Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate. Watch
If only "progressive" lefties hadn't stolen liberal from the right, libertarian would have never been taken from the left.
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?
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
I think the socialists are winning this debate at the moment. Unless we get more libbys this is very one sided.
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.
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.
Look in the very first line of this article:
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.