First, I am quite dogmatic about murder and rape. They are wrong and I don't think anyone can change my mind on it. Are you going to indict me for being dogmatic on this?(Original post by the beta male)
You don't need an idealogy like that being debated here, you can have a general philosophy, but its better to be fluid and pragmatic, not dogmatic. Think of all the worst atrocities ever committed, all have been driven by deeply idealogical regimes.
There are many issues on which it is right to be dogmatic and if you're not then there's something wrong with you.
Second, ideology is simply a systematic presentation of a person's convictions and goals. The goals and the vision of the good society must be there but the means of attaining it may vary and that's what it means to be pragmatic. You have to have goals first though and that is simply what ideology is about.
And your last charge carries no water with me for no politician ever has been non-ideological. You can't do policy without ideology. It's like telling me "you don't need language to do policy - think of all the worst atrocities ever committed all have been driven by regimes using language!"
Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate.
|Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place||20-10-2014|
- 0 followers
- 0 followers
Put plainly, "common" ownership of a given resource (say, the coal buried in a mountain) is fine if the members of a community come together as a company and homestead that resource for themselves (i.e., use it or change it in some way that gives it value). In a libertarian society, such a right to communal property would be respected. What the members of a community cannot do, however, is simply declare that they own a resource without homesteading it. If they were to do so, other individual people or companies would be fully justified in taking the resource for themselves, and thus gaining a title of first ownership.
To take the example of coal, an originally unowned natural resource: the people of Town A agree to form a company and mine the coal from a previously unused mountain, sharing the extracted fuel equally amongst themselves in a form of voluntary socialism. If villagers from Town B wish to use the coal that has already been mined or extract coal from a mine shaft built by the people of Town A, they will need the permission of the Town A company (for the sake of illustrating libertarian socialism, let's say that means the unanimous consent of all people in the town, as determined in advance of the whole operation). If they try to take the coal anyway, they have initiated force against the people of the Town A company and would be held liable should Town A take the case to a court (we can get into the subject of how law enforcement might function in a stateless society another time, but right now the topic is how voluntary socialism is compatible with libertarian ethics).
Hope that helps to clarify the matter for people who see libertarianism and socialism as opposites. They're not, and there's no reason they should be.
OfflineReputationRep:(Original post by blueray)
- 2 followers
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.
RegisterThanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post Already a member? Sign in
Oops, something wasn't right
please check the following: