Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate.

liberty is better than tyranny
non-violence is better than aggression
discussion/debate is better than force
personal choice is better than dictation
independent subsistence is better than paternal condescension and down-talking
peace is better than economic civil war
and tolerance is better than intolerance

libertarianism wins

Read the thread title again. This thread is about socialism vs libertarianism.

I know it is - don't try and pretend that socialism isn't authoritarian

I don't need to pretend.

expalin to me, then, how socialism isn't the application of coercion and dictation in a manner that violates choice and consent.

Can you explain to me how it is?

1) socialism comes in two typical forms: public ownership and wealth redistribution in the form of progressive taxation. fight that all you want, it's true. if you were talking about anarcho-collectivism, that would still be coercion and dictation, unless every single person in a stateless society went along with that philosophy altogether, which is practically impossible
2) progressive taxation, or the increased taxation to fund additional public ownership projects, costs more money
3) therefore, to apply those policies, the individual's autonomy and self-determination must be violated in the form of force or threats of force for taxation, i.e., to exert tyranny and control upon individuals that denies them liberty and choice

1) socialism comes in two typical forms: public ownership and wealth redistribution in the form of progressive taxation. fight that all you want, it's true. if you were talking about anarcho-collectivism, that would still be coercion and dictation, unless every single person in a stateless society went along with that philosophy altogether, which is practically impossible
2) progressive taxation, or the increased taxation to fund additional public ownership projects, costs more money
3) therefore, to apply those policies, the individual's autonomy and self-determination must be violated in the form of force or threats of force for taxation, i.e., to exert tyranny and control upon individuals that denies them liberty and choice

No offence, but you seem to have absolutely no clue what Socialism is. Socialism is about worker (not state) ownership of the means of production. There's no inherent authoritarianism in it - it is perfectly possible to be a libertarian socialist.

So it boils down to the old 'taxation = tyranny' argument. How boring. Never mind that taxation is neither necessary nor unique to socialism.

1) but taxation *is* theft - even I think taxation is *necessary* to some extent when peaceful solutions fail, but it is not necessary when certain problems can be resolved voluntarily, e.g. charities, roads, schools, etc
2) and again, I already spoke about anarcho-collectivism - at least I'm trying to make the distinction, when there is a possible one (e.g. when people are knit-picky), between "socialism" and "anarcho-collectivism", or literal communism

If libertarian/anarcho-socialism is tyranny just because maybe not everyone would agree with it, then why wouldn't libertarianism be tyranny if I don't like it?

democracy is still the application of force, not depending on who agrees with it. if everybody was racist and wanted to be tyrannical against a different race, how would that not be tyranny/aggressive, for example? in a libertarian society, even if everybody wanted to steal from others (in the form of a "special monopoly" on that institution, let's say), why should they feel like they're being dictated to when their will itself is dictation? it's like saying "how dare you violate my right to violate your rights"

but I do value a libertarian *and* democratic society, obviously, even if that's like asking for wolves to not eat sheep if they have the opportunity

China and Russia have never been Socialist countries. Try reading a book.

That doesn't answer the question. Why does libertarianism mean freedom but libertarian socialism mean tyranny?

Did socialism cause those deaths or was it authoritarianism and the failures of central planning?

How are you defining socialism here? I'd say 2 nations where the state owned basically everything were Socialist

That doesn't answer the question. Why does libertarianism mean freedom but libertarian socialism mean tyranny?

Did the workers own the means of production in China or the USSR? No. Was there social and economic equality in China or the USSR? No. So it wasn't Socialism, was it?