[Grape190190]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Why not? That's like saying that if you accept food from a kidnapper, you are legitimising the kidnapping. Did the Jews, by not rebelling when they were banned from certain professions, somehow legitimise the holocaust?

A better question to ask is this: did the German people in general, when voting for a nationalistic leader legitimise nationalistic policies - even ones they might not have agreed with? I would argue that they did. You can't pick and choose the parts of the state which you're okay with; and if you're not going to, we might as well have sensible discussion about in what areas the state can be of moral use.

Libertarians don't obey unjust laws because they believe the law (regardless of its content) is sacrosanct, they obey it because, as self-interested individuals, it is more in their interest to obey the unjust law than to incurr the wrath of the state. You would not, for instance, see someone hand over their wallet to a mugger and conclude, "ah! they think that the mugger had a just claim on their wallet, therefore any claim to believe in property rights is hypocrisy!" you would conclude that they valued the contents of the wallet less than their safety, which they believed to be in danger.

But it's not quite like that, is it? Ideologically, you support the existence of the mugger, and you support his right to take people's money in order to fund law-enforcement and street-lighting, I would presume. Therefore, you conform the rules laid out by him.

It really isn't in the interests of the individual for the nation as a whole not to have power over the individual.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Grape190190)
A better question to ask is this: did the German people in general, when voting for a nationalistic leader legitimise nationalistic policies - even ones they might not have agreed with? I would argue that they did. You can't pick and choose the parts of the state which you're okay with; and if you're not going to, we might as well have sensible discussion about in what areas the state can be of moral use.

Good god, you actually tried to justify the Holocaust. I must admire your consistency, at least, despite your reprehensible morals.

Do you believe, then, that people actually do not posses any right to life independent of the murderous impulses of the other people within the arbitrary geographical boundaries of their country?

But it's not quite like that, is it? Ideologically, you support the existence of the mugger, and you support his right to take people's money in order to fund law-enforcement and street-lighting, I would presume. Therefore, you conform the rules laid out by him.

Your presumption is incorrect.

It really isn't in the interests of the individual for the nation as a whole not to have power over the individual.

The millions murdered by the various socialistic regimes of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China, North Vietnam and Korea, Cambodia, Etc.) would most likely disagree, though you apparently think that massacring these people was justified.

[Grape190190]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Good god, you actually tried to justify the Holocaust. I must admire your consistency, at least, despite your reprehensible morals.

Personally, I would have revolted under those circumstances. But that's not really the point I was making. Seems to me that Mr Self Interest would have "feared the wrath of the state" too much to do anything.

Do you believe, then, that people actually do not posses any right to life independent of the murderous impulses of the other people within the arbitrary geographical boundaries of their country?

Of course I do, which is why your analogy was absurd - it doesn't stand up for either of us. People should overthrow extreme governments that they believe to be evil. You wouldn't, because you believe in self-interest; I would.

But, under normal circumstances, the democratic process defines the scope of government: the electorate decides on the level of interference.

Your presumption is incorrect.

You don't believe the state should exist at all? That's not really consistent with what has been said elsewhere...

The millions murdered by the various socialistic regimes of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China, North Vietnam and Korea, Cambodia, Etc.) would most likely disagree, though you apparently think that massacring these people was justified.

Yes, but socialism in particular is rather irrelevant, as I was discussing the virtue of the state having any control over our lives - for example, the ability to incarcerate someone who murders another human being.

But there are some rather nice socialist regimes now that you mention it: Cuba has a high life expectancy and socialist Scandinavia is propsering.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Grape190190)

Don't roll your eyes - you said quite plainly that you believed it was justified:
"A better question to ask [than whether Jewish obedience to early antisemitic policies justified the Holocaust] is this: did the German people in general, when voting for a nationalistic leader legitimise nationalistic policies - even ones they might not have agreed with? I would argue that they did. You can't pick and choose the parts of the state which you're okay with"

Personally, I would have revolted under those circumstances.

...

Of course I do, which is why your analogy was absurd - it doesn't stand up for either of us. People should overthrow extreme governments that they believe to be evil.

Hold on, you've spent the evening arguing that the state, in so far as it is composed of democratically elected representatives, must be obeyed implicitly regardless of what it does. How can you turn around and say that actually there are circumstances in which it shouldnt be obeyed (much like a "dogmatic libertarian"? What is the standard you use for determining whether or not a state should be obeyed?

But that's not really the point I was making. Seems to me that Mr Self Interest would have "feared the wrath of the state" too much to do anything.

...

You wouldn't, because you believe in self-interest; I would.

While I feel this is devolving into character attacks, that isn't what I said. Self-interested individuals (which means everyone, including you) are not in most circumstances complicit in their own murder, whereas they would not refuse to pay tax at the cost of spending years in gaol.

But, under normal circumstances, the democratic process defines the scope of government: the electorate decides on the level of interference.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between a voluntary and an involuntary commune. The UK is an involuntary commune that we are born into by random chance. No one is ever asked to consent to its voting processes and other collectivised ways of removing peoples' rights.

You don't believe the state should exist at all? That's not really consistent with what has been said elsewhere...

There are different degrees of libertarianism. Some believe the state is justified in taxing people to defend others from aggression; others believe a state is never justified and these services should be provided privately. Both definitions, though, are worlds apart from your belief in omnipotent democracy from which one cannot opt out.

Yes, but socialism in particular is rather irrelevant, as I was discussing the virtue of the state having any control over our lives - for example, the ability to incarcerate someone who murders another human being.

The issue of whether or not it is a "state" that is doing it is something of a distraction; a state is merely a sufficiently powerful armed group that it can ban other armed groups within its borders. What matters is whether or not actions are being commited that aggress on others. Imprisoning murderers doesn't aggress on their rights - it is retaliatory in response to something they have done. Confiscating incomes, on the other hand, does aggress on people, by the state or by private citizens.

But there are some rather nice socialist regimes now that you mention it: Cuba has a high life expectancy and socialist Scandinavia is propsering.

Actually Cuba has political prisons and periodic famines, and Scandinavia is barely more socialistic than the UK, lacking even the pervasive nationalisations of industries Britain had in the 70s. Even if you were granted Scandinvaia and Cuba, thought, so minute a proportion of the statist countries lacking huge state-sponsored programmes of murder is hardly an impressive record.

[Grape190190]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Don't roll your eyes - you said quite plainly that you believed it was justified:
"A better question to ask [than whether Jewish obedience to early antisemitic policies justified the Holocaust] is this: did the German people in general, when voting for a nationalistic leader legitimise nationalistic policies - even ones they might not have agreed with? I would argue that they did. You can't pick and choose the parts of the state which you're okay with"

Yes, because what you've quoted says: "I believe the holocaust was justified." My point was that you can hold the German people to account for who they voted for. Was what he did given democratic legitimacy? Yes, of course it bloody was - they bloody voted for him. Rolling my eyes was designed to keep the peace. If you twisted someone's words like that in person, they'd probably knock you out.

Hold on, you've spent the evening arguing that the state, in so far as it is composed of democratically elected representatives, must be obeyed implicitly regardless of what it does. How can you turn around and say that actually there are circumstances in which it shouldnt be obeyed (much like a "dogmatic libertarian"? What is the standard you use for determining whether or not a state should be obeyed?

I didn't say the state should be obeyed at all costs: I argued that the complexion of the state is likely to different to one that suits the exact needs of libertarian self-interest. I'm not going to revolt if we don't get a socialist government, but I might if we get fascist one. The libertarian argument seems to be, "the state should be exactly this and any other kind of state is immoral (but I won't revolt because that's not in my immediate interests)".

While I feel this is devolving into character attacks, that isn't what I said. Self-interested individuals (which means everyone, including you) are not in most circumstances complicit in their own murder, whereas they would not refuse to pay tax at the cost of spending years in gaol.

I was referring to the German populace as a whole - most of which was complicity in the murder of jews, but not themselves.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between a voluntary and an involuntary commune. The UK is an involuntary commune that we are born into by random chance. No one is ever asked to consent to its voting processes and other collectivised ways of removing peoples' rights.

The commune is the elected body that has duristiction over the land: if you want to live here, you must play your part.

There are different degrees of libertarianism. Some believe the state is justified in taxing people to defend others from aggression; others believe a state is never justified and these services should be provided privately. Both definitions, though, are worlds apart from your belief in omnipotent democracy from which one cannot opt out.

The foremost is inconsistent as I've already argued. The latter is akin to anarchy.

The issue of whether or not it is a "state" that is doing it is something of a distraction; a state is merely a sufficiently powerful armed group that it can ban other armed groups within its borders. What matters is whether or not actions are being commited that aggress on others. Imprisoning murderers doesn't aggress on their rights - it is retaliatory in response to something they have done. Confiscating incomes, on the other hand, does aggress on people, by the state or by private citizens.

The flaw in libertarianism being that you possess these incomes because you've coerced other people into giving them to you - because they need to eat and you control the food, etc. You can't actually pretend that your actions within the market are independent of everyone else's, nor that the threat of death does not exist for those who don't partcipate. But moving on...

You've drawn an artificial distinction: the fact is that while the democratic consensus is that these people should be allowed to interfere (for the purposes of retaliation or whatever), there has to be open debate about how far they will interfere. You draw that line at retaliatory measures; however, people will not only disagree on that principle in itself, but also on what constitutes an infringement on someone else's freedom. Since these things are open for debate, so are the bounds of the state.

Actually Cuba has political prisons and periodic famines, and Scandinavia is barely more socialistic than the UK, lacking even the pervasive nationalisations of industries Britain had in the 70s.

And the U.S. is the most obese nation in the world and we're the most depressed and... well.

Barely!? You can only buy alcohol from the state in Sweeden for christ's sake!

Even if you were granted Scandinvaia and Cuba, thought, so minute a proportion of the statist countries lacking huge state-sponsored programmes of murder is hardly an impressive record.

...and the libertarian success stories are...?

Pointing to disastorous, corrupted examples of socialism doesn't brand the whole. I believe in the uncorrupted version.

[L i b]

(Original post by Bagration)
Ok, my question:

Do you not find the title of Libertarian assosciates you with a number of nutjobs? Personally I prefer Classical Liberal, just Liberal, or even Minarchist, to Libertarian.

I often refer to myself as a Liberal, but most people get the wrong end of the sick on that point (particularly on ****ing Facebook, where I'm now a Conservative).

"Minarchist? So you like Prince Charles then?"
""

Classical Liberal just sounds like a bit of a mouthful, but I do sometimes use it.

[Bagration]

You can type what you like into Facebook Political Beliefs: Mine says Classical Liberal atm.

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

(Original post by Grape190190)
I didn't say the state should be obeyed at all costs: I argued that the complexion of the state is likely to different to one that suits the exact needs of libertarian self-interest. I'm not going to revolt if we don't get a socialist government, but I might if we get fascist one. The libertarian argument seems to be, "the state should be exactly this and any other kind of state is immoral (but I won't revolt because that's not in my immediate interests)".

Short-lived martyrdom isn't any good in politics. The ethos of "it's the taking part that counts" can be safely left at year 6 sports day - I'd rather be slightly-more-free even under Fascism and wait for the appropriate time to strike (or slowly chip away, whichever is relevant) than be sitting in a cell (or worse), safe in the knowledge I tried my best, even if I were now useless.

The foremost is inconsistent as I've already argued. The latter is akin to anarchy.

The formost isn't inconsistent. Those who believe that the state should exist as a positive entity do not do so for the giggles. They deem it to be the best way to maximise freedoms (positive freedoms, not negative). As such, it is deemed that this is the pinnacle of freedom that can exist in a society. This is, as you rightly say, as involuntary as a socialist state.

The difference comes that, coming from a position of high-levels-of-social-and-economic-freedom, you can do down as far as you want, but no one has to follow you. The inverse cannot be said. In short, in a Libertarian framework, one could set up a socialist commune, but in a Socialist framework one could not set up a Libertarian commune (or business or whatever's relevant). It's that old chestnut "freedom" again.

The flaw in libertarianism being that you possess these incomes because you've coerced other people into giving them to you - because they need to eat and you control the food, etc. You can't actually pretend that your actions within the market are independent of everyone else's, nor that the threat of death does not exist for those who don't partcipate.

I hardly see how this is relevant. I don't think anyone's claiming that people give you food and take a bit of your money for altruistic reasons. But "coercion"? The "act of compelling by force of authority?" It's a simple trade. You need food, they need money. In a nice, free-market, you're not compelled to go to any one person (though nature compels you to go to someone) - and the competitive nature of a free market means no one CAN come from a position of authority, as more than one person will have the good you want. If they aren't the only one offering you food (One person only offering you something? Sound familiar?), they cannot have authority over you (excluding via the method of force). You have the freedom to choose whom you wish to buy from, and with this freedom not only are you free from "authority" figures apparently forcing you to buy from them, you're also able to get the best value, the most amount of food for your money.

You've drawn an artificial distinction: the fact is that while the democratic consensus is that these people should be allowed to interfere (for the purposes of retaliation or whatever), there has to be open debate about how far they will interfere. You draw that line at retaliatory measures; however, people will not only disagree on that principle in itself, but also on what constitutes an infringement on someone else's freedom. Since these things are open for debate, so are the bounds of the state.

I'm not really getting too into this, as it's far from my debate, but I thought I'd point out that a large number of Libertarians take great issue at the premise of democracy itself. Lib can say it far better than I can, but typically I'd be far more fearful of having my freedoms tethered to the whim of the majority than to any shadowing mega-corp. Democracy's primary function should be to hold those who make our decisions accountable, not as a method of deciding the best course of action. Something being a "majority" has scarcely been a good idea to do it.

And the U.S. is the most obese nation in the world and we're the most depressed and... well.

Neither of which have much to do with the state.

Barely!? You can only buy alcohol from the state in Sweeden for christ's sake!

And? In 70's Britain, you could only buy phone's, electricity, gas, coal, water, bus and train journeys etc from the state.

...and the libertarian success stories are...?

Just about every wealthy state in the world.

Pointing to disastorous, corrupted examples of socialism doesn't brand the whole. I believe in the uncorrupted version.

I'd normally agree with you, but with Socialism it seems less like a subtle trend and more like a de-facto necessity. I literally cannot think of any countries that are more-socialist-than-liberal that do not have atrocious human rights records, etc.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Grape190190)
Yes, because what you've quoted says: "I believe the holocaust was justified." My point was that you can hold the German people to account for who they voted for. Was what he did given democratic legitimacy? Yes, of course it bloody was - they bloody voted for him. Rolling my eyes was designed to keep the peace. If you twisted someone's words like that in person, they'd probably knock you out.

You said that the Germans voted for "nationalistic policies" so they ought to get them, in response to a question on whether the Holocaust was justified (which you refused to directly answer). Saying things like that is far more likely to result in people attacking you than pointing out how insane this sentiment is.

I didn't say the state should be obeyed at all costs: I argued that the complexion of the state is likely to different to one that suits the exact needs of libertarian self-interest. I'm not going to revolt if we don't get a socialist government, but I might if we get fascist one. The libertarian argument seems to be, "the state should be exactly this and any other kind of state is immoral (but I won't revolt because that's not in my immediate interests)".

Pretty much, yes. Libertarians believe that a state, if it exists at all, should merely protect natural rights. And I'm not sure why you think our aversion to launching an immediate violent uprising is such a devastating mode of attack. How would launching a seccessionist movement so small and poorly equipped that it would be immediately crushed help our aims along?

I was referring to the German populace as a whole - most of which was complicity in the murder of jews, but not themselves.

In which case you can hardly claim that you would certainly take up arms, given the vast majority of germans did not (and, in fact, had no arms as a result of earlier government weapons bans).

The commune is the elected body that has duristiction over the land: if you want to live here, you must play your part.

How do you justify the "commune" taking possession of this land in the first place?

The foremost is inconsistent as I've already argued. The latter is akin to anarchy.

You haven't successfully argued that all. That the state can justly protect people from aggression does not at all lead necessarily to the conclusion that the state can justly aggress upon people as well.

The flaw in libertarianism being that you possess these incomes because you've coerced other people into giving them to you - because they need to eat and you control the food, etc. You can't actually pretend that your actions within the market are independent of everyone else's, nor that the threat of death does not exist for those who don't partcipate.

Trade in a free market is mutually consensual. Refusing to trade with someone is not coercive, though I cannot say I recognise your claims of people being held ransom by starvation blockades organised by a cartel of all food retailers unless they hand over all their income.

You've drawn an artificial distinction: the fact is that while the democratic consensus is that these people should be allowed to interfere (for the purposes of retaliation or whatever), there has to be open debate about how far they will interfere. You draw that line at retaliatory measures; however, people will not only disagree on that principle in itself, but also on what constitutes an infringement on someone else's freedom. Since these things are open for debate, so are the bounds of the state.

You don't understand. Libertarians do not believe that all laws are basically arbitrary decisions to be made by some other person or group of people (be it a parliament, a king or whatever) on everyone else's behalf, they believe that the law should only protect natural rights - life, liberty and property. Nothing else is a right.

And the U.S. is the most obese nation in the world and we're the most depressed and... well.

You're saying that (self-imposed, voluntary) obesity is not preferable to political prisons and periodic famines?

Barely!? You can only buy alcohol from the state in Sweeden for christ's sake!

For a more objective and comprehensive look, Sweden is ranked 27th out of 162 by the World Economic Freedom Rankings - http://www.heritage.org/index/countries.cfm

...and the libertarian success stories are...?

If you count Sweden as socialist, you could count and the entire western world as libertarian. For more watertight examples, Hong Kong or 19th century America would be the best.

Pointing to disastorous, corrupted examples of socialism doesn't brand the whole. I believe in the uncorrupted version.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that every attempt at socialism that has been sufficiently comprehensively implemented has turned "corrupted," despite it being known that all the people in command were genuinely socialists and had been since before they took power. Does it not occur to you that, maybe, socialism had not been corrupted at all, but is merely a bad system?

[Metrobeans]

Do you support removing Minimum Wage laws?

[Collingwood]

Yes. http://jim.com/econ/chap19p1.html

[Bakunin]

One new question one I asked elsewhere.

1)How can you call free-market capitalism 'libertarian' when capitalism is necessarily based on the notion of proletariate selling labour to the bourgeoisie in a master/slave relationship?

2)

The millions murdered by the various socialistic regimes of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China, North Vietnam and Korea, Cambodia, Etc.) would most likely disagree, though you apparently think that massacring these people was justified.

We'll ignore the rather crude manner in which you blur the lines between statist and socialist for a second to ask this question.

How about those who have died at the hands of Nestlé, Shell and various other large companies.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Bakunin)
One new question one I asked elsewhere.

1)How can you call free-market capitalism 'libertarian' when capitalism is necessarily based on the notion of proletariate selling labour to the bourgeoisie in a master/slave relationship?

That isn't a master-slave relationship. Tesco depends on people for its income - is Tesco your slave?

2)

We'll ignore the rather crude manner in which you blur the lines between statist and socialist for a second to ask this question.

Please don't ignore that, I would be happy to argue the point.

http://mises.org/story/1937

How about those who have died at the hands of Nestlé, Shell and various other large companies.

What about them? Do they even exist? If they do, justify attributing it to libertarian capitalism. Even if you can do that, do they outnumber or even vaguely approximate the numbers killed in the Holocaust?

[Bakunin]

That isn't a master-slave relationship. Tesco depends on people for its income - is Tesco your slave?

I depend on Tesco for my raw goods. Am I Tesco's slave?

As for the Nazi/Scoalism link let me explain.

You can quite clearly have both socialism and totalitarianism (Stalinism) and free-markets and totalitarianism (Pinochet) but look at Paris Commune, Israeli Kibbutzi, the writings of the man whom I'm named after, syndicalist communities in Andalucia and Ukraine, Bennite philosophy and plenty more, socialism can be libertarian.

The Nazis had some elements of socialism but a) they did it for the wrong reasons, it was about power not equality b) the Nazis had many areas of free-market, for example the concentration camps were often run by contractors much like the London Underground under PFI.

If you look at it philosopically Naziism was based on Nietzsche (a man who is quite popular with many of your types - paticularly Ayn Rand) who called for a small group to run the country and the belief that those who had power would have it for a reason - the complete opposite of Marxist views.

What about them? Do they even exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle#...ng_Nestl.C3.A9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_D...and_reputation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_D...and_reputation

Even if you can do that, do they outnumber or even vaguely approximate the numbers killed in the Holocaust?

I've explained that many companies ran concentration camps.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Bakunin)
I depend on Tesco for my raw goods. Am I Tesco's slave?

You don't, and you're not.

You can quite clearly have both socialism and totalitarianism (Stalinism) and free-markets and totalitarianism (Pinochet) but look at Paris Commune, Israeli Kibbutzi, the writings of the man whom I'm named after, syndicalist communities in Andalucia and Ukraine, Bennite philosophy and plenty more, socialism can be libertarian.

I have less objection to Bakuninism than to any other type of socialism.

However I think there is some confusion here. A Kibbutz is a voluntary commune and would be perfectly permissable in an anarcho-capitalist 'state' as well. If it is voluntary, there is no problem. If it is coercive, well then it isn't libertarian.

The Nazis had some elements of socialism but a) they did it for the wrong reasons, it was about power not equality b) the Nazis had many areas of free-market, for example the concentration camps were often run by contractors much like the London Underground under PFI.

If you look at it philosopically Naziism was based on Nietzsche (a man who is quite popular with many of your types - paticularly Ayn Rand) who called for a small group to run the country and the belief that those who had power would have it for a reason - the complete opposite of Marxist views.

PFI is just a way of keeping debt off the books. All the substantive powers of ownership of these nominally private businesses under the Nazis were co-opted by government, including the directors' pay, Etc. - as the article explains, they were merely government pensioners managing de-facto nationalised industries on behalf of the state.

As for 'the wrong reasons'... the Nazi manifestos articulated the same reasons as other socialists. Hitler may have been generally pretty nasty, but it would be difficult to say that he definitely didnt care even for the groups he liked (Aryans/ancestral Germans) who were to be the beneficiaries (or victims, depending on your PoV) of these socialist policies. Regardless, what is done is more important than what is on the mind of the person doing it, the latter being ultimately unknowable in all cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle#...ng_Nestl.C3.A9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_D...and_reputation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_D...and_reputation

I've explained that many companies ran concentration camps.

Yeh; what does this have to do with libertarian capitalism? Something isn't a part of that system simply because it is "a company," (or dressed up like one) regardless of whether it operates in a legal environment that wouldnt exist in a libertarian state (eg. where it can legally enslave and murder), or is even a de-facto nationalised industry that takes ultimate direction from a dictator. Hence I asked the specific questions I asked, and you have not answered many of them.

[Bakunin]

De-regulation, which is a facet of minarcharist belief, allows companies to grow too large and to have too much power.

Companies first aim is to create wealth for themselves, this may be to the detriment of others.

For example flogging powdered milk to the Third World.

[Collingwood]

Can you explain precisely how a company in a minarchist society would be able legally to murder and enslave without in the process destroying the minarchist society?

[Grape190190]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Can you explain precisely how a company in a minarchist society would be able legally to murder and enslave without in the process destroying the minarchist society?

Think of it this way: in order to eat, I must give Tescos (or one of the other oligopolists) my money. If I don't eat, I'll die. Therefore, my choice is between dying and giving them money. The fact that I have a choice represents freedom.

But your argument against socialism is that people can't coerced. You must therefore ask how the choice between 'pay your taxes to the state or we'll lock you in prison for a year' is any more coercive than they example I described above.

In a capitalist society, the resources are controlled by a few. And since those resources are needed for survival, that gives them the power. By contrast, under democratic socialism, the people control the resources (to a greater extent, at least) and they decide how they are distributed.

[L i b]

(Original post by Grape190190)
In a capitalist society, the resources are controlled by a few.

Firstly, not all Libertarians are outright capitalists, and secondly this would only be true of a 'pure' capitalist society, which of course does not exist.

Secondly, I'd dispute that. Land here is not owned by the few, but by the many, and the only resources necessary to survive are food, water and shelter - all of which are readily sourcable from an enormous variety of people or, indeed, quite easily from oneself if one chooses to live the isolationist lifestyle.

By contrast, under democratic socialism, the people control the resources (to a greater extent, at least) and they decide how they are distributed.

Indeed, 'the people' - not the individuals. How does that give the individual any more ability to control his destiny? The interests of 'the people' are just as often in conflict with those of the individual as the interests of those oligopolists that you refer to are.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Grape190190)
Think of it this way: in order to eat, I must give Tescos (or one of the other oligopolists) my money. If I don't eat, I'll die. Therefore, my choice is between dying and giving them money. The fact that I have a choice represents freedom.

But your argument against socialism is that people can't coerced. You must therefore ask how the choice between 'pay your taxes to the state or we'll lock you in prison for a year' is any more coercive than they example I described above.

The difference is quite clear - Tesco, unlike the state, is on exactly the same legal footing as you. If an organised group of people decided to boycott Tesco they could destroy it. To the extent that your starvation example is meaningful, Tesco's shareholders and employees could thus be denied an income and starved to death (and ex-Tesco employees can seek alternative employment). But of course the system means that the latter will never happen in either case, because Tesco is not the only group that has food for sale, so people can decline to trade with Tesco without starving to death. A state, on the other hand, does not depend upon your agreement to a trade, and does hold a monopoly on its 'service' (force).

In a capitalist society, the resources are controlled by a few. And since those resources are needed for survival, that gives them the power. By contrast, under democratic socialism, the people control the resources (to a greater extent, at least) and they decide how they are distributed.

Resources in capitalism aren't really 'controlled' by anyone. Individuals or companies are only able to come to own large quantities of resources by selling them on at a price to which others will agree. If they do not, they will quickly become bankrupt.


That said, I am quite partial to the idea of a geolibertarian land value dividend.