Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Total tyranny = Right wing Libertarianism? I beg your pardon? As I stated above, SMALL GOVERNMENT is the aim of Libertarianism, regardless of which side of the economic line you fall under.
    Considering, as mentioned before, the word "libertarianism" has anarchistic roots, ANY government, however small, would contradict libertarianism. And even if it didn't...



    Yes. Right-wing "libertarians" do support a reduction in government power. However, they also support continuing the plutocracy that capitalism creates. Where's those of us on the left want the workers to govern themselves; that is true freedom.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Let me further start quoting Wikipedia, which says that Libertarianism falls under three distinct definitions that all have different philosophies regarding Positive and Negative freedoms. Most importantly I must note, the original being 'Classical Liberalism' from the 18th century, Post Enlightenment which I should remind you, PRECEDES the anarchistic definition.
    Well, prior to 1858, the word "libertarian" only referred to religion. It was basically, rejection of the belief in divined intervention. Only in 1858 did it start to have a political context. Classical liberalism (and thus liberalism), yes, is your term, as far as I'm aware. You can have it back, if we can have libertarianism back, deal?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    You believe Politicians are in positions of sufficient power to solve the worlds problems? My god, can't you understand the basic principle that you cannot please everybody, and peoples ideal worlds will ALWAYS differ? Politicians have to work with what they have and what the majority will reasonably accept, they cannot act radically or prioritise one thing over the other because it damages their future ability to do so. If a politician tries to solve poverty in foreign countries, people will bandwagon onto the fact he is not solving things in his own country, there are consequences with opposite reactions for every action, positive or negative. To suggest that even the most educated person could have such an impact is ridiculous.
    In regards to me sounding 'snooty or smug', well sorry, lets not call let the pot call the kettle black though right? You were the one throwing around words such as 'uneducated rube'.
    I wasn't referring to complex socio-political problems abroad. I'm talking about simple, basic, NO-BRAINER problems that we have here in the UK.

    Example: There are about a million empty homes and buildings throughout the country and about 85,000 homeless people nationwide. I wonder what the solution could be to this problem... Hmmmm... Wow... It's tough... I guess we should just throw more money at the homeless services. That seems to have worked well so far right?

    Do you see what I'm saying?

    Appeal to majority, this is a non-argument. Chomsky is not 'important' because he is popular, his views are no more or less valid. It is also worth pointing out he is far more 'important' to the people who align with his political views, strange correlation for somebody who is meant to espouse objectivity in order to convince skeptics.
    Subjective.

    I don't advocate Anarcho-Capitalism though, that is one branch of Right-Libertarianism. Don't lump everybody into the same block. I advocate pluralist government and open forum Politics.
    Fair. I've misjudged you. My mistake. You're entitled to your opinion.

    I have several things to say to this.
    Firstly, I would never wish to see Corporations 'take over' so to speak, like I said, an open forum.
    Secondly, a Corporation ultimately exists because of other people. A corporation uses money as its lifeblood, and it would run dry without financial committal. A corporation that is of no use to the rest of society or atleast a substantial section of society, would wither and die without support. Fundamentals of Supply and Demand economics.
    How typical for a capitalist to say that. Why do you think GE (a weapons manufacturer) bought NBC (a news broadcasting corp)? That's right! Because without the lies of the Cold War they wouldn't have been able to sell their tanks and guns and helicopters. They dictate both the supply and the demand. Why do you think Obama's cabinet are mostly bankers while Bush's cabinet were mostly oil execs? Don't you understand that corporations will do anything they can to ensure that their "lifeblood" as you call it will continue to flow?

    Well from my perspective, state interference has artificially tampered with the market mechanism. It has allowed powerful conglomerates to afford themselves wealth which does not belong to them. So I would kick out Political favoritism to corporations and collective business interests, they have no place in Politics. Politics should work on an individual level, it should work in a forum of ideas and discussions, which best produce rational outcomes, not a complex system of financial and political pressures that it operates on now.
    In a proper legal framework, the CEO of a FTSE 500 company should not be able to buy more direct influence or representation over the state than any other human being.
    I agree 100%. But how do you propose to kick out political favouritism? How will you prevent lobbying (i.e. bribes). Power corrupts my friend and everyone has their price...

    Poverty and inequality are issues, and I do believe they will forever persist, but there are things we can do to reduce them. Charity initiatives are important, if society is based on empathetic individualism, one is more likely to be able to provide voluntary superstructure to those who need it. In addition, the Private sector when structured around a subjective, majority-inspired moral 'system' (Think corporate structures like John Lewis, which are run on that basis entirely voluntarily), is the most efficient and best way to provide fulfillment and prosperity, whilst still maintaining the principles of Negative Liberty and self-reliance.
    The supposed 'Fat cats' that people berate at humans aswell as everybody else, if they wish to take a greater slice of their private capital, then that is their prerogative, the goal is not coercion. I think humans are inherently self-interested, the goal is to show everybody that a system based on production (The Free market) combined with a Socially liberal system that promotes acceptance, tolerance and charity is the best way to structure society, so that both they and everybody else benefits simultaneously.
    Well here is where we differ ideologically. Of course if everyone "did unto others" there would be no problems in the world. The problem with capitalism is that it incentivises and REWARDS greed and promotes that "dog eat dog" mentality and personally I think this is AGAINST human nature. Sure we are all self interested to a certain extent, but very few people can be truly happy without loving themselves and being loved by others. Capitalism degrades and debases people forcing them to subject themselves to wage labour. Take prostitution for example. The "oldest profession in the world". Is that human nature to you?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Considering, as mentioned before, the word "libertarianism" has anarchistic roots, ANY government, however small, would contradict libertarianism. And even if it didn't...



    Yes. Right-wing "libertarians" do support a reduction in government power. However, they also support continuing the plutocracy that capitalism creates. Where's those of us on the left want the workers to govern themselves; that is true freedom.



    Well, prior to 1858, the word "libertarian" only referred to religion. It was basically, rejection of the belief in divined intervention. Only in 1858 did it start to have a political context. Classical liberalism (and thus liberalism), yes, is your term, as far as I'm aware. You can have it back, if we can have libertarianism back, deal?

    Lovely bit of Left-wing Propaganda there, you can't seriously think you can use that as 'fact'?

    I feel I should probably separate the terms out here. Modern 'Capitalism' is a corrupt form of what true Capitalism is, that term has been taken from us. Instead, we have to go with 'Free-market-ism'

    As I said before, I do not support Plutocracy or 'rule by the wealthy', I support individualism. Libertarianism, as I said before, originated from a Chinese philosopher and was then built upon by the west, and is at its fundamental core, a belief that individuals are autonomous in their own governance and as such are responsible for it. That is a philosophical belief, but it is not much of a logical leap to then translate that into government that promotes individualism now is it? Infact, I'd say it is less of a leap than to Left-Libertarianism.

    If Classical Liberalism falls under the umbrella definition of Libertarianism, we have just as much right to call ourselves Libertarians as you do. We both advocate minimal state interference, and there are varying sub-ideologies under this definition. And no, you are wrong, small government does NOT contradict Libertarianism, because then it becomes Anarchism. Libertarianism is the broad belief in minimal coercive interference, it is NOT the belief in a complete lack of state, that is merely a particular section of it.


    And if you believe workers governing themselves is true freedom, I implore you to look at Mao, Pott and early Stalin, because that is what happens when 'workers' give themselves disproportionate power and ultimately corrupts their figureheads. (Not to mention holds back net, material human progress by a substantial factor).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    You are still completely ignoring my point, which is that classical liberals describing themselves anywhere as 'libertarians' is a recent thing. Anarchists doing so has much more history. Yet you seem obsessed with trying to turn this into a debate about something else.

    Also, 'anarcho-capitalism' is an oxymoron and 'anarcho-socialism' is a tautology.
    So because Anarchists have used the term it ultimately then follows that the term is to be used to describe them alone? Er, no. It doesn't work like that, the formal definition defines it as any ideology which advocates minimal or no state intervention. This includes both sides of the economic political spectrum.

    More claims that certain political belief systems are oxymorons? Really?

    Anarcho-Capitalism is not an oxymoron if you take Capitalism in its true form, the free market. Anarcho (Meaning no Government) + Capitalism (Free market Economic structure) is a system based on individual commerce, supply and demand economics. There is no oxymoron there, and I should be most keen for you to point out one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There seems to be an assumption on this thread that Capitalism and Socialism are mutually exclusive, which (correct me if i'm wrong) I don't see as being the case.

    Pure laissez-faire Capitalism and Socialism on the other hand are mutually exclusive, in the same way Capitalism and Communism would be. However it appears to me that a great deal of democratic Socialists buy into the Capitalist system, they just tend to want a bit more regulation. Surely then if that is the case you can theoretically be both?

    For example I like some of virtues of the Capitalist system (i.e. any man, with enough hard work, can make something of himself) but I also hate its flaws (the tendency to create extreme wealth disparities leading to visible class sytems and poverty), as such Socialist values (A welfare safety net via some redistribution of wealth) counteract the negatives.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And this is where the business cycle comes into play.
    So what if there is full employment?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    I wasn't referring to complex socio-political problems abroad. I'm talking about simple, basic, NO-BRAINER problems that we have here in the UK.

    Example: There are about a million empty homes and buildings throughout the country and about 85,000 homeless people nationwide. I wonder what the solution could be to this problem... Hmmmm... Wow... It's tough... I guess we should just throw more money at the homeless services. That seems to have worked well so far right?

    Do you see what I'm saying?
    You can't solve this problem without undermining what I believe to be the principles of freedom though, because you are using coercion to impose morality. This to me is a fundamental wrong.


    How typical for a capitalist to say that. Why do you think GE (a weapons manufacturer) bought NBC (a news broadcasting corp)? That's right! Because without the lies of the Cold War they wouldn't have been able to sell their tanks and guns and helicopters. They dictate both the supply and the demand. Why do you think Obama's cabinet are mostly bankers while Bush's cabinet were mostly oil execs? Don't you understand that corporations will do anything they can to ensure that their "lifeblood" as you call it will continue to flow?
    Crony Capitalism at its best, this is why the market and the state need to remain as separated as possible.

    I agree 100%. But how do you propose to kick out political favouritism? How will you prevent lobbying (i.e. bribes). Power corrupts my friend and everyone has their price...
    We do not have a codified constitution in this country that prevents anti-lobbying legislation unlike the US (Where billions is spent on the practice). It needs to be a high crime to accept what essentially amounts to corruption. The people who influence those who we elect to govern society need to do so upon the rationality and validity of their arguments, not on the basis of how much Capital they possess.

    Well here is where we differ ideologically. Of course if everyone "did unto others" there would be no problems in the world. The problem with capitalism is that it incentivises and REWARDS greed and promotes that "dog eat dog" mentality and personally I think this is AGAINST human nature. Sure we are all self interested to a certain extent, but very few people can be truly happy without loving themselves and being loved by others. Capitalism degrades and debases people forcing them to subject themselves to wage labour. Take prostitution for example. The "oldest profession in the world". Is that human nature to you?
    I think that in certain circumstances, a 'dog eat dog' world is a necessary evil. There are people on this planet who are incompetent, people who are ********s, people who you would not want to be forced to rely upon in order to survive and succeed. This mentality allows those who are incompetent, those who are wasteful and inefficient to be cast aside (And I do not think any of those flaws are even a matter of choice on the behalf of the individual).

    Capitalism when it works properly assigns people objective values, and some people may not be happy with these values, but it represents how much society is willing to invest in them. But it also needs to allow potential to rise to the surface, because the ultimate goal that we must agree on is that humanity needs to progress itself materialistically, else we become static and lethargic. Education is one problem, but I think the other is cultural perspective. Now you can argue that the cultural perspective is a product of the disenfranchisement of those who are alienated from their labour (to put it in marxist terms), and I would not necessarily disagree with you. But within my own principles, you cannot circumvent that without breaking what I believe to be the principle tenet of negative freedom.
    So how would I change it? Attitudes must progressively change, some human beings are islands and we must let them be islands, but a state that controls everything from on high, essentially micromanaging life is not the solution. Similarly, I believe an anarchistic world will ultimately cycle backwards into having a state, and ones that are much more prone to tyranny to boot.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    So because Anarchists have used the term it ultimately then follows that the term is to be used to describe them alone?
    Point out where I said this.

    I was just pointing out that for most of it's history, the word 'libertarian' meant an anarchist. That's all.

    Anarcho-Capitalism is not an oxymoron if you take Capitalism in its true form, the free market.
    It's still an oxymoron because anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist ideology. And that includes 'free market' anarchists, such as Proudhon, Tucker, Carson, etc. In fact they argue that capitalism is inherently not a free market.

    Anarcho (Meaning no Government) + Capitalism (Free market Economic structure) is a system based on individual commerce, supply and demand economics. There is no oxymoron there, and I should be most keen for you to point out one.
    'Free markets' =/= capitalism. Capitalism is private property in the means of production.

    That is if we are to assume that there is such a thing as 'free markets', which there never has been and it's unlikely there ever will be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Lovely bit of Left-wing Propaganda there, you can't seriously think you can use that as 'fact'?
    Not entirely, but it has a point.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    As I said before, I do not support Plutocracy or 'rule by the wealthy', I support individualism.
    Nor was I saying that you do. But capitalism can often lead to a plutocratic system:



    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Libertarianism, as I said before, originated from a Chinese philosopher and was then built upon by the west, and is at its fundamental core, a belief that individuals are autonomous in their own governance and as such are responsible for it.
    Can you show me the proof of that? sorry if I missed it.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    That is a philosophical belief, but it is not much of a logical leap to then translate that into government that promotes individualism now is it? Infact, I'd say it is less of a leap than to Left-Libertarianism.
    Well, no. In the philosophical context, it could be said that it is a rejection of the belief that we have/need a supernatural being to tell us what to do and what not to do. In the political context it can be said that the existence of a government does exactly what said supernatural being would do if it existed and acted in that way. Thus, rejection of divine intervention is comparable to rejection of governmental intervention.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Libertarianism is the broad belief in minimal coercive interference, it is NOT the belief in a complete lack of state, that is merely a particular section of it.
    You can claim for it to be whatever you want, that doesn't make it so.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    And if you believe workers governing themselves is true freedom, I implore you to look at Mao, Pott and early Stalin, because that is what happens when 'workers' give themselves disproportionate power and ultimately corrupts their figureheads. (Not to mention holds back net, material human progress by a substantial factor).
    Erm... no. This is:



    By the workers, I mean all of them, not just one or a few people who may have been workers at one point in their lives and then became the tyrants they overthrew...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Point out where I said this.

    I was just pointing out that for most of it's history, the word 'libertarian' meant an anarchist. That's all.



    It's still an oxymoron because anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist ideology. And that includes 'free market' anarchists, such as Proudhon, Tucker, Carson, etc. In fact they argue that capitalism is inherently not a free market.



    'Free markets' =/= capitalism. Capitalism is private property in the means of production.

    That is if we are to assume that there is such a thing as 'free markets', which there never has been and it's unlikely there ever will be.
    Because of perfect competition blah blah blah blah. Anarchism is simply no government, it doesn't imply any right or left spectrum, it is the most 'South' part of the conventional political compass, regardless of which side of the axis it sits.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    So what if there is full employment?
    It's unlikely there'd ever be full employment, but as unemployment decreases the demand for labour relative to supply will increase (obviously the supply of labour isn't going to increase at the same rate), raising the cost of labour.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Because of perfect competition blah blah blah blah. Anarchism is simply no government, it doesn't imply any right or left spectrum, it is the most 'South' part of the conventional political compass, regardless of which side of the axis it sits.
    It's actually a lot more than that, it's opposition to all coercively enforced authorities and hierarchies. Anarchy literally means 'no rulers' - the state is not the only ruler.

    Having said that, capitalism needs the state. Always has. Always will.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Can you show me the proof of that? sorry if I missed it.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...al+Libertarian

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u...ic&redir_esc=y

    (Original post by The Chinese; Their history and culture)
    'argued that minimizing the role of government and letting individuals develop spontaneously would best achieve social and economic harmony.'

    Well, no. In the philosophical context, it could be said that it is a rejection of the belief that we have/need a supernatural being to tell us what to do and what not to do. In the political context it can be said that the existence of a government does exactly what said supernatural being would do if it existed and acted in that way. Thus, rejection of divine intervention is comparable to rejection of governmental intervention.
    See above, Lao Tzu, Hayek etc all expressed Libertarianism as Freedom of autonomy essentially. It is even defined in the English dictionary as that.


    In response to your video, representative democracy may not be entirely 'democratic' at its core, but it is pragmatic. I advocate open forum politics, IE, intensely close integration with representatives and override mechanics that allow immediate influence and accountability of the makeup of legislature/executive branches.


    You can claim for it to be whatever you want, that doesn't make it so.
    (Original post by Oxford English and Legal Dictionary)
    ' [NOUN] - A person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct. '
    'Liberty' is a broad term, but it can be roughly defined as one that believes in freedom from state control. The 'extent' of that freedom is a disputable value, as is the nature of 'freedom' itself.



    Erm... no. This is:



    By the workers, I mean all of them, not just one or a few people who may have been workers at one point in their lives and then became the tyrants they overthrew...
    That particular system is also fundamentally flawed, because human beings will also attach themselves to others and form power blocs under the influence of individuals or minorities. A 'government' can quickly arise out of this.

    Take for example a commune, what systems would be in place to stop people 'voting' for an 'enforcer', who protects interests. What stops people from voting for an 'intellectual' who is best placed to rationalise a set of laws for the enforcer to carry out? We all perform different roles, even on such a microcosmic scale, and thus I believe this sort of anarchist structure to be inherent self-defeating. Not to mention downright regressive in terms of human progress.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It's actually a lot more than that, it's opposition to all coercively enforced authorities and hierarchies. Anarchy literally means 'no rulers' - the state is not the only ruler.

    Having said that, capitalism needs the state. Always has. Always will.
    Really? Justify that please.

    Government no longer exists, hooray!

    Me and my 100 billion dollar company have teamed up with a bunch of other companies and formed monopolies. We use our vast amounts of intellectual and material capital to ensure that people continue to work for us in exchange for being able to use each others capital. We are able to also 'pay' people in this fashion to protect our interests. Pretty soon you end up with an unregulated private Police force, a bunch of super corporations with enough strength to hold onto their assets. With no state that holds a monopoly of force, all you have is Capitalism where the corporations work for mutual benefit, structuring law and order however they please. You have the same system except the corporations now regulate the currency and hold essential monopolies on force through private security.

    Sounds like a horrible system to me but it is still perfectly possible.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Really? Justify that please.

    Government no longer exists, hooray!

    Me and my 100 billion dollar company have teamed up with a bunch of other companies and formed monopolies. We use our vast amounts of intellectual and material capital to ensure that people continue to work for us in exchange for being able to use each others capital. We are able to also 'pay' people in this fashion to protect our interests. Pretty soon you end up with an unregulated private Police force, a bunch of super corporations with enough strength to hold onto their assets. With no state that holds a monopoly of force, all you have is Capitalism where the corporations work for mutual benefit, structuring law and order however they please. You have the same system except the corporations now regulate the currency and hold essential monopolies on force through private security.

    Sounds like a horrible system to me but it is still perfectly possible.
    And that would be a state. Or many states, but still a state society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Anarchism is simply no government,
    That's only one part of it. The clue's in the name; "an" (meaning "without") and "archy" (meaning "rulers/leaders"). Capitalism, even without a government, does have leaders as well as a hierarchy and thus isn't anarchy. You can have a free market with anarchy (i.e. mutualism), but you can't have capitalism with anarchy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And that would be a state. Or many states, but still a state society.
    Not really, a state technically requires a 'government'

    And if we are applying that definition as broadly as that, then even Anarchism must have a 'state' (Anyone who wields ANY form of political influence over someone else at all), since nothing can become A-Political.

    No, in an Anarcho-Capitalist scenario, we have no legislature, executive or judiciary. There is no necessarily 'defined laws', theoretically anything can be imposed on a whim by another.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    That's only one part of it. The clue's in the name; "an" (meaning "without") and "archy" (meaning "rulers/leaders"). Capitalism, even without a government, does have leaders as well as a hierarchy and thus isn't anarchy. You can have a free market with anarchy (i.e. mutualism), but you can't have capitalism with anarchy.
    But humans are not isolated bubbles, you could have one individual in a commune who is capable of influencing others to his point of view through persuasion, argument whatever, and so technically he is able to garner more democratic power for what originally appear to be his own goals. He can become a 'leader' of a minority relatively easily, because a 'leader' by definition must have 'followers'.

    Furthermore, there are no systems in place to protect against this in anarchism, what if people actively vote to have a STATE, what then? There is no higher power to stop it, so by definition it must happen.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Not really, a state technically requires a 'government'
    If you are making laws which are then enforced by police forces, how do you not have a government?

    And if we are applying that definition as broadly as that, then even Anarchism must have a 'state' (Anyone who wields ANY form of political influence over someone else at all), since nothing can become A-Political.
    Anarchism rejects coercively enforced authority or hierarchy. That includes rejection of a state.

    No, in an Anarcho-Capitalist scenario, we have no legislature, executive or judiciary. There is no necessarily 'defined laws', theoretically anything can be imposed on a whim by another.
    And if there is a monopoly on the initiation of force over an area, it's a state.

    Not all states are like Western-style states, you know?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    If you are making laws which are then enforced by police forces, how do you not have a government?



    Anarchism rejects coercively enforced authority or hierarchy.
    But that is a complete paradox, because there will always be enforced authority or hierarchy, human beings will never EVER always agree with one another, and as such one group must take predominance over the other when that time comes.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.