Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate. Watch

zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#81
Report 5 years ago
#81
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
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#82
Report 5 years ago
#82
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#83
Report 5 years ago
#83
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
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
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#84
Report 5 years ago
#84
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
I know it is - don't try and pretend that socialism isn't authoritarian
I don't need to pretend.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#85
Report 5 years ago
#85
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
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.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#86
Report 5 years ago
#86
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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?
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#87
Report 5 years ago
#87
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
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
0
reply
SocialistIC
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#88
Report 5 years ago
#88
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 5 years ago
#89
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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
So it boils down to the old 'taxation = tyranny' argument. How boring. Never mind that taxation is neither necessary nor unique to socialism.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 5 years ago
#90
(Original post by SocialistIC)
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.
1) I already accounted for anarcho-collectivism
2) I don't have a problem with people saying that they prefer charity over state coercion/intimidation - that is a perfectly reasonable form of socialism, if you will, without coercion. but any kind of collectivism that relies on the principle of aggression is evil.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#91
Report 5 years ago
#91
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
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 like this, or unnecessarily vague about what they're talking about), between "socialism" and "anarcho-collectivism", or literal communism, and we're talking about "socialism" here.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#92
Report 5 years ago
#92
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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?
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#93
Report 5 years ago
#93
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
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
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#94
Report 5 years ago
#94
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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
That doesn't answer the question. Why does libertarianism mean freedom but libertarian socialism mean tyranny?
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#95
Report 5 years ago
#95
(Original post by Martyn*)
China and Russia have never been Socialist countries. Try reading a book.
How are you defining socialism here? I'd say 2 nations where the state owned basically everything were Socialist
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#96
Report 5 years ago
#96
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
That doesn't answer the question. Why does libertarianism mean freedom but libertarian socialism mean tyranny?
I *did* answer that, but let me restate it alternatively:
freedom (literal/negative liberty) doesn't coerce others or violate their consent or choice in how they live their lives independently from others or the use of force, whereas socialism (not anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, "libertarian" socialism, etc) is a society that depends on everybody being on the same opinion in terms of the sharing of property and wealth, and therefore, you need coercion to achieve that goal whereas with liberty there is no goal other than non-aggression (but remember, I'm not referring to anarchism/anarcho-capitalism, I'm referring to libertarianism); if there were rich people in society (in the example of an anarcho-collectivist society) and everybody except them wanted the collectivisation of property and wealth (and let's say "property" refers to the means of production before you think of picking that one to pieces...), then aggression would probably be the only thing that would cause them to think that giving away their wealth is a good idea/in their own best interests
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#97
Report 5 years ago
#97
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Did socialism cause those deaths or was it authoritarianism and the failures of central planning?
Well, I'd argue that saying that socialism didn't fail, central planning did is rather like saying that the car didn't fail, the engine did. The failure of the central plans was largely due to the inherent unworkability of socialism (and the fact that a socialist economy is uniquely vulnerable to flawed central plans, as it enforces total reliance on the government. This is also the reason for the tendency towards authoritarianism. If the state feels it has the right to control all commerce, it is a small step to begin controlling the rest of people's lives, and an easy one given the level of control it already has)
0
reply
SocialistIC
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#98
Report 5 years ago
#98
(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
How are you defining socialism here? I'd say 2 nations where the state owned basically everything were Socialist
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?
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 5 years ago
#99
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
That doesn't answer the question. Why does libertarianism mean freedom but libertarian socialism mean tyranny?
Not quite related, but it strikes me as odd to advocate a position where people are competent to run all aspects of their lives except commerce (or vice versa) if you accept that individuals cannot be trusted to run companies sensibly, surely you must accept that they can't be trusted to make decisions in their personal lives?
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#100
Report 5 years ago
#100
(Original post by SocialistIC)
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?
Well in both cases, the state controlled the means of production on behalf of the people and aimed to promote socioeconomic equality. Which is socialism. Direct control of the means of production without a government body would be communism.

Also, achieving social and economic equality is no more a prerequisite of a socialist society that achieving universal prosperity is a prerequisite of a capitalist one. They are the aims of those societies.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

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

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

Have you ever signed up for an open day and then not gone to it?

Yes (214)
52.97%
No (190)
47.03%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed