Wouldn't a libertarian society just turn into a conservative one? Watch

the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
Actually under libertarianism capital is protected much less than socialism, communism or corporatism.

Libertarians tend to stress the importance of Local government, local business, community self sufficiency amongst other things.

A libertarian for instance may be disgusted at the idea of purchasing goods from Asda or Walmart, feeling that it is worth taking more time or spending more money to purchase goods from local producers and business owners.

Likewise when it comes to law enforcement, A typical Libertarian might approve only of a local sherrif/deputy appointed the local people or court, as oppose to a state/nation centralized police force.

The main thing that is conservative about Libertarianism is it's strong connection and seeming dependancy on several ideas in the real world, including organised religion, family structure and community spirit.

To a godless, isolated people in the modern technologically advanced world it is easy to understand how libertarianism simply seems like conservatism.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by Bagration)
So "Starve or work for me" because "Starve or work for me, or work for my friend." Plainly you have missed the point. And there it is again, you even admit it yourself. If you don't like the wages I'm paying you, go starve!

You are so close to nailing the point yet so far. Why would people work if they're not better off? Because the alternative is starvation. Either you work for the profit of the bosses or you will starve. Yes, earning a dollar an hour is better than earning no dollars an hour. This is to construct a society that robs people of all their dignity.

And for working "damn hard" (like any other working person does, by the way) they are rewarded not just by total material wealth but by the actual economic domination of other human beings. So much for libertarian equality - this is the crutch on which your argument stands. The entrepreneur works hard and has vision and so he is rewarded by becoming a member of the ruling class.

Incidentally being an entrepreneur is the ultimate form of freedom because you have total control over your life so long as you remain rich. The working class do not have this luxury. They must toil in conditions not of their own choosing for the benefit of the entrepreneur.

Those who are not so lucky to be born with his intelligence, or who happen to be born into a ghetto rather than the suburbs of middle class London, or who are born with some kind of disability are born to the bottom of the hierarchy and to be looked after by charity for the rest of their life. This society is only one that an entrepreneur would opt to live in. This is no coincidence because (our present) society is constructed by entrepreneurs for the benefit of entrepreneurs.

Since you do not seem to have grasped that political economy is not a dichotomy between laissez-faire liberalism and command economics, I offer you the contrary scenario: the abolition of private control of surplus. For industry and employment to be not just managed by controlled and owned by those who work in it, for the benefit of those who work in it. In this manner hierarchy will be abolished in the workplace and we will actually have ultimate economic freedom. Capitalism asserts that freedom is the ability of individuals to exclude other individuals from the use of scarce resources. This can in no way be declared 'freedom' when it is more accurately described as theft.

Since you declare yourself 'the realist' I will offer you a second proposition. What would happen to the wealth of humanity if it was shared between those who produce it in commons as opposed to 90% of it being owned by 1% of the population? The mathematics of it is that total production could fall by half and yet people would still actually own much, much more in material terms than they did before.
People already have the freedom not to give their money to whatever businesses they choose. Even today if enough people thought the system was corrupt and bussinesses unfair they could start their own economies, indeed the "black economy" is a real thing that actually exists and indeed would be far more acceptable under Libertarianism. Remember that labour is the most valuable resource. Also remember that no matter who you work for it is DADDY GOVERNMENT who is always getting paid. What you seem to be suggesting is that Human Ignorance, selfishness and evil are reasons to restrict the fundamental freedoms of humanity, i don't believe so.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by chloeee!)
I know 'libertarian society' is something of an oxymoron but hopefully you know what I mean. If everybody was free to rise and fall depending on their talents, abilities, effort etc they would then have the option of sending their children to school. In a libertarian society, there would be no taxes for state schools, so children without rich parents would not be educated, and two classes would spring up - the educated and uneducated. Okay, this alone does not a conservative society make, but aren't libertarian ideas entirely paradoxical because they would inevitably lead to a world that is very illiberal?

God, I'm sorry about all these politics threads but I get so distracted by these sorts of questions when trying to revise!
LOL at libertarians not being educated. Ever heard of homes-schooling, private tuition? and i'm not talking 50 grand a year tuition.

Public education is a joke, in a libertarian society you'd probably be better off as you'd be more likely to get an education in something thats actually going to make you money or help you be self sufficient.
0
reply
AdzD
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
I think Isaiah Berlin said it best; 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.'

Bagration has made an exellent critique of Libertarianism.

I'd like to know how we would go about creating a Libertarian society from the one we have now.
1
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by the realist)
Actually under libertarianism capital is protected much less than socialism, communism or corporatism.
Your language itself shows that you are still in a hierarchial mindset. Libertarianism is supposed to be the ideology of freedom yet you begin your sentence; "Under libertarianism..." which is quite telling.

No Socialist is in favour of protecting capital. What we want is for the world's resources to be held in common, not in private. There are some Socialists who want to do this via a state and I think they are misguided, but while methods change, motives do not.

(Original post by the realist)
People already have the freedom not to give their money to whatever businesses they choose.
This is not at all relevant. In any way, really.

(Original post by the realist)
Even today if enough people thought the system was corrupt and bussinesses unfair they could start their own economies, indeed the "black economy" is a real thing that actually exists and indeed would be far more acceptable under Libertarianism. Remember that labour is the most valuable resource.
Except today we don't have a Libertarian economy or society, so the same statement applies to your own ideology; if it's so great, why don't people do it ... it's a fatuous argument. That's the nature of oppression: people are controlled by the use of force.

(Original post by the realist)
Also remember that no matter who you work for it is DADDY GOVERNMENT who is always getting paid. What you seem to be suggesting is that Human Ignorance, selfishness and evil are reasons to restrict the fundamental freedoms of humanity, i don't believe so.
I don't see how any of these are addresses to what I was saying. Feel free to enlighten me or to change your position.

I do not support a "daddy government" whether it's red or blue, thanks.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by AdzD)
I think Isaiah Berlin said it best; 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.'

Bagration has made an exellent critique of Libertarianism.

I'd like to know how we would go about creating a Libertarian society from the one we have now.
Well it could start in the way of the Swiss, by issueing every man with a HBAR machine gun.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by the realist)
Well it could start in the way of the Swiss, by issueing every man with a HBAR machine gun.
Which would create a Libertarian Socialist society, because an armed and active working class isn't going to just sit around and have its economic life be ordered about by a tiny minority, so yes, I agree, the distribution of arms is important to destroy the State.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
(Original post by Bagration)
Your language itself shows that you are still in a hierarchial mindset. Libertarianism is supposed to be the ideology of freedom yet you begin your sentence; "Under libertarianism..." which is quite telling.

No Socialist is in favour of protecting capital. What we want is for the world's resources to be held in common, not in private. There are some Socialists who want to do this via a state and I think they are misguided, but while methods change, motives do not.

This is not at all relevant. In any way, really.

Except today we don't have a Libertarian economy or society, so the same statement applies to your own ideology; if it's so great, why don't people do it ... it's a fatuous argument. That's the nature of oppression: people are controlled by the use of force.

I don't see how any of these are addresses to what I was saying. Feel free to enlighten me or to change your position.

I do not support a "daddy government" whether it's red or blue, thanks.
Are you dumb? Libertarianism naturally opposes monopoly of force or resources. As for how my points are irrelevent, once again i must ask are you stupid?

My point was that under a libertarian government all these things would be easier, black economics, barter trade etc. To the extent that it would be much harder to create such monopolies and easier to react to unethical or corrupt business practise. Your points are irrelevent, because whilst libertarianism exists and has existed to degrees in the real world. What you propse is not feasible.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by the realist)
Are you dumb? Libertarianism naturally opposes monopoly of force or resources. As for how my points are irrelevent, once again i must ask are you stupid?
LOL who said anything about monopoly (this is another one of those things you are doing whereby you insert random phrases or words that don't have any meaning), but when it comes to force, simple question:

How do you protect your private property?

You're all about liberty but don't care about the ultimate use of force to exclude people from the use of resources. ??????? are you dumb ???????

(Original post by the realist)
My point was that under a libertarian government all these things would be easier, black economics, barter trade etc. To the extent that it would be much harder to create such monopolies and easier to react to unethical or corrupt business practise. Your points are irrelevent, because whilst libertarianism exists and has existed to degrees in the real world. What you propse is not feasible.
There are no "libertarian" societies in the real world, sorry. Even the major tenets of libertarianism, are not accepted, er, anywhere. Facets of Libertarianism are accepted but they are coincidental because most people agree with them, Socialists sometimes not excluded.

This is not a discussion about black economics or barter trade. It is a discussion of the sort of society that 'libertarianism' creates. That society is the domination of ruling class interests.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by Bagration)
Which would create a Libertarian Socialist society, because an armed and active working class isn't going to just sit around and have its economic life be ordered about by a tiny minority, so yes, I agree, the distribution of arms is important to destroy the State.
Well libertarian and socialism don't seem to mix to me. An armed and active working class does not predict revolution unless there are greater problems at hand(which there may be).

Anyways please clarify, how are this resources being split? who is doing it? do we get to see the pie before it gets cut? do i get to compare my piece of the pie to everyone elses? do i have to take your word for it?

The situation you describe seems less than likely, more like civil war, with the revolutionaries banding and fighting EACHOTHER for who gets to keep IT ALL.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by Bagration)
LOL who said anything about monopoly (this is another one of those things you are doing whereby you insert random phrases or words that don't have any meaning), but when it comes to force, simple question:

How do you protect your private property?

You're all about liberty but don't care about the ultimate use of force to exclude people from the use of resources. ??????? are you dumb ???????

There are no "libertarian" societies in the real world, sorry. Even the major tenets of libertarianism, are not accepted, er, anywhere. Facets of Libertarianism are accepted but they are coincidental because most people agree with them, Socialists sometimes not excluded.

This is not a discussion about black economics or barter trade. It is a discussion of the sort of society that 'libertarianism' creates. That society is the domination of ruling class interests.
You are right libertarianism doesn't exist because it has different forms, philosophies and has only really existed in degrees. True freedom is something that can only be strived for.

I thought this conversation was going well until i realised you don't live in the reeeeeeeeel world outside theorys you made up in your head.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by the realist)
Well libertarian and socialism don't seem to mix to me. An armed and active working class does not predict revolution unless there are greater problems at hand(which there may be).

Anyways please clarify, how are this resources being split? who is doing it? do we get to see the pie before it gets cut? do i get to compare my piece of the pie to everyone elses? do i have to take your word for it?

The situation you describe seems less than likely, more like civil war, with the revolutionaries banding and fighting EACHOTHER for who gets to keep IT ALL.
google "libertarian socialism" I don't have the time to describe the original libertarianism to you.

The specifics of a particular revolution are detailed quite specifically in "The Conquest of Bread" but for the sake of comparison we can look at anarchist Spain. Simply what happens is that the armed working class took control of their communities, based on workplace. So let's say, the bus drivers, mechanics and clerks appropriate a 'bus company' and run it as a cooperative. This is the case with all industry. Communes tend to be federated via Unions which is then confederated into an executive body. The Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo is the best example.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by the realist)
You are right libertarianism doesn't exist because it has different forms, philosophies and has only really existed in degrees. True freedom is something that can only be strived for.

I thought this conversation was going well until i realised you don't live in the reeeeeeeeel world outside theorys you made up in your head.
Except these theories have been a reality for a lot of people who you don't hear about for quite obvious reasons. A basic knowledge of European history will show you many occasions where libertarian socialism, or something very similar to libertarian socialism was brought about and then promptly crushed by overwhelming military force.
0
reply
the realist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by Bagration)
LOL who said anything about monopoly (this is another one of those things you are doing whereby you insert random phrases or words that don't have any meaning), but when it comes to force, simple question:

How do you protect your private property?

