of a fair society. To be honest, you sound like the kind of person I wouldn't like, but I'm happy to contribute to your health care, education and essentials like that.

    In my opinion, it's selfish to say "You weren't born into a good family who have a decent amount of money? Well tough, I was. So deal with it" to people who are in poverty.
    • Thread Starter
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tedaus)
    But that's the point of a fair society. To be honest, you sound like the kind of person I wouldn't like, but I'm happy to contribute to your health care, education and essentials like that.

    In my opinion, it's selfish to say "You weren't born into a good family who have a decent amount of money? Well tough, I was. So deal with it" to people who are in poverty.
    I think that libertarianism would mean that you would have more charities to help the poor as they aren't being taxed so much, but you are right, the individual would have to donate and many wouldn't.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    Libertarianism is the only way forward in today's world. The most successful world economies have been achieved through economic freedom, entrepreneurship, and a positive work ethic.

    Socialism is taking money off hard working people, and giving it to underachievers.

    Every country that has tried to be socialist has crumbled.
    The world isn't all about money. To me it's about fairness and empathy in people who suffer. Socialism is not taking money off of hard working people and giving it to underachievers, it's actually about fairness.

    You've probably heard the class argument; why should those born into an poor family suffer because of that?

    But what about if you worked as hard as you could, but got made redundant because of job losses in your work place, and were so far up the ladder that you couldn't find another job that your skills suited most? This is a person who has worked hard, got made redundant, but should be told "Tough. Work harder you scrounger."

    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Well, the balance of freedoms argument can solve most moral quandaries, but on things like child protection it is a matter of when you deem the person to be mentally competent to make a decision. Pedophilia laws are based on the assumption that a child is unable to consent to sex as they do not understand it, and there is little reason to change this from a libertarian point of view.

    The way I view moral issues, to clarify is this: If x was to be banned, would the freedoms removed be more, or more fundamental, than the freedoms protected.

    2 cases in point:

    1) Murder- Freedoms lost through criminalisation: freedom to kill others
    Freedoms protected: freedom to live

    Freedom to live, as the most fundamental of all freedoms, trumps freedom to kill, so murder is criminalized (or remains so).

    2) Marijuana: Freedoms lost through criminalisation: Freedom to trade in marijuana, freedom to safely buy the same, freedom to grow for personal or commercial use. Freedom to regulate what you put into your body.

    Freedoms protected: Possible reduction to healthcare bill.

    Thus Marijuana would be legalised.
    I actually agree that Marijuana should be made legal and obviously that paedophilia should be illegal, but to me, what you're talking about isn't really Libertarianism. It's more about being able to be free to do things, within reason, which is actually what I believe in. But I think where we differ is that I think things should be illegal should the majority disagree with them. In my opinion this is the foundation of democracy.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tedaus)
    But that's the point of a fair society. To be honest, you sound like the kind of person I wouldn't like, but I'm happy to contribute to your health care, education and essentials like that.

    In my opinion, it's selfish to say "You weren't born into a good family who have a decent amount of money? Well tough, I was. So deal with it" to people who are in poverty.
    It is selfish. I don't want to pay for your health care and education so I don't think I should have to. If you want to pay for mine then you can but very few people would do that voluntarily. I think a lot of people want to help out the poor as long as they can make someone else pay for it (high earners), if it came out of their own pocket they wouldnt be so happy about it.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tedaus)
    The world isn't all about money. To me it's about fairness and empathy in people who suffer. Socialism is not taking money off of hard working people and giving it to underachievers, it's actually about fairness.
    You and I obviously have different principles, I believe that the world we live in today revolves around businesses, trade and prosperity.

    This debate will go on for ever, people hold different values and principles than others, and it's very hard to persuade someone to change their core beliefs.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    It is selfish. I don't want to pay for your health care and education so I don't think I should have to. If you want to pay for mine then you can but very few people would do that voluntarily. I think a lot of people want to help out the poor as long as they can make someone else pay for it (high earners), if it came out of their own pocket they wouldnt be so happy about it.
    I don't think you'd think that way if you were born into poverty. It's strange to me that you feel so little empathy that for others to be kept alive isn't a concern to you and you only care about yourself. You remind me of Cartman from South Park.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Inb4 Libertarian Socialism.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    It is selfish. I don't want to pay for your health care and education so I don't think I should have to. If you want to pay for mine then you can but very few people would do that voluntarily. I think a lot of people want to help out the poor as long as they can make someone else pay for it (high earners), if it came out of their own pocket they wouldnt be so happy about it.
    What kind of world do you think we'd live in if people weren't forced to pay for each other's education?

    The world would today would resemble feudal Europe under libertarian minarchy.

    The only difference between minarchy and monarchy is that there can be an oligarchy on wealth and power rather than a monopoly, but the same root problem is there: that all available wealth and status is inherited, halting social mobility.

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: July 12, 2014
New on TSR

Submitting your UCAS application

How long did it take for yours to be processed?

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.