[prog2djent]

Haha yes, Libertarian was initially a synonym for socialism/anarchism, and wouldn't you know it, socialism was synonymous with anarchism!

If only "progressive" lefties hadn't stolen liberal from the right, libertarian would have never been taken from the left.

[munazic483]

I consider myself a socalist. I believe there is a place for lebertarianism, particularly in terms of an individual profiting from his own entrepeneurialness (doubt that's a word). I believe, however, the community as a basic model works better if everyone contributes what they have and recieves what they don't have. People have different skills so integrating those skills makes sense to me, even if some people contribute more than others.

[Muscovite]

(Original post by blueray)
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?

This is a false dichotomy. People can obviously be libertarian and socialist at the same time

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Barden)
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.

The theory goes that becuase taxes are so low and that the "free market" is allowed to work, then low prices and the fact people can keep most of their money, is that people will be able to afford education*whatever else the state currently provides aside from law and order type organisations.

[Barden]

(Original post by prog2djent)
The theory goes that becuase taxes are so low and that the "free market" is allowed to work, then low prices and the fact people can keep most of their money, is that people will be able to afford education*whatever else the state currently provides aside from law and order type organisations.

History shows us that literacy rates and access to adequate healthcare only come anywhere near 100% with socialisation though..

[Sternumator]

(Original post by Tedaus)
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.

I think I would. Because I feel very little empathy for strangers, I don't expect any strangers to show empathy to me. I would probably wish they would show but I understand people are going to do what suits them and I never get angry about it, that is life. I have never watched south park so I dont know who that is, I am not an ice cold type character at all if that is what he is like. I like think people I know think I am a nice guy.

[munazic483]

(Original post by Barden)
History shows us that literacy rates and access to adequate healthcare only come anywhere near 100% with socialisation though..

This is a good point, through Libertarianism children wouldn't have had to go to school and parents would have needed them earning money to get by. I've no doubt education would steadily have improved but it would still remain a luxury.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Barden)
History shows us that literacy rates and access to adequate healthcare only come anywhere near 100% with socialisation though..

Yep

Problem is we aren't talking about history, if we were to adopt a libertarian society now, where we have foundation in history, it would be a disaster in certain areas, however, think about stardting a new society in which we had reached a great level of advancement prior to ...

[Lumos]

(Original post by blueray)
What do you think about libbys removing the minimum wage?

noootttt digging it. It's treating people like stock to be valued and 'make the market more competitive' if you ask me - business tactics just shouldn't apply to human beings.

[Tedaus]

(Original post by blueray)
What do you think about libbys removing the minimum wage?

I don't know about this, as I'm assuming it's an American company or something, but I believe the minimum wage should be adhered to, as you probably would expect by my posts.

In England it's illegal not to pay someone minimum wage (which is 6.02 at the moment I think, but it goes up every year with inflation).

In America, I think the rules are different aren't they? Nonetheless, I think people should be paid a decent wage to live on and I see no reason for massively rich companies not to pay someone a pittance for more profit.

[blueray]

(Original post by Muscovite)
This is a false dichotomy. People can obviously be libertarian and socialist at the same time

My source is from Libertarianism.com
Don't question my sources.

[blueray]

(Original post by Barden)
History shows us that literacy rates and access to adequate healthcare only come anywhere near 100% with socialisation though..

(Original post by munazic483)
This is a good point, through Libertarianism children wouldn't have had to go to school and parents would have needed them earning money to get by. I've no doubt education would steadily have improved but it would still remain a luxury.

Any other libertarians want to comment?

I think the socialists are winning this debate at the moment. Unless we get more libbys this is very one sided.

[GreenLantern1]

(Original post by blueray)
My source is from Libertarianism.com
Don't question my sources.

That's right don't question this guy above me ^^^

(Original post by Muscovite)
This is a false dichotomy. People can obviously be libertarian and socialist at the same time

[Раскольников]

(Original post by Muscovite)
This is a false dichotomy. People can obviously be libertarian and socialist at the same time

How?

[blueray]

(Original post by Muscovite)
This is a false dichotomy. People can obviously be libertarian and socialist at the same time

They can have socialist aspect without a government, but in practice this is neigh impossible. How would you get money out of people and share it with others without a government. Hypothetical question.

[lukewarm3]

(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.

Cuba? Better healthcare and education system than USA?

[blueray]

(Original post by lukewarm3)
Cuba? Better healthcare and education system than USA?

This is true. Any one wish to comment?

[Раскольников]

(Original post by the mezzil)
Try telling that China!

I think they already have been told. Hence why they have embraced the market as a mechanism for organising much of their economic activity and have found it to give them much greater results than they had been having.

[Muscovite]

(Original post by blueray)
They can have socialist aspect without a government, but in practice this is neigh impossible. How would you get money out of people and share it with others without a government. Hypothetical question.

Libertarian socialists retain respect for private property whilst converting private capital to common goods. In fact, socialism is in itself largely libertarian - marxism is a stateless ideology - the use of worker's councils and cooperatives which negate the need for any government at all - never mind the limited government of libertarianism - is all textbook stuff. in fact, I could easily pull a source from even wikipedia and show you.
Look in the very first line of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Durido]

Libertarianism and socialism obviously have different understandings of key factors . To explain why socialists prefer their ideology to socialism.

Freedom = Freedom for a socialist means the actual ability to do something , that means , whilst I may be legally permitted to go to uni , have healthcare , get vacations , seek out my employer , this is oftenly not the case in reality due to lack of monetary resources. Socialists prefer their type of freedom of actual choice to the freedom to fail or win suggested by Libertarians.

Justice/Fairness = Socialism is strongly influenced by non market based values such as empathy , compassion and respect for another's life. It is hence not to far fetched to say that socialist would extend the rights of individuals to the point where poverty would be declared a breach of human rights ( to some people who find this ridiculous , the first paragraph of the German constitution starts with something akin to this , the dignity of human life is unqestionable) . Every system that would allow for people to live in poverty would hence be rejected as unjust. The obvious solution would be to have redistribution from the top earning classes in society towards the lower earning classes in society.

Views on economic principles = Socialists and social democrats agree that the soviet state model is obsolete and gone. However socialist economics experienced a form of rebirth with authors like Chomsky and Schumacher introducing ideas of locally controlled forms of economics as an alternative to large corporate interests. Modern socialist were hence not so much interested in rewarding big business but much rather supported local industries and middle class ownership as this sought to safeguard against the alienation process introduced by Marx ( as done for example in Denmark , which has been fairly successful in doing so ). The obvious criticism of libertarianism here is obviously the point that free markets in the eyes of socialist tend to produce oligolopolies which benefit only the few at the top and lead to exploitation.