You're all about liberty but don't care about the ultimate use of force to exclude people from the use of resources. ??????? are you dumb ???????

There are no "libertarian" societies in the real world, sorry. Even the major tenets of libertarianism, are not accepted, er, anywhere. Facets of Libertarianism are accepted but they are coincidental because most people agree with them, Socialists sometimes not excluded.

This is not a discussion about black economics or barter trade. It is a discussion of the sort of society that 'libertarianism' creates. That society is the domination of ruling class interests.
no actually libertarianism CREATES a free and equal society as far as i can see. What it can't do is completely transform a corrupt society.

It is better at preventing these problems but it is too late to just introduce libertarianism once corruption is rife and wealth has already been stolen. Libertarianism relies on the rational actions of educated and healthily suspicious people.

Libertarianism + informed/educated population capable of defending itself. Most drawbacks to libertarianism are due to the ignorance and fragmented nature of masses of people.

But yes in that sense, it would be good if there was a square one starting point to implement libertarianism. Not sure about a revolution though, maybe if it is neccersary.

The redisbrution of wealth or theft is not condoned by libertarianism, neither is taxation. If socialist libertarianism is what you stand for, then only the name is what we have in common.
0
reply
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by turn and fall)
Don't use strawmen. Libertarians believe freedom is universal and all people should have equal protection by the rule of law.

You confuse freedom with choice. Rich people certainly have more choice but they do not have more freedom in a libertarian society. The rich having more choice is their incentive to serve others. Libertarians resolutely believe in freedom of speech. Yet in our society the rich can inpinge on the freedoms of others by using injuctions. That is the use of politics not the market.

The rich are good people assuming they gained their wealth by the market. If you make a lot of money selling a good that people value highly then you have contributed to society. The problems of wealth arise when people gain wealth through political clout such as the wealthy having their property protected by government regulation. Or government regulation stopping imports of cheaper goods to protect 'workers'. Or immigration laws that protect the soveirgn workers from being undercut by better workers.

The greatest fallacy told by left wingers is that the rich are the rich at the expense of the poor. The rich get rich by serving the poor. The rising tide lifts all vessels.
but do you really believe that is how the majority of people accumulated their wealth?
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by D.R.E)
lol. Thank you for that rather facile summation of libertarianism. Yes, how much money one can have rather telling impact on one's standard of living, how you can equate this to liberty is beyond me. And the only 'natural hierarchy' being created is one that is between the those who are more productive than others, everyone gets what they put in, that's all. As for wage slavery, not even [i]Oswy]/i] goes to that level!

And show me a society that eradicates inequality, and I'll show you Jesus!
Your ability to 'put it' is determined by the conditions in which you are raised. If you're born into wealth, you will be more likely to succeed and visa versa. Your ability to make a profit determines your wealth, and thus your freedom (I’m not only taking about negative freedom here). That's what I mean by hierarchy. Some people will have huge disadvantages that allow them to become the capitalists, whereas the most of the poorer people have to accept the wage they give them.

So wage slavery does exist to a certain extent, either you accept a wage, or you accept welfare (or poverty if we had a pure free market). The wage will never represent how much you labour, because the capitalist has to make a profit. This is wage slavery and it happens.

I've no idea what Oswy thinks about wage slavery, but he didn't exactly tear me down in the thread I made about it.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
...

I've no idea what Oswy thinks about wage slavery, but he didn't exactly tear me down in the thread I made about it.
Damn, I feel bad, do I come across as that aggressive?

EDIT: Maybe I've been listening to Immortal Technique too much lately.

Anyway, I'm with you all the way. From my reading, Marxism tends to take one of two routes to the exploitation issue, one of which often results in life-shortening technical arguments about the LTV or the alternative in Piero Sraffa's 'modern surplus approach'. The other route, which I prefer because it's simpler, more obvious and, in my view, water tight to the extent that even liberals recognise the problem, is the way private property constitutes monopolisation upon which is subsequently built alienation and choice-denuded exploitation of non-owners. This is the route John Roemer takes, which is handy because he works within the 'analytical tradition' which libertarians and other defenders of capitalism don't seem to step outside of. Following Roemer we can thus define exploitation as following from the unequal access to productive resources generated through private property monopolisation. It's not an issue of efficiency either, it's an issue of unequal liberty (yeah, ironic) to pursue and benefit from the ultimate resources of production, namely the earth.

So, yeah, what follows does indeed amount to wage-slavery, emotive term though it is. Indeed, if the definition of 'slavery' we assent to is a person being excessively dependent on and controlled by another for gain then the often glaringly unequal terms under which a would-be labourer must 'agree' to work fits easily. Only libertarians believe that a choice between working for a dollar a day and starving cannot be anything other than a 'free' choice. I've brought up my 'give the boss a blow-job to keep your job' argument often enough to show how willing the libertarian is to ignore what everyone else easily sees as unacceptably exploitative, even if the term can be problematised at the theoretical level.
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by Oswy)
Damn, I feel bad, do I come across as that aggressive?

EDIT: Maybe I've been listening to Immortal Technique too much lately.
Not at all! I was trying to explain that you defended me in that thread I made, but I didn't want to make any assumptions about what your take is on the matter.

And you can never listen to too much Immortal Technique!

(Original post by Oswy)
Anyway, I'm with you all the way. From my reading, Marxism tends to take one of two routes to the exploitation issue, one of which often results in life-shortening technical arguments about the LTV or the alternative in Piero Sraffa's 'modern surplus approach'. The other route, which I prefer because it's simpler, more obvious and, in my view, water tight to the extent that even liberals recognise the problem, is the way private property constitutes monopolisation upon which is subsequently built alienation and choice-denuded exploitation of non-owners. This is the route John Roemer takes, which is handy because he works within the 'analytical tradition' which libertarians and other defenders of capitalism don't seem to step outside of. Following Roemer we can thus define exploitation as following from the unequal access to productive resources generated through private property monopolisation. It's not an issue of efficiency either, it's an issue of unequal liberty (yeah, ironic) to pursue and benefit from the ultimate resources of production, namely the earth.

So, yeah, what follows does indeed amount to wage-slavery, emotive term though it is. Indeed, if the definition of 'slavery' we assent to is a person being excessively dependent on and controlled by another for gain then the often glaringly unequal terms under which a would-be labourer must 'agree' to work fits easily. Only libertarians believe that a choice between working for a dollar a day and starving cannot be anything other than a 'free' choice. I've brought up my 'give the boss a blow-job to keep your job' argument often enough to show how willing the libertarian is to ignore what everyone else easily sees as unacceptably exploitative, even if the term can be problematised at the theoretical level.
Brilliantly put.

I've only read snippets of Roemer's stuff. I'll have to get into it sometime.
0
reply
Planar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by Oswy)
I would ask you to question the moral legitimacy of a system which can see a desperately hard-working and honest peasant in Africa, China or wherever, struggle to feed their family because the market 'deems' their inability to compete with super-financed agro-business their own problem. Where's the humanity dude? Where is the peasant's 'liberty'? A system is not legitimate just because it is a system and those who have larger shares of pies in capitalism simply use them to consolidate and expand their advantages, hard-work and humanity easily having little to do with that cycle.
I don't want to get into a huge ideological discussion, but I'd just like to point out that part of the reason why African farmers really struggle is due to EU protectionism.

edit: oh and the wonderful Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee - the first step to running for president. If he got in I would just *** everywhere(not really though)
1
reply
turn and fall
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by MTR_10)
but do you really believe that is how the majority of people accumulated their wealth?
I think it should be evidently obvious that I do.

The market is not as Oswy would like use to think an oppresive system. The market is where individuals come to together for mutual gain.

In any trade both parties gain. Otherwise there would be no incentive to trade.

Until you get the ridiculous notion out of your head that the rich are bad you will follow your logic to government stealing wealth and freedom.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (207)
40.12%
No - but I will (32)
6.2%
No - I don't want to (35)
6.78%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (242)
46.9%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

Start new discussion

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise