NationStates Jolt Archive

Please stop hiding the name of socialist/communist behind 'Libertarian Left' or 'Libertarian Socialist' - although each term individually describes your social and economic view, together they are contradictory.

A libertarian is somebody who stands for both economic and social freedom, not one or the other. Although there are varying degrees of this freedom a libertarian could stand for, the premise is still the same.

The definition of libertarian in Europe differs than that from America, so I don't see a problem with it... seeing as we're really supposed to be called classical liberals. :)

Please stop hiding the name of socialist/communist behind 'Libertarian Left' or 'Libertarian Socialist' - although each term individually describes your social and economic view, together they are contradictory.

Only in America. Not an insult or anything. But you are presupposing that the American Libertarian Party represents the views of libertarianism the world over. Sorry it doesn't. If I go over to America I will will use an alternative to describe myself, but whilst I remain here I will continue to use libertarian.

A libertarian is somebody who stands for both economic and social freedom, not one or the other. Although there are varying degrees of this freedom a libertarian could stand for, the premise is still the same.

Well that still applies to me. I may be anti-capitalist, but I am very, very pro free market.

So I should still be able to call myself libertarian if I am in America, no?

I should also add that libertarian socialists do stand for economic freedom, but they are using different ground rules to you. To say they don't stand for economic freedom is like saying that Hinduism is a religion because Hindus don't believe in G-d.

Would you just prefer the all-encompassing term "Liberal"?

Or "socially libertarian, economically liberal/socialist"?

One question: Does it matter?

No, not really.

Please stop hiding the name of socialist/communist behind 'Libertarian Left' or 'Libertarian Socialist' - although each term individually describes your social and economic view, together they are contradictory.

A libertarian is somebody who stands for both economic and social freedom, not one or the other. Although there are varying degrees of this freedom a libertarian could stand for, the premise is still the same.

Could you be more US-centric? :rolleyes:

Capitalism is about as far from ecomonic liberty as you can get in today's world. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the means of production being managed through direct democracy is more authoritarian than them being managed by an élite few rich people.

What is the difference between US libertarianism and non-US libertarianism? And what difference does the American Libertarian Party have with the general libertarian movement (i.e., why do people constantly say "little 'l' libertarian")?

What is the difference between US libertarianism and non-US libertarianism?

The US LP are classic liberals, laissez-faire capitalists.

Here in Britain libertarian is largely a synonym of anarchism (a term I usually use, since if you say you are an Anarchist to many people they will laugh at you or think you want to blow something up, ie it is Anarchism without any of the negative connatations).

And what difference does the American Libertarian Party have with the general libertarian movement (i.e., why do people constantly say "little 'l' libertarian")?

That must be an American thing. I honestly have no idea.

As to how the US LP got there name? Well I can only guess Liberal stole their name so they stole one of ours.

Capitalism is about as far from ecomonic liberty as you can get in today's world. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the means of production being managed through direct democracy is more authoritarian than them being managed by an élite few rich people.

:rolleyes: No ones forcing you to work there. And guess what? Ever hear of small business? Yeah, they're real elite... :rolleyes:

you are presupposing that the American Libertarian Party represents the views of libertarianism the world over. Sorry it doesn't.*rambling nonsense*
First, recognize who pWns the term, pWned it first, and then you may use it correctly. It's American, in every sense of the word. Recognize.

After the American liberals stole that term, you leave us to call BS as such, vehemently.]

First, recognize who pWns the term, pWned it first, and then you may use it correctly. It's American, in every sense of the word. Recognize.



When did the libertarian party start up?

Or maybe I should asked when did libertarians (as in Americans using it under your definition) first begin to call themselves such?

After the American liberals stole that term, you leave us to call BS as such, vehemently.]

:confused: I never said that.

I have no problem being called a liberal or a socialist. I only use such words to give someone a general idea of where I stand and don't really feel I fit perfectly in any catagory. Should I call all the people who believe in unrestrained capitalism "robber barons"?

Capitalism is about as far from ecomonic liberty as you can get in today's world. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the means of production being managed through direct democracy is more authoritarian than them being managed by an élite few rich people.

Because you are forced to give up your own rights in favor of the whole. You are forced to either leave the society or give up your autonomy.

I don't understand what benefit comes out of working for the government over working for the corporation. All you are doing is switching masters.

Should I call all the people who believe in unrestrained capitalism "robber barons"?
No, because then the bitch would outwiegh the kitten, sweetie. :)

When did the libertarian party start up?

Or maybe I should asked when did libertarians (as in Americans using it under your definition) first begin to call themselves such?
Let me give you the best source possible (http://www.quantumflash.net/The.Libertarian.Manifesto.pdf), early 70's. You're bitching about one of the strongest grassroots political exercizes ever initiated in the US. Considering how money-power hungry this nation is, shou7ldn't you be complimenting us?

You call me whatever the hell you want. Doesn't matter, we follow the same ideals.

And personally, I don't think I'm so far left on the economic scale that I am to be considered a "communist". I support a socialist/capitalist blending.

Would you just prefer the all-encompassing term "Liberal"?

Or "socially libertarian, economically liberal/socialist"?

That's like saying "I'm a good person" --- and not much else. There's no fun in that nomenclature.

Let me give you the best source possible (http://www.quantumflash.net/The.Libertarian.Manifesto.pdf), early 70's.

The first anarchist use of the word predates that by over a century (Joseph Dejaque's journal published in New York, 1858). With it being used by anarchists by the end of the century to seperate themselves by authoritarian socialists.

You're bitching about one of the strongest grassroots political exercizes ever initiated in the US. Considering how money-power hungry this nation is, shou7ldn't you be complimenting us?

I'm not bitching about anything. Just saying that libertarian does not mean the samething outside of the US as it does in it.

:)

The first anarchist use of the word predates that by over a century (Joseph Dejaque's journal published in New York, 1858). With it being used by anarchists by the end of the century to seperate themselves by authoritarian socialists.
I'd like the whole forum to catch a glimplse of this first-happening:

A Libertarian and an Anarchist are arguing over ideas. :rolleyes:

May such wonders never cease.

Don't worry, I'll be off soon.

No, because then the bitch would outweigh the kitten, sweetie. :)

But I don't always consider that a bad thing. :D

Because you are forced to give up your own rights in favor of the whole. You are forced to either leave the society or give up your autonomy.

I don't understand what benefit comes out of working for the government over working for the corporation. All you are doing is switching masters.

Yep - direct democracy is in essence tyranny by majority. The minority would be obliterated.

Yep - direct democracy is in essence tyranny by majority. The minority would be obliterated.


That is why a raw Democracy doesn't work. It totally fucks the little guy.

That is why a raw Democracy doesn't work. It totally fucks the little guy.

Like right in the ear.

But I don't always consider that a bad thing. :D
Neither do I... I just expect both to be intelligent.

So far, that's been too much to ask.

EDIT: For women in gen., not you at all.

Yep - direct democracy is in essence tyranny by majority. The minority would be obliterated.
No it's not. Direct democracy isn't just issues being put forward and then voted on. Consensus would have to be reached, but for the participants to want consensus, a socio-economic revolution would first have to be established:

"a political revolution of this (direct democracy) nature must be preceded by a socioeconomic revolution based on workers' self-management. This is because the daily experience of participatory decision-making, non-authoritarian modes of organisation, and personalistic human relationships in small work groups would foster creativity, spontaneity, responsibility, independence, and respect for individuality -- the qualities needed for a directly democratic political system to function effectively."

-www.infoshop.org

Yep - direct democracy is in essence tyranny by majority. The minority would be obliterated.

A direct democracy would be no different than a republic in that way. However, a constitutional direct democracy would be just as good as a constitutional republic.

No it's not. Direct democracy isn't just issues being put forward and then voted on. Consensus would have to be reached, but for the participants to want consensus, a socio-economic revolution would first have to be established:

"a political revolution of this (direct democracy) nature must be preceded by a socioeconomic revolution based on workers' self-management. This is because the daily experience of participatory decision-making, non-authoritarian modes of organisation, and personalistic human relationships in small work groups would foster creativity, spontaneity, responsibility, independence, and respect for individuality -- the qualities needed for a directly democratic political system to function effectively."

-www.infoshop.org

*gives Lries a cookie*
Thats pretty much what I think.

Society needs complete overhaul for direct democracy.

And anarchists are the original libertarians...

In France, we call someone libertin or libertaire when he/she is open about sex.
Any libertine girl here?

Oh and I have a trademark on the libertarian term. Just give me 20 bucks and you can use it. That is a small price to pay when you consider the instant respect you get in some parts of the word for calling yourself libertarian.

Capitalism is about as far from ecomonic liberty as you can get in today's world. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the means of production being managed through direct democracy is more authoritarian than them being managed by an élite few rich people.

Modern capitalism doesn't involve a couple of fat guys in top hats and dinner jackets sitting around a poker table, plotting to enslave the poor and giving off evil laughs anymore. In the west at least, hundreds of thousands of people are capitalists in the sense that they run businesses big or small, or own private productive means, and those who don't still reap the benefits of capitalism.

About the original point made in thread, yeah I agree. To call oneself a libertarian but to support socialist economics is confusing. I'm British, and to me libertarian means laissez-faire capitalist, so I don't think the meaning of the word is necessarily different in the states than it is here.

Modern capitalism doesn't involve a couple of fat guys in top hats and dinner jackets sitting around a poker table, plotting to enslave the poor and giving off evil laughs anymore.

it doesnt?

my dreams have been shattered :(

Capitalism is about as far from ecomonic liberty as you can get in today's world. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the means of production being managed through direct democracy is more authoritarian than them being managed by an élite few rich people.

I couldn't disagree more.
The premise upon which capitalism is based is that people should manage their own money, start their own enterprises, without the government having an overwhelming hand in the economy. It is about the people controlling the money, not the government.
It is only just that the people who earn money should have the right to spend it and invest it as they see fit.

I couldn't disagree more.
The premise upon which capitalism is based is that people should manage their own money, start their own enterprises, without the government having an overwhelming hand in the economy. It is about the people controlling the money, not the government.
It is only just that the people who earn money should have the right to spend it and invest it as they see fit.
You confuse the people with some people.

You confuse the people with some people.
:D Just appreciated the succinctness of that reply.

You confuse the people with some people.

No, he meant all people. The laws of a capitalist state do not exclude anybody from the right to buy, sell, save, spend, employ, be employed and so on.

No, he meant all people. The laws of a capitalist state do not exclude anybody from the right to buy, sell, save, spend, employ, be employed and so on.
It excludes the ones who have no money from the right to buy.

It excludes the ones who have no money from the right to buy.

Because to buy something at zero cost is not to buy. To be forced to give somebody something at no price is to be stolen from.

Because to buy something at zero cost is not to buy. To be forced to give somebody something at no price is to be stolen from.
Socialism gives them the freedom to buy by giving them money.

Socialism gives them the freedom to buy by giving them money.

Socialism gives money to some people by taking it from others. Nobody has the right to force anyone to give up their money or their property, unless they accquired it through such methods.

Socialism gives money to some people by taking it from others. Nobody has the right to force anyone to give up their money or their property, unless they accquired it through such methods.
It is necessary that they did. Originally everything belonged to everybody.

It is necessary that they did. Originally everything belonged to everybody.

No it didn't. Originally everything belonged to nobody, and people got hold of it. Prehistoric existence wasn't some sort of wonderful paradise where everybody shared and pranced around and sung songs. It was anarchy, of the rape-pillage-and-burn variety, and laws had to be set up to stop people thieving and killing in order to get stuff. That's where the idea of property comes from.

How can you just suddenly say that everything belongs to everybody? Say you bake a pie, go to eat the pie, but wait, that pie belongs to everybody, even though you made it. You don't have any say over whether or not you eat it, since it's everybody else's. Why even bother to make a pie?

"a political revolution of this (direct democracy) nature must be preceded by a socioeconomic revolution based on workers' self-management. This is because the daily experience of participatory decision-making, non-authoritarian modes of organisation, and personalistic human relationships in small work groups would foster creativity, spontaneity, responsibility, independence, and respect for individuality -- the qualities needed for a directly democratic political system to function effectively."

-www.infoshop.org

I am not disagreeing with this, I am just wondering what rational backing this statement has. What is the logic behind it? What is the evidence they have used to come to this conclusion?

I am not disagreeing with this, I am just wondering what rational backing this statement has. What is the logic behind it? What is the evidence they have used to come to this conclusion?
I don't know what evidence they've used, but the logic and rationale behind that is pretty straightforward. In our warped capitalist society where inequality is rife, direct democracy would just mess things up more. However, in a society where a social revolution has just taken place, where workers manage their own means of production, the proletariat would have the necessary qualities to fully participate in a direct democracy.

PS. Preebles, that was one good cookie, can I have another? :)

I don't know what evidence they've used, but the logic and rationale behind that is pretty straightforward. In our warped capitalist society where inequality is rife, direct democracy would just mess things up more. However, in a society where a social revolution has just taken place, where workers manage their own means of production, the proletariat would have the necessary qualities to fully participate in a direct democracy.

PS. Preebles, that was one good cookie, can I have another? :)

I see, I thought that it was saying that direct democracy would facilitate the revolution, rereading it I see that I was misunderstanding.

I do have to say that this is that old anarchist pipe dream.

I couldn't disagree more.
The premise upon which capitalism is based is that people should manage their own money, start their own enterprises, without the government having an overwhelming hand in the economy. It is about the people controlling the money, not the government.
It is only just that the people who earn money should have the right to spend it and invest it as they see fit.

Actually, if you go and read Adam Smith, government is supposed to let the economy grow itself, because in terms of nurturing it runs the risk of an incompotent horticulturalist who overwaters his plants even though plants grow well enough in the wild without his help at all.

The problem is when individual business people get too powerful. It becomes the job of government to step in and thin out the herd. Like when there are too many deer eating up all the wild vegetation because we've killed all the wolves.

Adam Smith himself recognized the need for government to break up monopolies and trusts which have an unaltering tendency to accumulate power for themselves.

PS. Preebles, that was one good cookie, can I have another? :)
Sorry mate, all out!

Please stop hiding the name of socialist/communist behind 'Libertarian Left' or 'Libertarian Socialist' - although each term individually describes your social and economic view, together they are contradictory.

A libertarian is somebody who stands for both economic and social freedom, not one or the other. Although there are varying degrees of this freedom a libertarian could stand for, the premise is still the same.

Agreed. Libertarian socialist is one of the biggest oxymorons I've ever heard.

Agreed. Libertarian socialist is one of the biggest oxymorons I've ever heard.
Actually, Libertarian Capitalist (Which is basically what Libertarian refers to in North America) is an oxymoron.

1. The term libertarian was only used to describe people who advocated free markets since after WWII.

2. Libertarian still means Libertarian Socialist in Europe, and pretty everywhere but North America.

and most important:

3. (Capitalist) Libertarianism advocates total freedom, but total freedom is impossible in a Capitalist society, where people are enslaved by the wage labour system.

Agreed. Libertarian socialist is one of the biggest oxymorons I've ever heard.

Yo, Capitalist.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), whole cities and regions declared "comunismo libertario" [Libertarian Communism]. Anarchists and syndicalists had been using the term "Libertarian" for at least the previous century.

To cut to the chase; stop using our moniker (and tarnishing its good reputation), kthxbi.

Yo, Capitalist.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), whole cities and regions declared "comunismo libertario" [Libertarian Communism]. Anarchists and syndicalists had been using the term "Libertarian" for at least the previous century.

Like I said before, the earliest instance of the word being used (that I can find) was in an Anarchist journal that was printed in 1852.

To cut to the chase; stop using our moniker (and tarnishing its good reputation), kthxbi.

They're stealing Anarchist now too :mad:

Yo, Capitalist.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), whole cities and regions declared "comunismo libertario" [Libertarian Communism]. Anarchists and syndicalists had been using the term "Libertarian" for at least the previous century.

To cut to the chase; stop using our moniker (and tarnishing its good reputation), kthxbi.


THANK YOU!

No it didn't. Originally everything belonged to nobody, and people got hold of it. Prehistoric existence wasn't some sort of wonderful paradise where everybody shared and pranced around and sung songs. It was anarchy, of the rape-pillage-and-burn variety, and laws had to be set up to stop people thieving and killing in order to get stuff. That's where the idea of property comes from. That's what I said. It is necessary that they appropriated things by force since originally there was no private owners.
Those who think capitalism is libertarian are the rich. The rich has unlimited freedom in capitalism. He can go wherever he want to go and he can ask the police to kill those who walk on his beach without paying. But from the point of view of the people, freedom is about being free to walk on the beach, not about being free to have those who walk killed.
BTW you confuse anarchy and chaos.

BTW you confuse anarchy and chaos.

Yup, anarchy comes from the Greek:
An- no
Archy- ruler(s)

Therefore anarchy means a society without hierarchy and domination of one over the other.

Yup, anarchy comes from the Greek:
An- no
Archy- ruler(s)

Therefore anarchy means a society without hierarchy and domination of one over the other.

That's why I added "of the rape-pillage-and-burn variety", since there seem to be two different camps of people who have ideas about what anarchy is.

and most important:

3. (Capitalist) Libertarianism advocates total freedom, but total freedom is impossible in a Capitalist society, where people are enslaved by the wage labour system.

You can't be a slave to the wage system. In a society which runs on capitalist principles, you can work for whoever you want, for whatever price you can agree on. Nobody makes anybody do anything. Communists seem to think that the way to remedy this fictional slavery is to replace it with actual slavery, where government - excuse me - "the people", tell you where you work and who you work for and how much you get paid. Under communism, you can't quit your job, you can't go work for somebody else.

You can't be a slave to the wage system. In a society which runs on capitalist principles, you can work for whoever you want, for whatever price you can agree on. Nobody makes anybody do anything. Communists seem to think that the way to remedy this fictional slavery is to replace it with actual slavery, where government - excuse me - "the people", tell you where you work and who you work for and how much you get paid. Under communism, you can't quit your job, you can't go work for somebody else.
Under communism, you can quit your job and you don't have to work for anybody but yourself.
Under capitalism you have to pay to have clean water, to use the beaches, the sun light and to breath clean air.

Under communism, you can quit your job and you don't have to work for anybody but yourself.
Under capitalism you have to pay to have clean water, to use the beaches, the sun light and to breath clean air.
*ahem*
I think you'll find that under communism you don't work for nobody. You work for the good of the community, hence "communism". You certainly do not work for yourself.

*ahem*
I think you'll find that under communism you don't work for nobody. You work for the good of the community, hence "communism". You certainly do not work for yourself.
And you are part of the community therefore you work for yourself, as opposed to be working for a bunch of big capitalist oligarchs when you are not part of them.

Under communism, you can quit your job and you don't have to work for anybody but yourself.
Under capitalism you have to pay to have clean water, to use the beaches, the sun light and to breath clean air.

But what happened to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Under communism, you produce as much as you can, and it's given to whoever needs it.

As for your diatribe against capitalism, can you name me one capitalist society in which air and sunlight were considered private property? There are, even for capitalists, some things which aren't owned.

3. (Capitalist) Libertarianism advocates total freedom, but total freedom is impossible in a Capitalist society, where people are enslaved by the wage labour system.
You're against paying people wages?

And you are part of the community therefore you work for yourself, as opposed to be working for a bunch of big capitalist oligarchs when you are not part of them.
Yes, but it's still an incorrect term, as it suggests selfishness. And with selfishness, communism cannot work. Which is why you've never ever seen a communist country in real life.

You're against paying people wages?
The idea of pure communism is that there is no need for money - everyone has what he needs. Therefore, yes, it would suggest not paying people with money.

You're against paying people wages?
Well in a capitalist society a person's wages don't match up with the amount of work they put in, hence the term wage slavery.

In a communist society, a person may be allowed to say, keep whatever they make and trade the things for everything else they need. There are heaps of other systems though, and I need to go to bed!

As for your diatribe against capitalism, can you name me one capitalist society in which air and sunlight were considered private property? There are, even for capitalists, some things which aren't owned.Don't be fooled. When they can charge for sunlight of for clean air, they will. They are already trying. They've already implemented private property on ideas through patents. They want to implement software patents in Europe. They want you to pay for double-clicking.

But what happened to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Under communism, you produce as much as you can, and it's given to whoever needs it.

As for your diatribe against capitalism, can you name me one capitalist society in which air and sunlight were considered private property? There are, even for capitalists, some things which aren't owned.Sunlight and air are free because they not scarce. However, if you lived on an asteroid, you might have to pay someone for your oxygen.

Yes, but it's still an incorrect term, as it suggests selfishness. And with selfishness, communism cannot work. Which is why you've never ever seen a communist country in real life.
The term is correct in a capitalist dictionary. I was talking to capitalists.

Yes, but it's still an incorrect term, as it suggests selfishness. And with selfishness, communism cannot work. Which is why you've never ever seen a communist country in real life.

Anarcho-communism advocates a revolutionary change in the mass of society accuring before any real 'revolution' perse. Therefore the selfishness fostered by the capitalist system will not exist.

Human nature is a myth. People can be selfish and selfless, loving and hating. That argument is really a last resort.

Prehistoric existence wasn't some sort of wonderful paradise where everybody shared and pranced around and sung songs. It was anarchy, of the rape-pillage-and-burn variety, and laws had to be set up to stop people thieving and killing in order to get stuff. That's where the idea of property comes from.


And of course -being the owner/proprietor of a time machine- you would know exactly how people lived in prehistoric civilizations. The Hobbesian 'state of nature' you describe hardly encompasses all societies across the world that evolved prior to us. More likely, Hobbes looked at the divided and war-torn England in which he lived and extrapolated from there. If this is the case, what Hobbes was in fact describing was how modern societies react when their socio-political systems collapse. It's a useful hagiographic tool for understanding the logic of liberalism, but it's not an objectively verified fact.

Well in a capitalist society a person's wages don't match up with the amount of work they put in, hence the term wage slavery.
Perhaps you might be interested in something called the Subjective Theory of Value (http://www.mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp). There are two parties that decide what someone's labor is worth. If the employee determines his labor is worth more than what he's getting, he should quit. If the employer determines his worker's labor is worth less than what he's paying him, he should dimsiss him.

Human nature is a myth.That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence?

That's an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence?
Do you have evidence of the it is not a myth?

Don't be fooled. When they can charge for sunlight of for clean air, they will. They are already trying. They've already implemented private property on ideas through patents. They want to implement software patents in Europe. They want you to pay for double-clicking.

Ideas are private property. If you come up with them, you deserve to reap the rewards. It is however, and will continue to be for the forseeable future, be impractical if not impossible to appropriate sunlight as private property.

Ideas are private property. If you come up with them, you deserve to reap the rewards. It is however, and will continue to be for the forseeable future, be impractical if not impossible to appropriate sunlight as private property.
Let say when there is a cloud of pollution above your head and you don't see the sun anymore, they will appropriate the parts of the world where there is still sun and they will make you pay for 1 week of sun... Wait... They already do.

Modern capitalism doesn't involve a couple of fat guys in top hats and dinner jackets sitting around a poker table, plotting to enslave the poor and giving off evil laughs anymore. In the west at least, hundreds of thousands of people are capitalists in the sense that they run businesses big or small, or own private productive means, and those who don't still reap the benefits of capitalism.

About the original point made in thread, yeah I agree. To call oneself a libertarian but to support socialist economics is confusing. I'm British, and to me libertarian means laissez-faire capitalist, so I don't think the meaning of the word is necessarily different in the states than it is here.

Too bad you're not American. If you were, I'd stage a coup d'etat and make you President.

(I'm dead serious, too.)

Socialism gives money to some people by taking it from others. Nobody has the right to force anyone to give up their money or their property, unless they accquired it through such methods.

There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do this. Its called taxation. Governments take people's money, most of it hard earned, and threaten them with violence if they don't comply.
However, everone who drives on roads, flushes a toilet, calls the police, or isn't killed by foreign invaders reaps the benefits of this atrocity.

Ideas are private property. If you come up with them, you deserve to reap the rewards. It is however, and will continue to be for the forseeable future, be impractical if not impossible to appropriate sunlight as private property.
You don't watch The Simpsons much do you?

There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do this. Its called taxation. Governments take people's money, most of it hard earned, and threaten them with violence if they don't comply.
However, everone who drives on roads, flushes a toilet, calls the police, or isn't killed by foreign invaders reaps the benefits of this atrocity.
Millions of people don't rely on government for sewage, and in the US anyway, the government isn't keeping out foreign invaders at all.

Millions of people don't rely on government for sewage, and in the US anyway, the government isn't keeping out foreign invaders at all.
In the US the money is printed by the govrenment. No govrenment - no money.

Too bad you're not American. If you were, I'd stage a coup d'etat and make you President.

(I'm dead serious, too.)

Haha, thanks.

In the US the money is printed by the govrenment. No govrenment - no money.

Money is just a representation of wealth, if you take away money, wealth will still exist. The ancient egyptian government taxed the farmers of egypt in grain, not money.

There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do this. Its called taxation. Governments take people's money, most of it hard earned, and threaten them with violence if they don't comply.
However, everone who drives on roads, flushes a toilet, calls the police, or isn't killed by foreign invaders reaps the benefits of this atrocity.

Of course, no society can manage complete capitalism just as no society can manage complete socialism. Realistically, governments must tax in moderation to fund the police and military, provide public land to facilitate trade, and indeed just pay the wages of whatever government officials need to exist.

Millions of people don't rely on government for sewage, and in the US anyway, the government isn't keeping out foreign invaders at all.

Sorry, I was unaware of the fact that the Mexican Army is occupying Texas.

You can't be a slave to the wage system. In a society which runs on capitalist principles, you can work for whoever you want, for whatever price you can agree on. Nobody makes anybody do anything. Communists seem to think that the way to remedy this fictional slavery is to replace it with actual slavery, where government - excuse me - "the people", tell you where you work and who you work for and how much you get paid. Under communism, you can't quit your job, you can't go work for somebody else.
I couldn't disagree more. Unfortunately, if you don't want to take part in the wage labour system you will starve. There is no alternative. You can quit your job, and work for someone else with the same conditions. You can't have more slave owners than you have slaves, it's impossible.

And I don't see the point of dragging Communism and Statism into this. Anarchists are opposed to the state from the start.

]Perhaps you might be interested in something called the Subjective Theory of Value. There are two parties that decide what someone's labor is worth. If the employee determines his labor is worth more than what he's getting, he should quit. If the employer determines his worker's labor is worth less than what he's paying him, he should dimsiss him.
The Subjective Theory of Value, and for that matter, most Marginalist Economics were just invented by Capitalists to justify their brutal system.

I couldn't disagree more. Unfortunately, if you don't want to take part in the wage labour system you will starve. There is no alternative. You can quit your job, and work for someone else with the same conditions. You can't have more slave owners than you have slaves, it's impossible.

And I don't see the point of dragging Communism and Statism into this. Anarchists are opposed to the state from the start.


Sorry about the mini topic-deviation. At the time I posted that I was arguing with psylos in another post too, along similar lines but with the thrust being on the shortcomings of communism.

As for the idea that if you don't take part in the wage system you will starve, this is untrue. In a capitalist society, you can be a subsistence farmer if you want. You can live off the land, never buying anything off anyone, growing your own food and tailoring your own clothes. Capitalism allows you to do whatever you want, and there are things other than wage labour for somebody which can get you fed and clothed.

Please stop hiding the name of socialist/communist behind 'Libertarian Left' or 'Libertarian Socialist' - although each term individually describes your social and economic view, together they are contradictory.

A libertarian is somebody who stands for both economic and social freedom, not one or the other. Although there are varying degrees of this freedom a libertarian could stand for, the premise is still the same.
Actually there is nothing wrong with calling themselves 'Libertarian Socialist'. Libertarian simply means 'permissive of personal/social freedom', not necessarily economic freedom. The term "Libertarian" in terms of being permissive of both economic and social freedom is nothing more than the name of an American political party.

Would you just prefer the all-encompassing term "Liberal"?

Or "socially libertarian, economically liberal/socialist"?
Economic liberalism is the opposite of socialism.

Modern capitalism doesn't involve a couple of fat guys in top hats and dinner jackets sitting around a poker table, plotting to enslave the poor and giving off evil laughs anymore.
It is no longer like that because of the restrictions on corporate freedom (such as minimum wage and anti-trust laws) instituted by the governments of the world in the early 20th century. If all those restrictions were removed I have no doubt that we would return to the aforementioned situtation with fat guys.

It excludes the ones who have no money from the right to buy.
You say it as if it is impossible to get rich once one is poor.

The rich ... can ask the police to kill those who walk on his beach without paying.
Care to point out a real world example of this? The police are a public service and for them to carry out this order from a rich person would be corrupt and criminal, I'm sure everyone here would agree on that.

Under communism, you can quit your job and you don't have to work for anybody but yourself.
Under capitalism you have to pay to have clean water, to use the beaches, the sun light and to breath clean air.
Bullshit. Communism is about working for the community, not yourself.

Care to point out an example of people being denied sunlight because of capitalism? (Mr Burns from the Simpsons doesn't count.)

You can't be a slave to the wage system. In a society which runs on capitalist principles, you can work for whoever you want, for whatever price you can agree on. Nobody makes anybody do anything. Communists seem to think that the way to remedy this fictional slavery is to replace it with actual slavery, where government - excuse me - "the people", tell you where you work and who you work for and how much you get paid. Under communism, you can't quit your job, you can't go work for somebody else.
I have a crazy idea, let's go down the middle road. Just impose a minimum wage. We have all seen what happens when there is no minimum wage. Workers were virtually slaves.

they will make you pay for 1 week of sun... Wait... They already do.
Where?

There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do this. Its called taxation. Governments take people's money, most of it hard earned, and threaten them with violence if they don't comply.
However, everone who drives on roads, flushes a toilet, calls the police, or isn't killed by foreign invaders reaps the benefits of this atrocity.
I agree with you, but many extreme economic liberals/libertarians think that any taxation is socialist.

I have a crazy idea, let's go down the middle road. Just impose a minimum wage. We have all seen what happens when there is no minimum wage. Workers were virtually slaves.

Employment is a trade between employer and employee, a trade of labour and money. It is basically a buying operation, the employer buying the labour of the employee. In my opinion, there is a fuzzy line between employment and buying/selling/trading operations. What if somebody wants to be payed in cashew nuts instead of money, or what if they want to work as volunteers, for no wage? Also, what if somebody wants to hire somebody to do something which is clearly worth less than the minimum wage? Like pay them to push a button once an hour or pay them to pick up a bag or groceries or something?

I also think that the society of today is sufficiently different to the society of 150 years ago that a removal of minimum wage laws would not result in the abject poverty which was a hallmark of the industrial revolution.

Employment is a trade between employer and employee, a trade of labour and money. It is basically a buying operation, the employer buying the labour of the employee. In my opinion, there is a fuzzy line between employment and buying/selling/trading operations. What if somebody wants to be payed in cashew nuts instead of money, or what if they want to work as volunteers, for no wage?

Also, what if somebody wants to hire somebody to do something which is clearly worth less than the minimum wage? Like pay them to push a button once an hour or pay them to pick up a bag or groceries or something?

I also think that the society of today is sufficiently different to the society of 150 years ago that a removal of minimum wage laws would not result in the abject poverty which was a hallmark of the industrial revolution.
Unpaid volunteer work is nothing unheard of. If someone has agreed to be paid in money, then the government should set a minimum wage.

If they want to hire someone to do something like that then they are free to waste their money. Those are unusual situtations, and I don't think that they are good arguments against minimum wage laws.

I have every reason to believe that there would be more poverty if minimum wage laws were removed? I'm not going only on what happened 150 years ago. How about the Indonesia or the Phillipines of today? They lack minimum wage laws and they are not exactly living a liberal dream of prosperity.

Of course, no society can manage complete capitalism just as no society can manage complete socialism. Realistically, governments must tax in moderation to fund the police and military, provide public land to facilitate trade, and indeed just pay the wages of whatever government officials need to exist.
I couldn't agree more :)

Do you have evidence of the it is not a myth?
I think what you mean is that human nature is not as consistant and predictible as generally thought. That's nice, but I would still like to know why you think that. Taken litteraly, saying that human nature is a myth is to say that humans have no defined state of being - that humans are undefined like x/0. It's like the blank slate myth taken to a whole new absurdity.

In the US the money is printed by the govrenment. No govrenment - no money.The Federal Reserve Note is a piss poor substitute for "real money" like gold. It's completely foolish to think some centralized authority is necessary for money to exist. As long as there are mutiple humans on Earth, there will be some form of money here. Read about how money is created inThe Candy Economy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker47.html)

Sorry, I was unaware of the fact that the Mexican Army is occupying Texas.I don't know about Texas, but uniformed Mexican soldiers have crossed into Arizona several times in recent years. They may be deserters who've found better pay running drugs and humans, but they are still armed foreign invaders who pose a serious threat to US citizens. The threat of terrorism is significant, and Uncle Sam is only making it worse. The US government is not in control of it's borders.

The Subjective Theory of Value, and for that matter, most Marginalist Economics were just invented by Capitalists to justify their brutal system.
The Subjective Theory of Value is simple to understand and makes complete sense. AFAIK, no one has even tried disputing it. If you have an objective theory of value, I'm all ears. How much is an hour of labor worth?

As for the idea that if you don't take part in the wage system you will starve, this is untrue. In a capitalist society, you can be a subsistence farmer if you want. You can live off the land, never buying anything off anyone, growing your own food and tailoring your own clothes. Capitalism allows you to do whatever you want, and there are things other than wage labour for somebody which can get you fed and clothed.
That would be true, but that would never work in an industrial or urban setting. Anarchism aims to change the world today, not move back in time.

Also, what about commodities like medicines, farm equipment, etc?

The Subjective Theory of Value is simple to understand and makes complete sense. AFAIK, no one has even tried disputing it. If you have an objective theory of value, I'm all ears. How much is an hour of labor worth?
Anarchist have been disputing the STV for years. I don't have an objective theory of value, but I do have two theories:
- A gift economy, where workers are organized into syndicates, and goods are exchanged freely and efficiently. If a person or a syndicate doesn't want to take part in the economy, he/she/they are cut off.
- The Labour Theory of Value, where all labour done is worth the same amount of money, regardless of who's doing it or what work it is. So the price of the commodity is determined by the price of the labour (and the price of raw materials). Prices cannot be artificially inflated, and the workers receive all the profits.

Please stop hiding the name of socialist/communist behind 'Libertarian Left' or 'Libertarian Socialist' - although each term individually describes your social and economic view, together they are contradictory.

A libertarian is somebody who stands for both economic and social freedom, not one or the other. Although there are varying degrees of this freedom a libertarian could stand for, the premise is still the same.

Well, if we want to get really technical, the word "libertarian" has it's origins in philosophical/religous debates in regard to the concept of free will vs. determinism. A "libertarian" believes that determinism is false, and that people have real free will.

As far as the use of the word "libertarian" in the political sense, well, the European anarchists had it first. "Libertarian" and anarchist movements in Europe pretty much developed in response to the landed aristocracy, which recieved special protection and favors by European states. Basically, "economic freedom" at the time literally meant "I'm rich and powerful, and I'm going to use the state to deprive you of your possessions and land in order to keep you poor and powerless thus securing my own special position." This is how monarchies, oligarchies, and aristocracies work.

Naturally, European libertarianism rose up against this system, taking on anarchist ideals (the desire to throw of the state), and socialist ideals (the desire to throw off the aristocracy). These socialist ideals included the desire to throw off the system of private property. Before we panic, we need to understand what "private property" was at the time. When these European libertarians said "private property" they meant the tendency for the state to protect the politically and economically power at the express expense of the poor and powerless. "Private property" consisted of the use of statist power to protect the monarchies, oligarchies and aristocracies from the common man, as well as the use of statist power to directly deprive the common man of his own possessions. This the European libertarians/socialists opposed absolutely.

This is what Pierre Joseph Proudhon meant when he said that "Property is theft." He was specifically refering to "possessions protected (that is, seized for the rich) by the coercion of the state," having noted that the state couldn't care less about the possessions of the poor. However, Proudhon also said that "Property is freedom" in reference to personal possession, free of the use of statist coercion. Proudhon defended the individual's right to possession. He absolutely believed that people could only be free when they could be secure in their possession, free from the threat of the state, trading and working together within the structure of a free market. Because he was an anarchist, Proudhon rejected the authority of the state, considering it too great a threat to individual possession and the function of a free market. Proudhon was associated with the socialist movements of his time, however, in his own works he is very critical of Communism (statist socialism) and collectivism in general. I've read some of his anti-communism essays myself, and believe me he had nothing nice to say.

So, in order to understand what is meant by "libertarian socialism" one needs to understand where the ideology was coming from. The libertarian socialists opposed capitalism and private property, because, at the time that their ideology was born, what was often called "property" was really nothing more than aristocratic dictatorship.

The "classical liberals" that American libertarians claim as their historical base stood in opposition to the same aristocratic dictatorship, even if their positions were not nearly as extreme, prefering popular government that secured private property and liberty for all people equally. But, historical figures like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, even in their support of free markets and capitalism in general, were extremely wary of the large monied powers of their time, exactly because the large monied powers of their time also tended to be the large statist powers that enjoyed depriving people of their freedoms and liberties. Their distrust was centered mainly on centralized banks and corporations.

Personally, I think the "libertarian socialists" go way to far in their opposition to private property and capitalism. Indeed, I consider myself a capitalist, and I believe that, when properly applied, private property is a very powerful tool in securing individual liberty (I figure that when the communes are attacked by an external force, the socialists are going to band together in common defense of their possessions, essentially providing for themselves a system of private property anyway). On the other hand, I think modern American libertarians need to be very careful when they talk about "economic freedom." Considering the steady rise of the statist-right in the United States, as well as the increasing dependence of corporations (the large monied interests that some "classical liberals" warn us about) on the welfare and protection of the state, we may just end up defending the rise of another aristocratic dictatorship.

"Economic freedom" is not pro-business. It is pro-market and pro-individual

Seeing as I am more centrist than anything, I doubt that I am a Communist. Besides - the upper left corner is communism, and I (like the Libertine Left) occupy the lower left - not communism. As well, Upper right is more like communism, IMHO, than the Lower Left - in both situations, the lower classes grow, and there is very little rescources to spend on the common man.

Well, if we want to get really technical, the word "libertarian" has it's origins in philosophical/religous debates in regard to the concept of free will vs. determinism. A "libertarian" believes that determinism is false, and that people have real free will.
...
Holy crap, dude. Thanks for the history lesson. Apparently both branches of libertarianism share the same root. You really sound like a smart open-minded person, and show great patience and tact in your post. I don't know if you'll fit in around here. ;)

Anarchist have been disputing the STV for years. I don't have an objective theory of value, but I do have two theories:
- A gift economy, where workers are organized into syndicates, and goods are exchanged freely and efficiently. If a person or a syndicate doesn't want to take part in the economy, he/she/they are cut off.
I'm not sure why that's called a gift economy. Before I critique it, I'm going to need a more detailed description. It sounds ridiculous so far.

- The Labour Theory of Value, where all labour done is worth the same amount of money, regardless of who's doing it or what work it is. So the price of the commodity is determined by the price of the labour (and the price of raw materials). Prices cannot be artificially inflated, and the workers receive all the profits.
I'm familiar with this nonsense. Here's a scenario:
There are two chicken processing plants. They are exactly the same. They produce the same number of chickens and employ the same size workforce. The employees at each plant are not too terribly pleased with working conditions.

At plant A, complaints are largely ignored. At plant B, the managers are genuinely concerned and begin lookin for ways to improve the situtation. They come up with ways to streamline the process and petition the workers to pay for improvements. This is necessary since the workers get "all the profits" and there is never any money left for improvements. The workers go along with it, and within 6 months new equipment is in place and efficiency is improved, so much so that the same number of employees only have to work 6 hours per day instead of 9 as before to process the same number of chickens.

At first the employees at plant B continue getting the same wage as before, but plant A management finds out what they've done and files a formal complaint to whatever legal authority is responsible for enforcing the LTV. It is determined that plant B must charge %33 less for it's chickens, since labor is measured in hours, not chickens. Some plant B employees get second jobs to make up the wage difference. Once consumers are faced with 2 different prices for chicken, most of them opt the cheaper ones, until they run out, that is. Many consumers choose to wait for the cheaper chickens rather than pay now for the higher price ones. Now, some plant A chickens are going to waste and the workers are not getting paid the full amount of their labor and some begin working fewer hours or quit altogether. At the same time, plant B employees have gone back to 9 hours per day and are producing even more chickens.

At this point it's unlikely that strict enforcement of LTV would continue. It would result in plant A "going out of buisness."

Apparently both branches of libertarianism share the same root.

In fact, socialism and laissez-faire capitalism both developed on the political left in opposition to the aristocratic establishment. Think of the left-right spectrum looking something like this:

<--------Socialism-------Free Market Capitalism-------Aristocracy------->
|------------------------------Left--------------------------------|----------Right----------|

Once the aristocracy was thrown off, and capitalism became the dominant system, the spectrum shifted into the one we know today:

<---------------Socialism-----------------------------------Capitalism--------------->
|-------------------Left------------------------|--------------------Right--------------------|

Read this bit on the origins of the left-right spectrum at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics#Historical_origin_of_the_terms