Libertarianism

[Hal Jordan]

I'm starting this thread to open a dialogue on libertarianism. It means many things to many people, so let's start simply. Do you consider yourself a libertarian, and what does libertarian mean to you?

[Dr. Who]

I'm not, but I have some libertarian leanings. :grin: I'm not crazy about authoritarian government.

[Dr. Who]

Hal, can you describe the various forms of libertarianism for the membership? I think that people think that it is just one perspective.

[Hal Jordan]

Hal, can you describe the various forms of libertarianism for the membership? I think that people think that it is just one perspective.

While it's a bit late now, I would like to do this. It will take some time, and likely be a long post. I'll need to get some sleep before delving into this more fully. It can vary from complete anarchist to minarchist to (since I can't think of an actual term for it) "midarchist". These are all opposed to statist, or centralized control. As with most issues, there are many variations. There are those that are libertarian socialists, as well as those that are anarcho-capitalists. There is a vast realm of libertarianism. I hope to be able to fully explore all of these facets in this thread.

[Common]

Im not a libertarian, I believe the govts scope should be reduced but not decimated. I am not a fan of their social stances at all.

[Just AnotherPerson]

I have a thought as well. In the other thread you said the Kochs are not Libertarians. I was under the impression that they were. It is pretty common knowledge, even if you look on wikipedia it talks about it. Many people believe the Kochs are Libertarians or have leanings. So if they are not Libertarians, then have they hi-jacked the term, or are they just not Libertarians? If it is the case that they are not Libertarians, then I think the Libertarians should announce publicly that they are not associated with the Kochs, or Americans For Prosperity, and the Cato institute. Becasue if it is not made known, then they will continue to taint, and misrepresent what Libertarians might stand for.

[Hal Jordan]

Im not a libertarian, I believe the govts scope should be reduced but not decimated. I am not a fan of their social stances at all.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Lummy]

I oppose legalizing marijuana, "shrooms" and other drugs.

[Hal Jordan]

I have a thought as well. In the other thread you said the Kochs are not Libertarians. I was under the impression that they were. It is pretty common knowledge, even if you look on wikipedia it talks about it. Many people believe the Kochs are Libertarians or have leanings. So if they are not Libertarians, then have they hi-jacked the term, or are they just not Libertarians? If it is the case that they are not Libertarians, then I think the Libertarians should announce publicly that they are not associated with the Kochs, or Americans For Prosperity, and the Cato institute. Becasue if it is not made known, then they will continue to taint, and misrepresent what Libertarians might stand for.

While I want to answer this in detail, I'll give a brief answer now. They are looked at as libertarians because David H. Koch ran as the VP candidate in 1980. He since separated from the libertarians. While Charles helped found the Cato Institute (originally The Charles Koch Foundation), even they have separated. There were lawsuits in 2012 over it. The Cato Institute separated because they felt the Kochs were trying to turn them into an auxiliary of the GOP. Simply put, while the Kochs may have had libertarian leanings at one point, where are their donations really going now? Republicans.

[Hal Jordan]

I oppose legalizing marijuana, "shrooms" and other drugs.

Cool. Why?

[Lummy]

Impairment.

[Lummy]

That's about all Libertarians stand for that actually distinguishes them from other peeps, and it is not a winsome politic.

[Hal Jordan]

That's about all Libertarians stand for that actually distinguishes them from other peeps, and it is not a winsome politic.That's it? So, the other peeps want the federal government reduced majorly too? The Republicans and Democrats sure don't. Since they're the majority, how do the Republicans and Democrats stay in power?

Speaking to sector 2814 via the ring.

[Lummy]

That's it? So, the other peeps want the federal government reduced majorly too? The Republicans and Democrats sure don't. Since they're the majority, how do the Republicans and Democrats stay in power?

Perhaps they stay in power because they're the majority.

I don't identify with either party. What I'd like to see happen is repeal of federal laws starting with the latest first and going back to and including the National Firearms Act of 1934. Government reduction would follow. You can't just whack the Dept of Education in half, if there is going to be a functioning DOEd.


Speaking to sector 2814 via the ring.
What?

[Lummy]

What the hell does "sector 2814 via the ring" mean? Does that refer to one of those decoder toys in a cereal box?

[Chris]

Probably the first thing to clear up is the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Libertarian is a political party. A libertarian is one who holds to libertarian ideas. I once belonged to the Libertarian Party, when it was state-based, yes, it would have a convention to nominate a candidate for president, but it was organized at the state level. As such you heard more about state politics, Texas had a great newletter, and you weren't innundated for requestions for donations. When it went national, I dropped out.

Anyway, I consider myself a libertarian...sort of less lately, but still. And to be clear, I consider myself a libertarian anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or, better, a free-market anarchist. Ask me anything.

[Captdon]

I doubt I am a libertarian. I don't have a problem with government . I have a problem with how we use government. I think everything government needs to do should be done as locally as possible.

War is a federal job. Treaties and tariffs as well.

Major highways and protection of unincorporated area is state jobs.

Local police, welfare, subsidized housing or anything like that should be decided by city, town or county government

[Captdon]

Perhaps they stay in power because they're the majority.

I don't identify with either party. What I'd like to see happen is repeal of federal laws starting with the latest first and going back to and including the National Firearms Act of 1934. Government reduction would follow. You can't just whack the Dept of Education in half, if there is going to be a functioning DOEd.


What?

I don't think there should be a department of Education. That is a state responsibility. That's part of my beliefs.

[Chris]

I doubt I am a libertarian. I don't have a problem with government . I have a problem with how we use government. I think everything government needs to do should be done as locally as possible.

War is a federal job. Treaties and tariffs as well.

Major highways and protection of unincorporated area is state jobs.

Local police, welfare, subsidized housing or anything like that should be decided by city, town or county government


That bottom-up organization of society seems to me preferrable to the top-down, centrally planned government we now have.

In order to get people involved I would start at the level of the neighborhood, with those forming associations and sending representatives to the next level of town or section of a city, on up through county, state, federal.

[midcan5]

Been there done that....

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17057-Are-libertarians-individualists?p=380845&viewfull=1#post380845


And more stuff:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39512-The-Right-to-Ignore-the-State?p=964088&viewfull=1#post964088

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/27468-Still-Mine-A-Libertarian-Movie?p=656808&viewfull=1#post656808

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22479-Rise-of-the-Libertarians?p=518832&viewfull=1#post518832



"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson

[Mini Me]

I have a thought as well. In the other thread you said the Kochs are not Libertarians. I was under the impression that they were. It is pretty common knowledge, even if you look on wikipedia it talks about it. Many people believe the Kochs are Libertarians or have leanings. So if they are not Libertarians, then have they hi-jacked the term, or are they just not Libertarians? If it is the case that they are not Libertarians, then I think the Libertarians should announce publicly that they are not associated with the Kochs, or Americans For Prosperity, and the Cato institute. Becasue if it is not made known, then they will continue to taint, and misrepresent what Libertarians might stand for.
The Koch libertarian connection is real!
But the term's definition has been lost ages ago. No one really knows what it means anymore.
Very much like the term; FASCISM, who knows what it means any more? Both terms have become mere semantical arguments.

[Captdon]

YOU don't know the meanings. Some of us do!

[Mini Me]

Been there done that....

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17057-Are-libertarians-individualists?p=380845&viewfull=1#post380845


And more stuff:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/39512-The-Right-to-Ignore-the-State?p=964088&viewfull=1#post964088

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/27468-Still-Mine-A-Libertarian-Movie?p=656808&viewfull=1#post656808

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/22479-Rise-of-the-Libertarians?p=518832&viewfull=1#post518832



"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson
hahaha! Another one; Libertarians are Republicans who voted for Dubya TWICE and are too ashamed to admit it!

[Chris]

History. Libertarians are the inheritors of Lockean classical liberalism that arose out of the Enlightenment. They stood for individual liberty and limited government--the same principles, I might add, as found in the Declaration and Constitution. They called themselves liberals right up until FDR, avoiding the sullied term Progressive, hijacked the term liberal and thus was born modern, statist liberalism. People like Mencken and Nock were the first to switch then to the term libertarian. THis in itself was a sort of hijacking from anarchists in Europe who considered themselves libertarian as opposed to the statist Marxists.

[The Xl]

To me it means a fair playing field without the state picking winners and losers and without banks being able to legally manipulate currency. If people are to rise and others to fall, that's fine, but it should be done so by their own merits and not through theft and fraud, like what currently happens in our system currently, with the state picking the winners through currency manipulation, directly or indirectly subsidizing many different industries, setting up pay to play walls, among other things.

[Chris]

Fair opportunities will naturally result in unfair outcomes.

[Ethereal]

I used to consider myself a libertarian, but I've come to identify more as a classical liberal in recent times. The reason for this is because the libertarian movement tends to fixate too narrowly on the individual and privatization. It leaves very little room for group or cultural dynamics or basically anything outside of individualism and privatization. Not that libertarians necessarily eschew group and cultural dynamics, but they tend to give them very short shrift in terms of what they are willing to discuss and debate. The libertarian answer to most political questions is some variation of "individual liberty" or "privatize it". Not only does this tend towards oversimplification of a complex world, but it doesn't really resonant with common people, which helps to explain why the Libertarian party has struggled to succeed in electoral politics. By comparison, individualism and privacy are components of classical liberalism, but not the end-all-be-all of its ideological content. That makes it much broader and more willing to put things into a context. And I've found over the past few years, that context is indispensable in terms of meaningfully discussing political issues. So while I've retained a lot of what I learned from libertarian ideology, it no longer defines me in the same way it did before.

[Ethereal]

hahaha! Another one; Libertarians are Republicans who voted for Dubya TWICE and are too ashamed to admit it!

No, they aren't. This is silly.

[Ethereal]

"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson

Slavery goes against the basic principles of libertarian ideology. And many libertarians don't think police should even exist. But aside from that, Miss Robinson is right on the money... :rollseyes:

[Mini Me]

No, they aren't. This is silly.

Its just a joke!Jeez!

[Chris]

I used to consider myself a libertarian, but I've come to identify more as a classical liberal in recent times. The reason for this is because the libertarian movement tends to fixate too narrowly on the individual and privatization. It leaves very little room for group or cultural dynamics or basically anything outside of individualism and privatization. Not that libertarians necessarily eschew group and cultural dynamics, but they tend to give them very short shrift in terms of what they are willing to discuss and debate. The libertarian answer to most political questions is some variation of "individual liberty" or "privatize it". Not only does this tend towards oversimplification of a complex world, but it doesn't really resonant with common people, which helps to explain why the Libertarian party has struggled to succeed in electoral politics. By comparison, individualism and privacy are components of classical liberalism, but not the end-all-be-all of its ideological content. That makes it much broader and more willing to put things into a context. And I've found over the past few years, that context is indispensable in terms of meaningfully discussing political issues. So while I've retained a lot of what I learned from libertarian ideology, it no longer defines me in the same way it did before.


Is that really a problem with libertarianism or is it not actually individualism? The classical view of Adam Smith defined it as self-interest in social exchange, and that tradition is carried on in the Austrian School in Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Hoppe. That view got perverted by the likes of Ayn Rand who promoted selfishness, but she wasn't a libertarian. In fact, on the left, usually associated with collectivism, even Marx was an individualist, seeking through egalitarianism the perfection of the individual social man, which is what leads to the atomization of society and isolation of man dependent on the government. This is collectivism by design, not the organic collectism of premodern times. I agree with what you're saying, we've lost all sense of community for overemphasis, but not on libertarianism, on individualism left and right.

[Captdon]

Fair opportunities will naturally result in unfair outcomes.

Unequal isn't unfair.

[Don29palms]

Unequal isn't unfair.
Life is not fair and it never will be.

[Captain Obvious]

Every time I take one of those political leaning tests it pings libertarian hard.

I was registered a couple times with the libertarian party but I think my current party registration is "no party affiliation".

[Chris]

Unequal isn't unfair.


Life is not fair and it never will be.

Fair or free.

https://i.snag.gy/4DzhGu.jpg?nocache=1540088453497

[Green Arrow]

I followed libertarianism for a time, and got pretty deep into it. I donated to the Mises Institute. I voted for and campaigned for Ron Paul. I read Woods, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the rest. I supported Gary Johnson. I ultimately moved on from libertarianism because I found libertarians in my experience were too dogmatic and could not answer some very important questions that I had about the hypothetical libertarian utopia that were essential to me in being able to continue following libertarian philosophy. I'd argue I still have some libertarian tendencies however.

At any rate, libertarianism, if I were to oversimplify, is essentially the idea that government should be as limited as possible (though some would argue for the abolition of government altogether). How that comes about is ultimately up to which strain of libertarianism you follow. I would argue the foundational principle of libertarianism is what is known as the NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle (which I sum up as the "Do No Harm" commandment). Essentially, the NAP holds that aggression is inherently illegitimate and any action taken through a position of aggression against another person is invalid. Some libertarians consider taxes a violation of the NAP because government is acting from an inherently aggressive position, if you don't pay your taxes you will be fined or imprisoned.

I don't really consider myself a libertarian any more.

[Captain Obvious]

I followed libertarianism for a time, and got pretty deep into it. I donated to the Mises Institute. I voted for and campaigned for Ron Paul. I read Woods, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the rest. I supported Gary Johnson. I ultimately moved on from libertarianism because I found libertarians in my experience were too dogmatic and could not answer some very important questions that I had about the hypothetical libertarian utopia that were essential to me in being able to continue following libertarian philosophy. I'd argue I still have some libertarian tendencies however.

At any rate, libertarianism, if I were to oversimplify, is essentially the idea that government should be as limited as possible (though some would argue for the abolition of government altogether). How that comes about is ultimately up to which strain of libertarianism you follow. I would argue the foundational principle of libertarianism is what is known as the NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle (which I sum up as the "Do No Harm" commandment). Essentially, the NAP holds that aggression is inherently illegitimate and any action taken through a position of aggression against another person is invalid. Some libertarians consider taxes a violation of the NAP because government is acting from an inherently aggressive position, if you don't pay your taxes you will be fined or imprisoned.

I don't really consider myself a libertarian any more.
What do you consider yourself?

[Chris]

I followed libertarianism for a time, and got pretty deep into it. I donated to the Mises Institute. I voted for and campaigned for Ron Paul. I read Woods, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the rest. I supported Gary Johnson. I ultimately moved on from libertarianism because I found libertarians in my experience were too dogmatic and could not answer some very important questions that I had about the hypothetical libertarian utopia that were essential to me in being able to continue following libertarian philosophy. I'd argue I still have some libertarian tendencies however.

At any rate, libertarianism, if I were to oversimplify, is essentially the idea that government should be as limited as possible (though some would argue for the abolition of government altogether). How that comes about is ultimately up to which strain of libertarianism you follow. I would argue the foundational principle of libertarianism is what is known as the NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle (which I sum up as the "Do No Harm" commandment). Essentially, the NAP holds that aggression is inherently illegitimate and any action taken through a position of aggression against another person is invalid. Some libertarians consider taxes a violation of the NAP because government is acting from an inherently aggressive position, if you don't pay your taxes you will be fined or imprisoned.

I don't really consider myself a libertarian any more.

To me libertarian utopia is an oxymoron. If the means if liberty, the ends will be very messy and unsettled, cnstatly shifting, evolving as people discover what works for them. Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia ends in a pluralistic state like has been discussed on this forum where each community or group decides on their own form of government, I would prefer something close to anarchy whereas others might prefer a minarchy and yet other might prefer the statist form of government they now have.

[Green Arrow]

What do you consider yourself?

That's a good question.

[IMPress Polly]

I briefly flirted with Libertarian Party politics in 2003 when I was just starting college, but moved on very quickly, almost immediately finding the prevailing persuasions within that camp of thought to be one-sidedly pro-corporate in a way that I could not overlook.

As a broader thought trend, I sympathize with left wing libertarianism. I currently consider myself to be a communalist anarchist and a strong supporter of the anarchist-led government of Northern Syria to that end. I'm also very sympathetic to the Zapatistas who govern Chiapas, Mexico at present. However, I find left wing versions of libertarian thinking, which favor reorganizing society around the principle of voluntary cooperation (and often significant degrees of localism), to be the exception and not the rule of what one thinks of when they hear the term "libertarian". Usually when people (including me) hear that term, they think of a kind of pseudo-intellectual utopian idealism for rich people who fancy themselves geniuses. They think of Citigroup, the Cato Institute, affluent tax evaders, Objectivism (Ayn Rand's elitist worldview), gentrification (the practice of pricing poorer people out of major cities), seasteading, the private cryptocurrency city / tax haven recently established in Puerto Rico by American tech companies, and yes hypocrites like the billionaire Kochs who only really and truly care about their own wealth and rationalize that more accumulation thereof is somehow beneficial to all. Most working people, I think you will find, tend to roll their eyes at that stuff, myself included.

I'm also not that much of an individualist, even when it comes to cultural matters. Let's get real: I'm not a big fan of the sex industry and have struggled over whether marijuana should be fully legalized or just for medicinal purposes, and I think that a lot of our social liberalism/libertarianism is driven, in reality, by the want of new sources of tax revenue by neoliberal governments that have privatized large swaths of their economies and dramatically slashed taxes on wealthier people and business corporations in recent decades and resultantly find themselves facing a budgetary shortfalls. Such governments are not so concerned about the social effects of drug proliferation or incarceration policies and so forth as they are about offsetting the financial consequences of their own neoliberal, pro-corporate economic policies, and I tend to question that more than I think many other people do.

Put simply, I care too much about the common well-being to actually identify myself as a libertarian in any sense, personally, despite counting myself an anarchist. I believe that the general public should be trained in police work so that we can abolish the police as an institution. I believe that prisons don't rehabilitate people. I believe that democracy should be as absolute as possible; that people should be able to vote directly on most, if not all, public policies rather than being stuck doing so through likely bought-off "representatives", including at their place of work (and all who can should also work in my view). I also gravitate ideologically in the direction of open borders. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to all forms of social policing, if you will, especially when it comes to policing commerce. I don't like to see people get exploited just because "freedom". Freedom should mean freedom for the oppressed, not for their oppressors, IMO.

[kilgram]

I briefly flirted with Libertarian Party politics in 2003 when I was just starting college, but moved on very quickly, almost immediately finding the prevailing persuasions within that camp of thought to be one-sidedly pro-corporate in a way that I could not overlook.

As a broader thought trend, I sympathize with left wing libertarianism. I currently consider myself to be a communalist anarchist and a strong supporter of the anarchist-led government of Northern Syria to that end. I'm also very sympathetic to the Zapatistas who govern Chiapas, Mexico at present. However, I find left wing versions of libertarian thinking, which favor reorganizing society around the principle of voluntary cooperation (and often significant degrees of localism), to be the exception and not the rule of what one thinks of when they hear the term "libertarian". Usually when people (including me) hear that term, they think of a kind of pseudo-intellectual utopian idealism for rich people who fancy themselves geniuses. They think of Citigroup, the Cato Institute, affluent tax evaders, Objectivism (Ayn Rand's elitist worldview), gentrification (the practice of pricing poorer people out of major cities), seasteading, the private cryptocurrency city / tax haven recently established in Puerto Rico by American tech companies, and yes hypocrites like the billionaire Kochs who only really and truly care about their own wealth and rationalize that more accumulation thereof is somehow beneficial to all. Most working people, I think you will find, tend to roll their eyes at that stuff, myself included.

I'm also not that much of an individualist, even when it comes to cultural matters. Let's get real: I'm not a big fan of the sex industry and have struggled over whether marijuana should be fully legalized or just for medicinal purposes, and I think that a lot of our social liberalism/libertarianism is driven, in reality, by the want of new sources of tax revenue by neoliberal governments that have privatized large swaths of their economies and dramatically slashed taxes on wealthier people and business corporations in recent decades and resultantly find themselves facing a budgetary shortfalls. Such governments are not so concerned about the social effects of drug proliferation or incarceration policies and so forth as they are about offsetting the financial consequences of their own neoliberal, pro-corporate economic policies, and I tend to question that more than I think many other people do.

Put simply, I care too much about the common well-being to actually identify myself as a libertarian in any sense, personally, despite counting myself an anarchist. I believe that people should be trained in police work so that we can abolish the police as an institution. I believe that prisons don't rehabilitate people. I believe that democracy should be as absolute as possible; that people should be able to vote directly on most, if not all, public policies rather than being stuck doing so through likely bought-off "representatives", including at their place of work (and all who can should also work in my view). I gravitate ideologically in the direction of open borders. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to all forms of social policing, if you will, especially when it comes to policing commerce. I don't like to see people get exploited just because "freedom". Freedom should mean freedom for the oppressed, not for their oppressors, IMO.
It is the problem. Normally, until the 50s of past century, Libertarian was refered to the anarchists, it is, to the leftist anarchism, basically. In Spain, for example, the word has its original meaning, however it is starting to be infected with the American meaning, and we need to clarify it, unfortunately.

However, libertarian in American meaning, is just a fancy world to refer to the liberalism. As, also you reinvented the liberalism term (also, only meaning the opposite as it means in the rest of the world), liberals are somewhat the left, in USA.

Have you read any of the classical anarcho communsits like Kropotkin, Emma Goldman or Malatesta? I think that you would find them very interesting. And Emma Goldman as a feminist itself is a need to read.

[IMPress Polly]

It is the problem. Normally, until the 50s of past century, Libertarian was refered to the anarchists, it is, to the leftist anarchism, basically. In Spain, for example, the word has its original meaning, however it is starting to be infected with the American meaning, and we need to clarify it, unfortunately.

However, libertarian in American meaning, is just a fancy world to refer to the liberalism. As, also you reinvented the liberalism term (also, only meaning the opposite as it means in the rest of the world), liberals are somewhat the left, in USA.

Have you read any of the classical anarcho communsits like Kropotkin, Emma Goldman or Malatesta? I think that you would find them very interesting. And Emma Goldman as a feminist itself is a need to read.

Yeah, I'm certainly familiar with the classical anarchist thought leaders, including Bachunan, Kroptotkin, Goldman, Malatesta, as well as others like Tolstoy, Berkman, and so forth. Murray Bookchin is also worth reading, IMO.

[Captdon]

Fair or free.

https://i.snag.gy/4DzhGu.jpg?nocache=1540088453497

I'm not sure what you mean here. Unequal outcome is not unfair. Some people do things better than others.

[Captdon]

Put simply, I care too much about the common well-being to actually identify myself as a libertarian in any sense, personally, despite counting myself an anarchist. I believe that the general public should be trained in police work so that we can abolish the police as an institution. I believe that prisons don't rehabilitate people. I believe that democracy should be as absolute as possible; that people should be able to vote directly on most, if not all, public policies rather than being stuck doing so through likely bought-off "representatives", including at their place of work (and all who can should also work in my view). I also gravitate ideologically in the direction of open borders. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to all forms of social policing, if you will, especially when it comes to policing commerce. I don't like to see people get exploited just because "freedom". Freedom should mean freedom for the oppressed, not for their oppressors, IMO.

I didn't agree with the first part completely. This part is close to what I believe. It is still not libertarian. It's minimalism. What I take issue with is the social or policing issue. Local preferences do matter. Anything else is anarchy. I don't see oppressors in my view.

[Chris]

I see the old canard libertarians are pro-corporate has arisen again. This was dealt with in the previous libertarian thread. It might be said Republicans are pro-business but that doesn't distinguish them from Democrats who are also pro-business--libertarians are pro-market. Here is Goldberg (https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/04/pro-business-or-pro-market-jonah-goldberg/) again:


Just to clarify, the difference between being pro-business and pro-market is categorical. A politician who is a “friend of business” is exactly that, a guy who does favors for his friends. A politician who is pro-market is a referee who will refuse to help protect his friends (or anyone else) from competition unless the competitors have broken the rules. The friend of business supports industry-specific or even business-specific loans, grants, tariffs, or tax breaks. The pro-market referee opposes special treatment for anyone.

Interestingly enough, left libertarians are pro-market as well. The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/11/the-distinctiveness-of-left-libertarianism/): "embracing freed markets and a social ideal of peaceful, voluntary cooperation." What is Left-Libertarianism? (http://thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-left-libertarianism): "Like broad libertarianism and right-libertarianism, left-libertarians emphasize the liberty of the individual. Free markets, freedom of contract/association, nonaggression, and nonintervention in foreign conflicts are the philosophical pillars broadly shared among libertarianism’s various offshoots." (I cite them because I see myselft as a right libertarian.)

[Chris]

It is the problem. Normally, until the 50s of past century, Libertarian was refered to the anarchists, it is, to the leftist anarchism, basically. In Spain, for example, the word has its original meaning, however it is starting to be infected with the American meaning, and we need to clarify it, unfortunately.

However, libertarian in American meaning, is just a fancy world to refer to the liberalism. As, also you reinvented the liberalism term (also, only meaning the opposite as it means in the rest of the world), liberals are somewhat the left, in USA.

Have you read any of the classical anarcho communsits like Kropotkin, Emma Goldman or Malatesta? I think that you would find them very interesting. And Emma Goldman as a feminist itself is a need to read.


Yes, I mentioned that earlier, that the term libertarian was borrowed in the 1940s from European anarchism. It there referred to those anarchists who did not seek a violent overthrow of the government, as opposed to the Marxist/Leninists who did.

And, yes,as I posted earlier, when FDR, leary of the spoiled progressive term, latched on to liberalism, those classical liberals who opposed FDR's brand of central planning, took up the name libertarian.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Yes, I mentioned that earlier, that the term libertarian was borrowed in the 1940s from European anarchism. It there referred to those anarchists who did not seek a violent overthrow of the government, as opposed to the Marist/Lenists who did.

Who were Mar and Lenis? :wink:

[Chris]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Unequal outcome is not unfair. Some people do things better than others.

That's what I mean. But the left sees it as unfair and would use the government to coerce equal outcomes...by unfree, unequal means.

[Chris]

Who were Mar and Lenis? :wink:

Typo, Marxist/Leninists. Thank you.

[IMPress Polly]

Typo, Marxist/Leninists. Thank you.

I know, I was just having fun with ya! :grin:

[Chris]

As long as anarchy is raised, let me distinguish libertarian anarchists from other anarchists. Libertarian anarchists, right and left, are against the state, not the market, not the existing, traditional, hierarchical social order. Other anarchists are against the market and the social order, against heirarchy in any frm including family. Hayek distinguished the two as the Scottish/British/American tradition of liberalism that sought to change the government we had prior to the Enlightenment, and the French tradition which seeks to change the society we have..

[IMPress Polly]

For me, anarchism is about opposing hierarchical social structures and therefore has to include a collectivization of the economy, including in both the principles of ownership and practical management. It also has to include a lot of direct democracy in the more directly political arena.

[Captain Obvious]

Everyone has their own definition of this stuff which is why I dont get too caught up in it.

[Chris]

Everyone has their own definition of this stuff which is why I dont get too caught up in it.

Much of the differences are between how non-libertarians and libertarians define libertarianism.

[The Xl]

I briefly flirted with Libertarian Party politics in 2003 when I was just starting college, but moved on very quickly, almost immediately finding the prevailing persuasions within that camp of thought to be one-sidedly pro-corporate in a way that I could not overlook.

As a broader thought trend, I sympathize with left wing libertarianism. I currently consider myself to be a communalist anarchist and a strong supporter of the anarchist-led government of Northern Syria to that end. I'm also very sympathetic to the Zapatistas who govern Chiapas, Mexico at present. However, I find left wing versions of libertarian thinking, which favor reorganizing society around the principle of voluntary cooperation (and often significant degrees of localism), to be the exception and not the rule of what one thinks of when they hear the term "libertarian". Usually when people (including me) hear that term, they think of a kind of pseudo-intellectual utopian idealism for rich people who fancy themselves geniuses. They think of Citigroup, the Cato Institute, affluent tax evaders, Objectivism (Ayn Rand's elitist worldview), gentrification (the practice of pricing poorer people out of major cities), seasteading, the private cryptocurrency city / tax haven recently established in Puerto Rico by American tech companies, and yes hypocrites like the billionaire Kochs who only really and truly care about their own wealth and rationalize that more accumulation thereof is somehow beneficial to all. Most working people, I think you will find, tend to roll their eyes at that stuff, myself included.

I'm also not that much of an individualist, even when it comes to cultural matters. Let's get real: I'm not a big fan of the sex industry and have struggled over whether marijuana should be fully legalized or just for medicinal purposes, and I think that a lot of our social liberalism/libertarianism is driven, in reality, by the want of new sources of tax revenue by neoliberal governments that have privatized large swaths of their economies and dramatically slashed taxes on wealthier people and business corporations in recent decades and resultantly find themselves facing a budgetary shortfalls. Such governments are not so concerned about the social effects of drug proliferation or incarceration policies and so forth as they are about offsetting the financial consequences of their own neoliberal, pro-corporate economic policies, and I tend to question that more than I think many other people do.

Put simply, I care too much about the common well-being to actually identify myself as a libertarian in any sense, personally, despite counting myself an anarchist. I believe that the general public should be trained in police work so that we can abolish the police as an institution. I believe that prisons don't rehabilitate people. I believe that democracy should be as absolute as possible; that people should be able to vote directly on most, if not all, public policies rather than being stuck doing so through likely bought-off "representatives", including at their place of work (and all who can should also work in my view). I also gravitate ideologically in the direction of open borders. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to all forms of social policing, if you will, especially when it comes to policing commerce. I don't like to see people get exploited just because "freedom". Freedom should mean freedom for the oppressed, not for their oppressors, IMO.
Communism simply can't work because everyone can't be equal. The enforcing body of the system will always call the shots and always oppress. No system of communism has ever worked as brainstormed by the intellectuals that supported it on paper.

[Chris]

Granted, there are differences among libertarians. Between minarchists and anarchists. Left and right libertarians. Among deontologists (or natural rights libertarians) from Locke to Hoppe, consequentialists like David D. Friedman, contractarians like Nolan, and Propertarians like Curt Doolittle. Between those at the Cato Institute, those at Reason, those elsewhere.

If you delve into libertarianism you will find libertarians arguing with libertarians all over the place, unlike you see under other ideologies and nothing like you see in the two major parties.

But they all fall under the idea of individual and individual liberty in society, and anti-statism.

[The Xl]

Everyone has their own definition of this stuff which is why I dont get too caught up in it.

Raisins.

[Chris]

Communism simply can't work because everyone can't be equal. The enforcing body of the system will always call the shots and always oppress. No system of communism has ever worked as brainstormed by the intellectuals that supported it on paper.

Exactly. As the socialist economist Robert L. Heilbroner wrote in What Is Socialism? (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1433884078summer78heilbroner.pdf): "If tradition cannot, and the market system should not, underpin the socialist order, we are left with some form of command as the necessary means for securing its continuance and adaptation. Indeed, that is what planning means. Command by planning need not, of course, be totalitarian. But an aspect of authoritarianism resides inextricably in all planning systems. A plan is meaningless if it is not carried out, or if it can be ignored or defied at will. Some form of penalty must assure the necessary degree of compliance. Compliance need not be total, and penalties need not be Draconian. Incentives may succeed where punishments fail. But planning will not assure a socialist society of a capacity to endure or adapt unless the planning is a system of effective command. From that conclusion I see no escape."

Libertarianism is directly opposed to command authoritarianism.

[The Xl]

Exactly. As the socialist economist Robert L. Heilbroner wrote in What Is Socialism? (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1433884078summer78heilbroner.pdf): "If tradition cannot, and the market system should not, underpin the socialist order, we are left with some form of command as the necessary means for securing its continuance and adaptation. Indeed, that is what planning means. Command by planning need not, of course, be totalitarian. But an aspect of authoritarianism resides inextricably in all planning systems. A plan is meaningless if it is not carried out, or if it can be ignored or defied at will. Some form of penalty must assure the necessary degree of compliance. Compliance need not be total, and penalties need not be Draconian. Incentives may succeed where punishments fail. But planning will not assure a socialist society of a capacity to endure or adapt unless the planning is a system of effective command. From that conclusion I see no escape."

Libertarianism is directly opposed to command authoritarianism.

I don't necessarily agree that socialism can't work, it works on some level in Europe, it would probably work a lot better in a global economic market where bankers weren't manipulating currency and setting interest on paper money. Communism is completely unworkable though.

[Chris]

I don't necessarily agree that socialism can't work, it works on some level in Europe, it would probably work a lot better in a global economic market where bankers weren't manipulating currency and setting interest on paper money. Communism is completely unworkable though.

According to Marxism, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat aimed at ushering in the new age of communism.

Works on some level in Europe? Where? The Nordic nations, whose wealth is based in capitalism, experimented with social programs for a time in the 90s, but are reversing themselves in the last decades.

Socialism can work for small groups, no doubt, but just not as a large-scale economic system. The people of Venezuela are starving.

Banks manipulate money and interest at the behest of governments and do much to interfere in the market free or otherwise. Reduce the power of the state and where would banks get their power?

[The Xl]

According to Marxism, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat aimed at ushering in the new age of communism.

Works on some level in Europe? Where? The Nordic nations, whose wealth is based in capitalism, experimented with social programs for a time in the 90s, but are reversing themselves in the last decades.

Socialism can work for small groups, no doubt, but just not as a large-scale economic system. The people of Venezuela are starving.

Banks manipulate money and interest at the behest of governments and do much to interfere in the market free or otherwise. Reduce the power of the state and where would banks get their power?

Banks manipulate money for themselves. Government officials would be better served in a different system but they don't hold the power. I do agree though that socialism can be a gateway for communism

[Chris]

Banks manipulate money for themselves. Government officials would be better served in a different system but they don't hold the power. I do agree though that socialism can be a gateway for communism

But wasn't that manipulation made possible by governments abandoning the gold standard and adopting fiat money? The Fed works for the federal government manipulating interest rates to try and flatten the natural business cycle, only making the highs and lows more extreme.

[IMPress Polly]

Communism simply can't work because everyone can't be equal. The enforcing body of the system will always call the shots and always oppress. No system of communism has ever worked as brainstormed by the intellectuals that supported it on paper.

When people think of "communism", they invariably think of something different from what I have ever meant by that term. They're thinking of the Soviet Union and stuff like that. Communism is an idea that refers not to a police state, but to common ownership of all property. Marxists have often viewed "proletarian" police states as an effective way of transitioning from here to that goal and of course have become corrupted by their chosen means. I do not believe in "proletarian" police states anymore. Hence why I count myself an anarchist, not a Marxist, these days.

It may also be worth pointing out that communalism (what I support) and communism aren't necessarily synonymous. The two things are compatible, but not necessarily one and the same thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism) It can't be said that I'm truly decided on whether the term "communism" is the best descriptor of where I stand at present, as I'm kind of open to the indefinite existence of some privately-owned institutions here and there so long as they don't operate on a for-profit basis.

[Captain Obvious]

I dig when everyone argues textbook concepts

[Chris]

When people think of "communism", they invariably think of something different from what I have ever meant by that term. They're thinking of the Soviet Union and stuff like that. Communism is an idea that refers not to a police state, but to common ownership of all property. Marxists have often viewed "proletarian" police states as an effective way of transitioning from here to that goal and of course have become corrupted by their chosen means. I do not believe in "proletarian" police states anymore. Hence why I count myself an anarchist, not a Marxist, these days.

It may also be worth pointing out that communalism (what I support) and communism aren't necessarily synonymous. The two things are compatible, but not necessarily one and the same thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism) It can't be said that I'm truly decided on whether the term "communism" is the best descriptor of where I stand at present, as I'm kind of open to the indefinite existence of some privately-owned institutions here and there so long as they don't operate on a for-profit basis.


But "common ownership of all property" is what demands inevitable a command economy as Heilbroner explains (see post #58 above).

Also, you're really arguing what all socialists argue, true, socialism has always failed, but true socialism hasn't been tried yet, not socialism true to my ideals.

[Chris]

I dig when everyone argues textbook concepts

Where do you see that?

[IMPress Polly]

But "common ownership of all property" is what demands inevitable a command economy as Heilbroner explains (see post #58 above).

Also, you're really arguing what all socialists argue, true, socialism has always failed, but true socialism hasn't been tried yet, not socialism true to my ideals.

I fully support what right wing economists demeaningly call a "command economy" in the sense that I favor economies to be locally-based and broadly planned democratically by their constituents as a whole. But then I also support no-growth economics.

Communities that operate on the basis of these principles already exist in the world right now in a number of different countries.

[The Xl]

But wasn't that manipulation made possible by governments abandoning the gold standard and adopting fiat money? The Fed works for the federal government manipulating interest rates to try and flatten the natural business cycle, only making the highs and lows more extreme.

Government created the Fed and the income tax because they got paid off by the global banking cartel. The state eventually got off the gold standard because their weren't enough gold reserves to back the massively and increasingly over leveraged currency.

[The Xl]

When people think of "communism", they invariably think of something different from what I have ever meant by that term. They're thinking of the Soviet Union and stuff like that. Communism is an idea that refers not to a police state, but to common ownership of all property. Marxists have often viewed "proletarian" police states as an effective way of transitioning from here to that goal and of course have become corrupted by their chosen means. I do not believe in "proletarian" police states anymore. Hence why I count myself an anarchist, not a Marxist, these days.

It may also be worth pointing out that communalism (what I support) and communism aren't necessarily synonymous. The two things are compatible, but not necessarily one and the same thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism) It can't be said that I'm truly decided on whether the term "communism" is the best descriptor of where I stand at present, as I'm kind of open to the indefinite existence of some privately-owned institutions here and there so long as they don't operate on a for-profit basis.

I think you what you support would be better off as being rebranded under a current name. Anything with the name communism in it is going to scare most people off.

[Chris]

Government created the Fed and the income tax because they got paid off by the global banking cartel. The state eventually got off the gold standard because their weren't enough gold reserves to back the massively and increasingly over leveraged currency.

Because the government sold the people out. It's what governments tend to do. Power corrupts.

But we agree, banks with that much power are no better than governments with that much power.

[Chris]

I fully support what right wing economists demeaningly call a "command economy" in the sense that I favor economies to be locally-based and broadly planned democratically by their constituents as a whole. But then I also support no-growth economics.

Communities that operate on the basis of these principles already exist in the world right now in a number of different countries.

Heilbroner is a socialist, Polly, not a right-wing economist.


I favor economies to be locally-based and broadly planned democratically

We agree on locally=based. We differ on broadly planned, which is just another way of say central planning.


What communities? I know of Marinaleda, Spain, a communist community, run dictatorially by the mayor.

[IMPress Polly]

Heilbroner is a socialist, Polly, not a right-wing economist.

Oh. Well I'm used to seeing the term in economics textbooks that are obviously hawking capitalistic economic philosophies and deriding alternatives.


We agree on locally=based. We differ on broadly planned, which is just another way of say central planning.


What communities? I know of Marinaleda, Spain, a communist community, run dictatorially by the mayor.

There are also many such communes run along the lines of anarchist principles in Northern Syria, in Chiapas, Mexico, and, as memory serves, there is also a notable one in Israel. There are also examples in Venezuela that exist largely separate from the main, oil-driven national economy that's in a state of crisis at present. And there are also less democratic examples run by old-school Maoists in China that work pretty well in terms of their economic practicality and guarantees of economic security to local citizens. And there are others too.

[Chris]

Oh. Well I'm used to seeing the term in economics textbooks that are obviously hawking capitalistic economic philosophies and deriding alternatives.



There are also many such communes run along the lines of anarchist principles in Northern Syria, in Chiapas, Mexico, and, as memory serves, there is also a notable one in Israel. There are also examples in Venezuela that exist largely separate from the main, oil-driven national economy that's in a state of crisis at present. And there are also less democratic examples run by old-school Maoists in China that work pretty well in terms of their economic practicality and guarantees of economic security to local citizens. And there are others too.

Perhaps textbooks adopt language others use. Personally I've never seen it called a command economy before I read that social economist. From Hayek on in the 1940 the more common term is central planning.


For Northern Syria I see in searching it out something called liberatrian socialism, something of an oxymoron. Abdullah Öcalan drew on Murray Bookchin's democratic confederalism which is opposed to central planning. What I've read of Rojava I find more libertarian than socialist. I think weve discussed that agreeably before.

The rest is somehwat too vague to find information on.

As I said earlier, one of Nozick's ideas, from Anarchy, State, and Utopia, was a pluralistic organiztion of different groups each with their own local form of government. That seems to me to be what Rojava is like, given different nationalities and ethnicities all working together.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
For Northern Syria I see in searching it out something called liberatrian socialism, something of an oxymoron. Abdullah Öcalan drew on Murray Bookchin's democratic confederalism which is opposed to central planning. What I've read of Rojava I find more libertarian than socialist. I think weve discussed that agreeably before.

Northern Syria is currently a mixed economy that is in the process of gradually transitioning to a socialist form of organization based loosely on Bookchin's communalist principles, from whence Ocalan's concept of democratic confederalism is derived, much as they are similarly in a process of gradually transitioning out of traditional courts and police forces and other hierarchical legal structures. There are a number of communes within Northern Syria that are at an advanced stage of this transition and more are coming about over time. Eventually all of Northern Syria will be reorganized in that sort of way should the current trajectory be allowed to continue as planned.

[Chris]

Northern Syria is currently a mixed economy that is in the process of gradually transitioning to a socialist form of organization based loosely on Bookchin's communalist principles, from whence Ocalan's concept of democratic confederalism is derived, much as they are similarly in a process of gradually transitioning out of traditional courts and police forces and other hierarchical legal structures. There are a number of communes within Northern Syria that are at an advanced stage of this transition and more are coming about over time. Eventually all of Northern Syria will be reorganized in that sort of way should the current trajectory be allowed to continue as planned.

What I've read about Rojava is it's not in transition to a socialist economy.

I see criticism of capitalism but no explanation what economic system would replace it. Bookchin's communalism is synonymous with libertarian socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#The_Enlightenment) and for it I find this confusing mishmash:


Left-wing market anarchism

Left-wing market anarchism, a form of left-libertarianism, individualist anarchism[286] and libertarian socialism[35][287] is associated with scholars such as Kevin Carson,[288][289] Roderick T. Long,[290][291] Charles Johnson,[292] Brad Spangler,[293] Samuel Edward Konkin III,[294] Sheldon Richman,[295][296][297] Chris Matthew Sciabarra[298] and Gary Chartier,[299] who stress the value of radically free markets, termed "freed markets" to distinguish them from the common conception which these libertarians believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges.[300] Referred to as left-wing market anarchists[301] or market-oriented left-libertarians,[297] proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support anti-capitalist,[302][303] anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly liberal or radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race.

The genealogy of contemporary market-oriented left-libertarianism—sometimes labeled "left-wing market anarchism"[304]—overlaps to a significant degree with that of Steiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the book The Origins of Left-Libertarianism.[305] Carson–Long-style left-libertarianism is rooted in 19th century mutualism and in the work of figures such as Thomas Hodgskin and the individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. While with notable exceptions market-oriented libertarians after Tucker tended to ally with the political right, relationships between such libertarians and the New Left thrived in the 1960s, laying the groundwork for modern left-wing market anarchism.[306] Left-wing market anarchism identifies with left libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism)[307] which names several related yet distinct approaches to politics, society, culture and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[308][309] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold and trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[309] Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under the condition that recompense is offered to the local community.

I agree with "the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support anti-capitalist,[302][303] anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy...." That's libertarianism.

I suppose the socialist or communal aspect is found in "Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[308][309] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold and trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively."

The two seem contradictory. Self-ownership and free markets is one thing. Collective ownership another, and is what leads to the need for command-driven central planning.


We don't need to argue which system is better in a thread dedicated to defining libertarianism, just establish what is libertarianism as opposed to what is socialism.

[Captdon]

I don't necessarily agree that socialism can't work, it works on some level in Europe, it would probably work a lot better in a global economic market where bankers weren't manipulating currency and setting interest on paper money. Communism is completely unworkable though.

Socialism that "works" in any fashion has a captalistic base. Socialism isn't going to produce much new. It isn't going to expand the economy.

[Captdon]

But wasn't that manipulation made possible by governments abandoning the gold standard and adopting fiat money? The Fed works for the federal government manipulating interest rates to try and flatten the natural business cycle, only making the highs and lows more extreme.

There isn't enough money in the world to support the world economy. It wouldn't support our economy.

[Common Sense]

Socialism that "works" in any fashion has a captalistic base. Socialism isn't going to produce much new. It isn't going to expand the economy.

Most successful capitalist countries have socialist elements. Public education, subsidized healthcare systems, parks, libraries, public infrastructure like highways and bridges, social safety net, etc...

[Chris]

Most successful capitalist countries have socialist elements. Public education, subsidized healthcare systems, parks, libraries, public infrastructure like highways and bridges, social safety net, etc...

Those aren't socialist. None of them are.

[kilgram]

Communism simply can't work because everyone can't be equal. The enforcing body of the system will always call the shots and always oppress. No system of communism has ever worked as brainstormed by the intellectuals that supported it on paper.
It is misunderstanding of communism. Not everybody is equal. Basically communism removes the hierarchy, in that sense, everybody has the same opportunities.

Free market can't work because it is based in two opposites, it is based in the competition, and in any competition only one can win. An old representation of what is capitalism is the Monopoly, and you know how it works the game.

[kilgram]

According to Marxism, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat aimed at ushering in the new age of communism.

Works on some level in Europe? Where? The Nordic nations, whose wealth is based in capitalism, experimented with social programs for a time in the 90s, but are reversing themselves in the last decades.

Socialism can work for small groups, no doubt, but just not as a large-scale economic system. The people of Venezuela are starving.

Banks manipulate money and interest at the behest of governments and do much to interfere in the market free or otherwise. Reduce the power of the state and where would banks get their power?

I remember you that any state is a dictatorship in the words of Marx. Marx considered that to oppose the capitalist States or dictatorships was necessary to create a state controlled by the workers instead of the capitalists. But it could be as democratic as the liberaldemocracies.

[Don29palms]

It is misunderstanding of communism. Not everybody is equal. Basically communism removes the hierarchy, in that sense, everybody has the same opportunities.

Free market can't work because it is based in two opposites, it is based in the competition, and in any competition only one can win. An old representation of what is capitalism is the Monopoly, and you know how it works the game.

This is a joke right?

[kilgram]

According to Marxism, socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat aimed at ushering in the new age of communism.

Works on some level in Europe? Where? The Nordic nations, whose wealth is based in capitalism, experimented with social programs for a time in the 90s, but are reversing themselves in the last decades.

Socialism can work for small groups, no doubt, but just not as a large-scale economic system. The people of Venezuela are starving.

Banks manipulate money and interest at the behest of governments and do much to interfere in the market free or otherwise. Reduce the power of the state and where would banks get their power?

As the people of Mexico, Colombia,... the problem is not the socialism inVenezuela.

[kilgram]

This is a joke right?

No, it is not. The joke is the capitalism

[Don29palms]

No, it is not. The joke is the capitalism

Where country do you live in? It's obviously not the USA.

[Captain Obvious]

Where country do you live in? It's obviously not the USA.
Whoosh...

Maybe step up and discuss on his level instead of meaningless one-liners.

...if you're capable.

[kilgram]

Because the government sold the people out. It's what governments tend to do. Power corrupts.

But we agree, banks with that much power are no better than governments with that much power.
Perfect, something that we agree, power corrupts. Therefore, without state, keeping those powerful structures like private corporations what do you think would happen?

[kilgram]

Where country do you live in? It's obviously not the USA.
I am not American, if you ask. No, I live in Europe. I actually live in Spain.

[Ethereal]

Communism is an idea that refers not to a police state, but to common ownership of all property.

Earlier you mentioned the collectivization of the economy. That is quite a bit different than common property. Collective ownership is pretty nebulous, insofar as collectives, being abstractions, cannot actually own anything. In essence, collective ownership is based on the exact same principle as corporate personhood. That is different from common ownership, where individuals do not own the property in question, but possess an individualized right to access their equal share of the common property. That is a very important difference.

And do you really mean the common ownership of ALL property? For example, if I work my equal share of the land and produce a crop, then why should others share in the ownership of my crop when they didn't do any work? Don't I have a right of property in my own labor and and in the product of my labor? And if I don't have that right, then what personal incentive do I have to work hard or to innovate, knowing that those who did not work as hard or as creatively will receive the same reward as me?

[Don29palms]

I am not American, if you ask. No, I live in Europe. I actually live in Spain.
Perfect. So basically anything you say about the USA doesn't matter anyway. Your opinion about the USA is worthless as tits on a bore hog.

[Ethereal]

Northern Syria is currently a mixed economy that is in the process of gradually transitioning to a socialist form of organization based loosely on Bookchin's communalist principles, from whence Ocalan's concept of democratic confederalism is derived, much as they are similarly in a process of gradually transitioning out of traditional courts and police forces and other hierarchical legal structures. There are a number of communes within Northern Syria that are at an advanced stage of this transition and more are coming about over time. Eventually all of Northern Syria will be reorganized in that sort of way should the current trajectory be allowed to continue as planned.
Except Northern Syria is not a monolithic entity with a single economy. It is a confederation with multiple economies, each with their own localized political system. That's the entire point of democratic confederalism. You cannot have one (democracy) without the other (confederalism). Probably, each locality will socialize certain aspects of their economies to varying degrees, but that should not be interpreted as a unified political or economic entity being organized comprehensively around socialist ideology.

[Captain Obvious]

Perfect. So basically anything you say about the USA doesn't matter anyway. Your opinion about the USA is worthless as tits on a bore hog.

Or worse - as worthless as yours.

[Green Arrow]

Those aren't socialist. None of them are.

They are as he said they are. Capitalist economies with socialist protections.

[Ethereal]

Perfect, something that we agree, power corrupts. Therefore, without state, keeping those powerful structures like private corporations what do you think would happen?
The biggest reason corporations become so powerful in the first place is because they co-opt the powers of the state.

[Captain Obvious]

The biggest reason corporations become so powerful in the first place is because they co-opt the powers of the state.

Agreed and though it contradicts textbook theory our class system structure isn't all that far apart except for the (dwindling in our case) middle class.

[Green Arrow]

Earlier you mentioned the collectivization of the economy. That is quite a bit different than common property. Collective ownership is pretty nebulous, insofar as collectives, being abstractions, cannot actually own anything. In essence, collective ownership is based on the exact same principle as corporate personhood. That is different from common ownership, where individuals do not own the property in question, but possess an individualized right to access their equal share of the common property. That is a very important difference.

And do you really mean the common ownership of ALL property? For example, if I work my equal share of the land and produce a crop, then why should others share in the ownership of my crop when they didn't do any work? Don't I have a right of property in my own labor and and in the product of my labor? And if I don't have that right, then what personal incentive do I have to work hard or to innovate, knowing that those who did not work as hard or as creatively will receive the same reward as me?

I wouldn't look at it as they share in the ownership of the crop when they did no work. They still did work (if the community was run properly IMO), just not the specific farming that you did. Take the case of the electrician as an example. You did not do the electrical work, but you still benefit from his labor. Likewise, he did not do the farming but he still benefits from your labor. It's really not that different from the capitalist system, you just replace the buying and selling of goods and services for money with the trading of labor. He labors on the electrical work of the community and shares in the harvest. You labor on the harvest and share in the electrical infrastructure.

[Green Arrow]

Perfect. So basically anything you say about the USA doesn't matter anyway. Your opinion about the USA is worthless as tits on a bore hog.

You're new here, so let me explain how this forum works. This is not an American-exclusive forum. The owner of the forum who pays all the bills welcomes all members regardless of their citizenship.

[Green Arrow]

The biggest reason corporations become so powerful in the first place is because they co-opt the powers of the state.

Not going for a gotcha here, legitimately curious - what about cases where corporations created "worker villages" wherein they were basically allowed to be monopolies in that village?

[Captain Obvious]

You're new here, so let me explain how this forum works. This is not an American-exclusive forum. The owner of the forum who pays all the bills welcomes all members regardless of their citizenship.

You're kinder than me, but that really doesn't say much.

:biglaugh:

[Green Arrow]

Ethereal - nevermind, answered my own question. In those respects they essentially operated as the local government (mayor/city council) of the worker villages, which would still be using the power of the state as you said.

[Ethereal]

I wouldn't look at it as they share in the ownership of the crop when they did no work. They still did work (if the community was run properly IMO), just not the specific farming that you did. Take the case of the electrician as an example. You did not do the electrical work, but you still benefit from his labor. Likewise, he did not do the farming but he still benefits from your labor. It's really not that different from the capitalist system, you just replace the buying and selling of goods and services for money with the trading of labor. He labors on the electrical work of the community and shares in the harvest. You labor on the harvest and share in the electrical infrastructure.

Buying and selling with money is not unique to capitalism though. The use of money to facilitate trade is at least 2,600 years old [1].

Anyway, the kind of system you describe could work, but only on a very localized scale among people who knew and trusted one another. For any trade to occur with outsiders, there would need to be a common medium of exchange like gold or silver.

But this goes back to the emphasis on localism via decentralization. That is the common thread that ties all these seemingly disparate viewpoints together.

[1] (The Atlantic) The Myth of the Barter Economy: LINK (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/)

[Dr. Who]

Perfect. So basically anything you say about the USA doesn't matter anyway. Your opinion about the USA is worthless as tits on a bore hog.
Since you are relatively new to the forum, please note that when a thread is tPF, it means that members are required to participate in a civilized fashion or the thread starter can have you thread banned, which means zero tolerance for insults. Secondly, international members are as welcome as anyone else at the Political Forums. Thirdly, the topic is libertarianism which is a political philosophy and not exclusively American.

[Captain Obvious]

Since you are relatively new to the forum, please note that when a thread is designated tPF, it means that members are required to participate in a civilized fashion, which means zero tolerance for insults. Secondly, international members are as welcome as anyone else at the Political Forums. Thirdly, the topic is libertarianism which a political philosophy and not exclusively American.

That's what that means?

...huh

[Ethereal]

Not going for a gotcha here, legitimately curious - what about cases where corporations created "worker villages" wherein they were basically allowed to be monopolies in that village?

Such villages (generally referred to as company towns) cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger statist context in which they existed. Probably one of the most noteworthy examples of this was Pullman in Illinois. It was a town created by a railroad corporation for the primary purpose of housing its laborers. The problem is that the railroad industry during that time was massively subsidized and protected by the US government. Howard Zinn speaks to this in A People's History. Incidentally, when the workers at Pullman organized a strike, the US government sent the military in to suppress the strike under the authority of the Sherman antitrust act. Thirty workers were killed in the ensuing violence.

[Green Arrow]

Buying and selling with money is not unique to capitalism though. The use of money to facilitate trade is at least 2,600 years old [1].
That wasn't my intention to suggest, I apologize if I wasn't clear. I just meant it is a feature of capitalism that, while not unique to it, isn't particularly necessary in a socialist system.

Anyway, the kind of system you describe could work, but only on a very localized scale among people who knew and trusted one another. For any trade to occur with outsiders, there would need to be a common medium of exchange like gold or silver.

But this goes back to the emphasis on localism via decentralization. That is the common thread that ties all these seemingly disparate viewpoints together.

[1] (The Atlantic) The Myth of the Barter Economy: LINK (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/)

I don't disagree. That's why I tried to emphasize the community connection, I don't think it can happen on a broad national level, particularly for a nation of this size.

[Green Arrow]

Such villages (generally referred to as company towns) cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger statist context in which they existed. Probably one of the most noteworthy examples of this was Pullman in Illinois. It was a town created by a railroad corporation for the primary purpose of housing its laborers. The problem is that the railroad industry during that time was massively subsidized and protected by the US government. Howard Zinn speaks to this in A People's History. Incidentally, when the workers at Pullman organized a strike, the US government sent the military in to suppress the strike under the authority of the Sherman antitrust act. Thirty workers were killed in the ensuing violence.

Nice job using Pullman as an example, I'm very familiar with it and it made perfect sense. Ten points to Gryffindor. :D

[Dr. Who]

That's what that means?

...huh
Well, the thread starter can have a trolling or off-topic member removed with a request to the mods. It's meant to avoid having serious threads trashed.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, the thread starter can have a trolling or off-topic member removed with a request to the mods. It's meant to avoid having serious threads trashed.
Fuckin with ya, Who

:biglaugh:

[kilgram]

The biggest reason corporations become so powerful in the first place is because they co-opt the powers of the state.

I disagree with that. coopt with government is maybe the most comfortable way, but not the only one. Without state they would be free to buy all the competitors, something that we see with the antimonopoly laws.

[Ethereal]

I disagree with that. coopt with government is maybe the most comfortable way, but not the only one. Without state they would be free to buy all the competitors, something that we see with the antimonopoly laws.
I didn't say it was the only way. It's just the way they've traditionally used throughout history. Name any actual corporation that has become large and powerful and the chances are that it became that way by dint of co-opting the state. I suppose it's theoretically possible that in the absence of the state, a corporation could achieving something approaching a monopoly by buying up its competitors, but that is something we can only speculate to as no corporations have actually existed in a stateless society as far as I'm aware. In fact, the very concept of a corporation as a distinct legal entity has as its basis the state.

[Ethereal]

And for those claiming that libertarian ideology is pro-corporate, you'll have to explain why The Libertarian party or libertarian candidates like Ron Paul receive comparatively little corporate backing during elections. If what you say about libertarian ideology is true, that it is pro-corporate, then we would expect to see corporate money going towards libertarian political candidates. Yet the exact opposite is true. When Ron Paul ran for president, big corporations donated relatively no money to his campaign, whereas they donated tons of money to Republicans and Democrats. How can that be if libertarians are so pro-corporate? And of course the answer is that they are not and big corporations know it, which is why they don't donate much money to libertarian candidates. Just as one example of how libertarian ideology is completely at odds with the political agenda of big, entrenched corporations, simply recall the debates surrounding the bank bailouts of 2008. Arguably, libertarians were the most vehement in their opposition to bailing out the banks. I remember it well. "Let them fail" was the libertarian mantra at the time. Generally speaking, most laws and regulations are heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. The idea that big corporations are somehow looking to deregulate the economy is largely a myth. Naturally, they will tend to selectively support deregulation in specific contexts where it's beneficial for them, but virtually none of them are lobbying the government for comprehensively free markets. Just the opposite. They are constantly lobbying the state for subsidies, protectionism, and other forms of rent seeking.

[Chris]

It is misunderstanding of communism. Not everybody is equal. Basically communism removes the hierarchy, in that sense, everybody has the same opportunities.

Free market can't work because it is based in two opposites, it is based in the competition, and in any competition only one can win. An old representation of what is capitalism is the Monopoly, and you know how it works the game.


Free market is based on cooperation, voluntary exchange. People exchange what they value less for what they value more. Win-win. Competition enters because there are many to exchange with, thus you can't be too demanding.

Monopoly is created by the government through regulation. Under communism, there's a single monopoly.

[Chris]

Perfect, something that we agree, power corrupts. Therefore, without state, keeping those powerful structures like private corporations what do you think would happen?

Without the state, how would corporations gain power? There's no central government to rent seek favors from. The political means of getting what you want are gone. What remains is the economics means whereby to get what you want you have to provide others what they want. The problem with that sort of democracy for most people is you have to trust the people to make their own decisions.

[Captdon]

I wouldn't look at it as they share in the ownership of the crop when they did no work. They still did work (if the community was run properly IMO), just not the specific farming that you did. Take the case of the electrician as an example. You did not do the electrical work, but you still benefit from his labor. Likewise, he did not do the farming but he still benefits from your labor. It's really not that different from the capitalist system, you just replace the buying and selling of goods and services for money with the trading of labor. He labors on the electrical work of the community and shares in the harvest. You labor on the harvest and share in the electrical infrastructure.

So, all work is of equal value. The skill don't matter? The hours working don't matter? There's a system that fail right from the start.

[Captdon]

Well, the thread starter can have a trolling or off-topic member removed with a request to the mods. It's meant to avoid having serious threads trashed.

It means the OP controls the thread. It rarely is done.

[Chris]

Earlier you mentioned the collectivization of the economy. That is quite a bit different than common property. Collective ownership is pretty nebulous, insofar as collectives, being abstractions, cannot actually own anything. In essence, collective ownership is based on the exact same principle as corporate personhood. That is different from common ownership, where individuals do not own the property in question, but possess an individualized right to access their equal share of the common property. That is a very important difference.

And do you really mean the common ownership of ALL property? For example, if I work my equal share of the land and produce a crop, then why should others share in the ownership of my crop when they didn't do any work? Don't I have a right of property in my own labor and and in the product of my labor? And if I don't have that right, then what personal incentive do I have to work hard or to innovate, knowing that those who did not work as hard or as creatively will receive the same reward as me?

Under communism, all Lockean conceptions of "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" are null and void.

We need to be very careful in accepting any Lociean or Smithean labor theory of value. Marx adopted that theory. Few economists accept it today but, for better or worse, see labor as a commodity for exchange.

[Captdon]

Nice job using Pullman as an example, I'm very familiar with it and it made perfect sense. Ten points to Gryffindor. :D

Coal towns were under the absolute control of the company. The government was never involved at all.

Just a different example of x's comment.

[Captdon]

I didn't say it was the only way. It's just the way they've traditionally used throughout history. Name any actual corporation that has become large and powerful and the chances are that it became that way by dint of co-opting the state. I suppose it's theoretically possible that in the absence of the state, a corporation could achieving something approaching a monopoly by buying up its competitors, but that is something we can only speculate to as no corporations have actually existed in a stateless society as far as I'm aware. In fact, the very concept of a corporation as a distinct legal entity has as its basis the state.

All the tech companies for openers.

[Chris]

They are as he said they are. Capitalist economies with socialist protections.

They are called social welfare programs but are not socialism. Many were started by Otto von Bismarck who was not a socialist. Adam Smith, a free-market capitalist, and Hayek, a definite anti-socialist, advocated a social safety net.

[Chris]

Well, the thread starter can have a trolling or off-topic member removed with a request to the mods. It's meant to avoid having serious threads trashed.

Why don't some of you leave that to the thread starter or the mods?

[Chris]

And for those claiming that libertarian ideology is pro-corporate, you'll have to explain why The Libertarian party or libertarian candidates like Ron Paul receive comparatively little corporate backing during elections. If what you say about libertarian ideology is true, that it is pro-corporate, then we would expect to see corporate money going towards libertarian political candidates. Yet the exact opposite is true. When Ron Paul ran for president, big corporations donated relatively no money to his campaign, whereas they donated tons of money to Republicans and Democrats. How can that be if libertarians are so pro-corporate? And of course the answer is that they are not and big corporations know it, which is why they don't donate much money to libertarian candidates. Just as one example of how libertarian ideology is completely at odds with the political agenda of big, entrenched corporations, simply recall the debates surrounding the bank bailouts of 2008. Arguably, libertarians were the most vehement in their opposition to bailing out the banks. I remember it well. "Let them fail" was the libertarian mantra at the time. Generally speaking, most laws and regulations are heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. The idea that big corporations are somehow looking to deregulate the economy is largely a myth. Naturally, they will tend to selectively support deregulation in specific contexts where it's beneficial for them, but virtually none of them are lobbying the government for comprehensively free markets. Just the opposite. They are constantly lobbying the state for subsidies, protectionism, and other forms of rent seeking.


The connection some liberals make is that the Kochs fund the libertarian Cato Institute which is in part dedicated to developing and advocating governmental policies. Therefore, corporatism! Ignoring the fact both the Kochs and the Cato Institute advocate for a smaller, less instrusive regulatory state.

[Green Arrow]

And for those claiming that libertarian ideology is pro-corporate, you'll have to explain why The Libertarian party or libertarian candidates like Ron Paul receive comparatively little corporate backing during elections. If what you say about libertarian ideology is true, that it is pro-corporate, then we would expect to see corporate money going towards libertarian political candidates. Yet the exact opposite is true. When Ron Paul ran for president, big corporations donated relatively no money to his campaign, whereas they donated tons of money to Republicans and Democrats. How can that be if libertarians are so pro-corporate? And of course the answer is that they are not and big corporations know it, which is why they don't donate much money to libertarian candidates. Just as one example of how libertarian ideology is completely at odds with the political agenda of big, entrenched corporations, simply recall the debates surrounding the bank bailouts of 2008. Arguably, libertarians were the most vehement in their opposition to bailing out the banks. I remember it well. "Let them fail" was the libertarian mantra at the time. Generally speaking, most laws and regulations are heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. The idea that big corporations are somehow looking to deregulate the economy is largely a myth. Naturally, they will tend to selectively support deregulation in specific contexts where it's beneficial for them, but virtually none of them are lobbying the government for comprehensively free markets. Just the opposite. They are constantly lobbying the state for subsidies, protectionism, and other forms of rent seeking.

I think libertarians advocate an economic system that is heavily pro-corporate in practice, but many of their other stances (largely being anti-war for example) currently stand in the way of corporate interests.

[Chris]

I think libertarians advocate an economic system that is heavily pro-corporate in practice, but many of their other stances (largely being anti-war for example) currently stand in the way of corporate interests.

Libertarians, right and left, are pro-market, not pro-business. There's a difference.

Again, Pro-Business or Pro-Market (https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/04/pro-business-or-pro-market-jonah-goldberg/)


Just to clarify, the difference between being pro-business and pro-market is categorical. A politician who is a “friend of business” is exactly that, a guy who does favors for his friends. A politician who is pro-market is a referee who will refuse to help protect his friends (or anyone else) from competition unless the competitors have broken the rules. The friend of business supports industry-specific or even business-specific loans, grants, tariffs, or tax breaks. The pro-market referee opposes special treatment for anyone.

[Chris]

Let's look at this pro-corporate nonsense a minute.

Being pro-market, in fact, pro-free-market, where free means free from regulation by the state, it is only natural that many businesses and corporations would find affinity with libertarian ideology. The Kochs are for less regulation, thus they fund libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute.

But the charge of being pro-corporation is really a charge of corrupting the democratic process by the wealthy. That's really what Citizens United is all about, the wealthy having undue influence in the election process. But, wait, where do we see libertarians holding powerful political offices? We don't. There are a few libertarian-leaning Republicans, that's all. Libertarian candidates don't do well running for President: Gary Johnson won just 3.27% of the national vote in 2016.

So this whole argument is pure nonsense.

[The Xl]

I think libertarians advocate an economic system that is heavily pro-corporate in practice, but many of their other stances (largely being anti-war for example) currently stand in the way of corporate interests.

I don't see how the policy of no favoritism and an open playing field is pro corporate when compared to the Democrat and Republican policy of corporatism and picking winners and losers.

[The Xl]

Let's look at this pro-corporate nonsense a minute.

Being pro-market, in fact, pro-free-market, where free means free from regulation by the state, it is only natural that many businesses and corporations would find affinity with libertarian ideology. The Kochs are for less regulation, thus they fund libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute.

But the charge of being pro-corporation is really a charge of corrupting the democratic process by the wealthy. That's really what Citizens United is all about, the wealthy having undue influence in the election process. But, wait, where do we see libertarians holding powerful political offices? We don't. There are a few libertarian-leaning Republicans, that's all. Libertarian candidates don't do well running for President: Gary Johnson won just 3.27% of the national vote in 2016.

So this whole argument is pure nonsense.

Gary Johnson got 3 percent because he turned into a potato. He was polling near 10% at a point.

[Green Arrow]

I don't see how the policy of no favoritism and an open playing field is pro corporate when compared to the Democrat and Republican policy of corporatism and picking winners and losers.

It’s not a zero sum game. They are all pro-corporate in different ways. It’s my opinion that libertarian economic philosophy would ultimately be pro-corporate in practice.

[Chris]

Gary Johnson got 3 percent because he turned into a potato. He was polling near 10% at a point.

He did turn into a clown. I think he might have thought that disarmingly harmless when the other two candidates were going at each other's throats.

[Chris]

Such villages (generally referred to as company towns) cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger statist context in which they existed. Probably one of the most noteworthy examples of this was Pullman in Illinois. It was a town created by a railroad corporation for the primary purpose of housing its laborers. The problem is that the railroad industry during that time was massively subsidized and protected by the US government. Howard Zinn speaks to this in A People's History. Incidentally, when the workers at Pullman organized a strike, the US government sent the military in to suppress the strike under the authority of the Sherman antitrust act. Thirty workers were killed in the ensuing violence.


And it's not as if socialism in the USSR was any better with its gulag labor camps.

Not dismissing either but neither has to do with libertarianism.

[The Xl]

It’s not a zero sum game. They are all pro-corporate in different ways. It’s my opinion that libertarian economic philosophy would ultimately be pro-corporate in practice.

It would probably favor corporations more when compared to a socialist or communist sort of government, but it would certainly be better when compared to the literal Democrat and Republican policy of blatant corporatism.

[Chris]

It would probably favor corporations more when compared to a socialist or communist sort of government, but it would certainly be better when compared to the literal Democrat and Republican policy of blatant corporatism.

It would certainly be appreciated by those companies/corporations who seek less regulation of the market, but not by those who rent seek favors including monopolistic advantages.

[donttread]

It would certainly be appreciated by those companies/corporations who seek less regulation of the market, but not by those who rent seek favors including monopolistic advantages.


The Constitution was designed to be the least corruptible form of government, which is exactly why we quit abiding by it long ago.

[Ethereal]

I think libertarians advocate an economic system that is heavily pro-corporate in practice, but many of their other stances (largely being anti-war for example) currently stand in the way of corporate interests.
How are free markets pro-corporate though? No bailouts, no favoritism, no subsidies, no protectionism. Just free and open competition.

[Green Arrow]

It would probably favor corporations more when compared to a socialist or communist sort of government, but it would certainly be better when compared to the literal Democrat and Republican policy of blatant corporatism.
I already pointed out that Democrats and Republicans are clearly overall the favorites of corporations, and that only libertarian economic policy would be in practice pro-corporation.

[donttread]

How are free markets pro-corporate though? No bailouts, no favoritism, no subsidies, no protectionism. Just free and open competition.

I'd like to see the LP have a completely different platform at the state level which includes state run hand up , monitored , social programs and state laws to limit megacorp influence. We need some regulations, we just do. Monopolies will eventually fuck everybody over.

[Chris]

It would probably favor corporations more when compared to a socialist or communist sort of government, but it would certainly be better when compared to the literal Democrat and Republican policy of blatant corporatism.

What, where production is controlled by a few elites? What, really, is more corporate, in that sense, than communism/socialism?

This guy nails is precisely in The Cost of Corporate Communism (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/the-cost-of-corporate-com_b_312516.html):


...Lately I have been using the phrase “Corporate Communism“ on my television show. I think it is an especially fitting term when discussing the current landscape in both our banking and health care systems.

As Americans, I believe we reject communism because it historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice. It leaves its citizens stagnating under the perpetual broken systems with no natural motivation to innovate, improve services or reduce costs.

Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of exploitation and a small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are the hallmarks of a communist system that steals from its citizenry and a major reason why America spent half a century fighting a Cold War with the U.S.S.R.

...The concept of communism is rightly reviled in this country for the simple reason that it is blind to human nature, allowing a small group of individuals near-total control, while sticking everyone else with the same crappy systems — and the bill....

[Captdon]

He did turn into a clown. I think he might have thought that disarmingly harmless when the other two candidates were going at each other's throats.

He was ignorant of facts. He didn't make sense. I thought about voting for him early on but decided he would be a waste of my vote.

[Captdon]

I still don't get what libertarian really is.

[Chris]

I still don't get what libertarian really is.

Basically what the Tea Parties were about: less taxes, smaller government, more liberty. Or the classical liberal, Lockean ideas in the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

That and advocacy of private property and free markets. I think that's generally true of any libertarian, even left libertarians, though the left libertarians get more into social safety nets that Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek wrote about any decent, prosperous society providing.

[jet57]

I'm starting this thread to open a dialogue on libertarianism. It means many things to many people, so let's start simply. Do you consider yourself a libertarian, and what does libertarian mean to you?

The Koch Brothers define themselves ans Libertarian and I have found through listening to them and reading what they say that they are decidedly right-wing. Myself? I'm non partisan.

[Don29palms]

The Koch Brothers define themselves ans Libertarian and I have found through listening to them and reading what they say that they are decidedly right-wing. Myself? I'm non partisan.
But you are a liberal.

[Green Arrow]

How are free markets pro-corporate though? No bailouts, no favoritism, no subsidies, no protectionism. Just free and open competition.

It’s my belief that without any mechanism to control them, corporations will essentially form giant monopolies and eventually supplant the governments we now know.

[Chris]

It’s my belief that without any mechanism to control them, corporations will essentially form giant monopolies and eventually supplant the governments we now know.

How?

Assume a libertarian free market, free from government regulation.

How would these monopolies form?

We know how they form in collusion with the government.

How without?

[Green Arrow]

But you are a liberal.

Shoo.

[Captdon]

Basically what the Tea Parties were about: less taxes, smaller government, more liberty. Or the classical liberal, Lockean ideas in the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

I don't see myself as a libertarian but if I am, I am left libertarian. I mean that only on a state or local level

That and advocacy of private property and free markets. I think that's generally true of any libertarian, even left libertarians, though the left libertarians get more into social safety nets that Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek wrote about any decent, prosperous society providing.

[Chris]

I don't see myself as a libertarian but if I am, I am left libertarian. I mean that only on a state or local level

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ is probably the best left libertarian blog. Gary Chartier is interesting. Mike Munger is always good to read. My signature is taken from his The Thing Itself: Essays on Academics, Economics, and Policy.

[Chris]

This is timely and exactly true. All through this thread, I thought of posting libertarians are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, but that ain't true, I know it's not the case with me as a grow more socially conservative on many, not all, social isses--but remain libertarian in thinking the government has no business meddling in social issues at all, not at least until society settles itself on them. But the the piece, by Arnold Kling, an economist I've followed for decades. A little long, sorry.

The Confusion of the Libertarians (https://medium.com/@arnoldkling/the-confusion-of-the-libertarians-7f060d4ba844)


For libertarians, the ground has shifted. In recent years, libertarians have been deserted by former allies left and right.

We used to say that a shorthand description of libertarianism was “liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues.” No more.

Libertarians were aligned with liberals on the issue of gay marriage, which libertarians saw as a a matter of individual rights. But the left now seems focused on group justice, not individual rights. For today’s progressives, social justice means paying close attention to race and gender rather than treating people as equal individuals. Another indicator that progressives and libertarians have parted ways on social issues is that some progressives now reject the value of freedom of speech.

Not all liberals go along with the new progressive trends. Some liberals, including Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker, are prominent defenders of the older liberal values of individual dignity and freedom of inquiry. Other liberals, such as the brothers Bret Weinstein and Eric Weinstein, champion the old liberalism by participating in what they call the intellectual dark web.

But many young progressives reject this old-fashioned liberalism. The most ardent progressives now look upon a Haidt or a Pinker as at best suspect and at worst unacceptable. Their traditional liberalism, like libertarianism, is anathema to the contemporary progressive.

Turning to the right, libertarians have been deserted by their erstwhile friends on economic issues. Conservatives used to support free trade, but now they favor tariffs and trade wars. Conservatives used to stand for fiscal responsibility, but now they spend freely and run up deficits even during good economic times.

So libertarians can no longer say that they are on the left on social issues and on the right on economic issues. They can say that they stand where the left used to stand on social issues and where the right used to stand on economic issues. But that is confusing.

[jet57]

But you are a liberal.

Nope: non partisan. I go with what works and what benefits the interest of my country.

[jet57]

It’s my belief that without any mechanism to control them, corporations will essentially form giant monopolies and eventually supplant the governments we now know.
Ever read London's The Iron Heel?

[Don29palms]

Nope: non partisan. I go with what works and what benefits the interest of my country.
not only are you a liberal but you're a lying liberal to boot.

[kilgram]

I didn't say it was the only way. It's just the way they've traditionally used throughout history. Name any actual corporation that has become large and powerful and the chances are that it became that way by dint of co-opting the state. I suppose it's theoretically possible that in the absence of the state, a corporation could achieving something approaching a monopoly by buying up its competitors, but that is something we can only speculate to as no corporations have actually existed in a stateless society as far as I'm aware. In fact, the very concept of a corporation as a distinct legal entity has as its basis the state.
For me a corporation is a company that has shareholders, in Spanish a "Sociedad Anónima". And those exist with the existence of a state or not, more, they exist without the state, they don't need of it.

Well, for example we have oligopolies like the hygiene products where P&G has most of the brands of it. I am not sure, if this company received help or not from government, but it holds most of the market of chemical products.

Also, we have Google that can be considered a monopoly without state intervention, or Microsoft in operating systems. The tendency of the markets is to create oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst.

[kilgram]

Free market is based on cooperation, voluntary exchange. People exchange what they value less for what they value more. Win-win. Competition enters because there are many to exchange with, thus you can't be too demanding.

Monopoly is created by the government through regulation. Under communism, there's a single monopoly.
Under communism there is no monopoly. Again, misunderstanding of communism.

Seriously, Chris, how can you tell me the first paragraph without laughing?

[Chris]

Ever read London's The Iron Heel?

A dystopian novel about oligarchy. London's, nor Marx's, predictions came true. Besides it still leaves open the question of how?

[kilgram]

Without the state, how would corporations gain power? There's no central government to rent seek favors from. The political means of getting what you want are gone. What remains is the economics means whereby to get what you want you have to provide others what they want. The problem with that sort of democracy for most people is you have to trust the people to make their own decisions.
Chris, are you so blind? That you don't see it.

The problem with you, is that you have 0 criticism of your ideas. You are always right, even if you are wrong, like now. Corporations don't need the state to gain power. They have done that many times. Obviously, many times only need one thing: Permission to act from government. But without government, they can't pass out of that step, and act directly to gain power. Corporations, also have had their own mercenaries,... They don't need government to go to the old times. Obviously, buy the government is safer game for them, but not the only game.

[Chris]

For me a corporation is a company that has shareholders, in Spanish a "Sociedad Anónima". And those exist with the existence of a state or not, more, they exist without the state, they don't need of it.

Well, for example we have oligopolies like the hygiene products where P&G has most of the brands of it. I am not sure, if this company received help or not from government, but it holds most of the market of chemical products.

Also, we have Google that can be considered a monopoly without state intervention, or Microsoft in operating systems. The tendency of the markets is to create oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst.


The question is not whether they might exist, the question is how they would attain power without the colluding power of the state which would be minimized if not eliminated under a libertarian social order.

Now I can see, for example, how a corporation like P&G might gain an economic monopoly by providing people what they value hygiene products. But then that would be democratic, a choice of the people. And it still doesn't gain for P&G any monopoly on the use of force, which is really what's of concern here. Ditto Google, Microsoft.

[kilgram]

Libertarians, right and left, are pro-market, not pro-business. There's a difference.

Again, Pro-Business or Pro-Market (https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/04/pro-business-or-pro-market-jonah-goldberg/)

There is no real difference. Only words. It is like saying the PSOE (Socialist Workers Party of Spain) is socialist, just because the word socialist is in its name. Actually, the PSOE is as socialist as I am a priest.

[Chris]

Under communism there is no monopoly. Again, misunderstanding of communism.

Seriously, Chris, how can you tell me the first paragraph without laughing?

Communism, wherever it has been implemented, has had monopolistic control of not only the use of force but the production process.

And failed because central planning is incapable of solving the economic calculation problem as well as the problem of knowledge in society.

[kilgram]

It would probably favor corporations more when compared to a socialist or communist sort of government, but it would certainly be better when compared to the literal Democrat and Republican policy of blatant corporatism.
No, it would be blatantly corporate. Again, the markets without regulation tend to oligopoly or monopoly. That is the natural way of the markets. So, yes, that will benefit increasingly the corporations. In almost every field there will be only a few companies. It happens today, and there are anti-trust laws and similar, and in theory some regulation of the market.

[Chris]

Chris, are you so blind? That you don't see it.

The problem with you, is that you have 0 criticism of your ideas. You are always right, even if you are wrong, like now. Corporations don't need the state to gain power. They have done that many times. Obviously, many times only need one thing: Permission to act from government. But without government, they can't pass out of that step, and act directly to gain power. Corporations, also have had their own mercenaries,... They don't need government to go to the old times. Obviously, buy the government is safer game for them, but not the only game.


I criticize libertarian adherence to individualism just as Ethereal does, only more so. If you like I'll go into a criticism on NAP. I find right on target the criticism of libertarianism in post http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/102036-Libertarianism?p=2445036&viewfull=1#post2445036.

I'm nearly always wrong.


How without the state would corporations gain power?

[kilgram]

Communism, wherever it has been implemented, has had monopolistic control of not only the use of force but the production process.

And failed because central planning is incapable of solving the economic calculation problem as well as the problem of knowledge in society.
State socialism /= Communism.

[Chris]

There is no real difference. Only words. It is like saying the PSOE (Socialist Workers Party of Spain) is socialist, just because the word socialist is in its name. Actually, the PSOE is as socialist as I am a priest.

So you use words to argue about using words?

[kilgram]

The question is not whether they might exist, the question is how they would attain power without the colluding power of the state which would be minimized if not eliminated under a libertarian social order.

Now I can see, for example, how a corporation like P&G might gain an economic monopoly by providing people what they value hygiene products. But then that would be democratic, a choice of the people. And it still doesn't gain for P&G any monopoly on the use of force, which is really what's of concern here. Ditto Google, Microsoft.
Microsoft, Google bought competitors, Microsoft with non very legal tactics. P&G I don't know much of them, but I guess, too.

Even, they can go through threats to buy possible competitors. Without state, they would be more free to use all kind of strategies. Companies are not lawful. Companies only want thing: Profit. As they get it, it is the less important.

And, then we have the fact that companies are internally working as dictatorships. What it brings to the fact, if a organization internally works as a dictatorship, it will behave in the same way externally.

[kilgram]

So you use words to argue about using words?
Don't you get the analogy? :-P


By the way, good night. I should be sleeping 2-3 hours ago.

[Chris]

Microsoft, Google bought competitors, Microsoft with non very legal tactics. P&G I don't know much of them, but I guess, too.

Even, they can go through threats to buy possible competitors. Without state, they would be more free to use all kind of strategies. Companies are not lawful. Companies only want thing: Profit. As they get it, it is the less important.

And, then we have the fact that companies are internally working as dictatorships. What it brings to the fact, if a organization internally works as a dictatorship, it will behave in the same way externally.


You're still not explaining how Google, Microsoft, P&E have gained power--because they have not.

Where would they get the wealth to buy out competitors but by providing people what they value? Again, a democratic process. Don't you trust people to choose for themselves?

People work for companies, even Google, voluntarily, not by force.

How would Google force a dictatorship?

[Chris]

Don't you get the analogy? :-P


By the way, good night. I should be sleeping 2-3 hours ago.

Good night.

[Green Arrow]

How?

Assume a libertarian free market, free from government regulation.

How would these monopolies form?

We know how they form in collusion with the government.

How without?

I imagine they would do it the same way they did throughout history with minimal government control.

[Chris]

I imagine they would do it the same way they did throughout history with minimal government control.

Only thing similar to modern corporations were, we read in Smith's Wealth of Nations, joint stock companies, like the East India Company, also monopolies created by governments.

[jet57]

not only are you a liberal but you're a lying liberal to boot.

What gives you the notion that I'm a liberal?

[Captain Obvious]

What gives you the notion that I'm a liberal?
Don's a parrot, he only hears dog whistles

[Ethereal]

For me a corporation is a company that has shareholders, in Spanish a "Sociedad Anónima". And those exist with the existence of a state or not, more, they exist without the state, they don't need of it.

Well, for example we have oligopolies like the hygiene products where P&G has most of the brands of it. I am not sure, if this company received help or not from government, but it holds most of the market of chemical products.

Also, we have Google that can be considered a monopoly without state intervention, or Microsoft in operating systems. The tendency of the markets is to create oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst.
Proctor and Gamble is one of the top "defense" contractors in the US. They make billions from US government contracts. Their first government contract came during the civil war, selling soap to the northern military.

Google was started with the help of CIA seed money.

Microsoft is arguably the biggest beneficiary of intellectual property laws in human history.

[Ethereal]

Again, the markets without regulation tend to oligopoly or monopoly. That is the natural way of the markets.

Markets are regulated through competition. It's only when competition is stifled by the state's arbitrary interference that oligopolies and monopolies start to form.


So, yes, that will benefit increasingly the corporations. In almost every field there will be only a few companies. It happens today, and there are anti-trust laws and similar, and in theory some regulation of the market.

It happens today because the state's influence over the economy is so pervasive. That is why you cannot give any real world examples of big corporations who do not benefit from the state's regulatory, monetary, and/or fiscal policies.

[Tahuyaman]

The libertarian philosophy is drastically misunderstood even by those who call themselves libertarians

[IMPress Polly]

So people have been debating what would happen if we were to simply abolish the state and let a "truly free market" emerge to fill the power vacuum. Here's how I envision that working out:

Without any laws stopping them from doing so, the companies that are already the most powerful ones would all form their own private armies and simply destroy their competitors by force. Corporate wars would break out everywhere in this way until a certain array of forces emerged victorious, whereupon the victors would form a new, feudalistic state (i.e. a state that is privately owned) and govern society henceforth. Thus would humanity lapse into a kind of modern-day, corporatist dark ages. We'd all wind up looking something like Russia does today in essence. That's sort of how I imagine "anarchist" capitalism working out. It may not actually be the best available option.

[Green Arrow]

The libertarian philosophy is drastically misunderstood even by those who call themselves libertarians

Enlighten us.

[Chris]

So people have been debating what would happen if we were to simply abolish the state and let a "truly free market" emerge to fill the power vacuum. Here's how I envision that working out:

Without any laws stopping them from doing so, the companies that are already the most powerful ones would all form their own private armies and simply destroy their competitors by force. Corporate wars would break out everywhere in this way until a certain array of forces emerged victorious, whereupon the victors would form a new, feudalistic state (i.e. a state that is privately owned) and govern society henceforth. Thus would humanity lapse into a kind of modern-day, corporatist dark ages. We'd all wind up looking something like Russia does today in essence. That's sort of how I imagine "anarchist" capitalism working out. It may not actually be the best available option.


You are correct in the the free market is an emergent social order. It emerges from the voluntary exchanges of people. It is not designed like socialism, communism, comunnalism and then forced on people.

What power vaccuum? Power would return to the people. As it has in Northern Syria. Where are these corporate wars in N Syria?

Corporate wars? First off, what is the bottom line for an business? Profit. That is the usual leftist complaint about business, the selfish drive for profit. War is too costly and antitherical to selfish profit.

And wait, this corporate war, corporation vs corporation suddenly, inexplicably turns against the only source of profit, consumers? There goes all the profits. Won't happen given that all business is driven by selfish profit motive.

You also seem to view the people as a hopeless, helpless mass--the way most Marxists view the people. The people aren't, they would form neighborhood watches to protect themselves and their property, neighborhoods would form coalitions, towns and city areas larger coalitions--again, just like N Syria did to defeat ISIS, the American colonists the British. The libertarian literature is replete with explanation how self-governing would institute self-protection.

And the option is what, socialist central planning?

[Captdon]

What gives you the notion that I'm a liberal?

Your posts.

[Green Arrow]

You are correct in the the free market is an emergent social order. It emerges from the voluntary exchanges of people. It is not designed like socialism, communism, comunnalism and then forced on people.

What power vaccuum? Power would return to the people. As it has in Northern Syria. Where are these corporate wars in N Syria?

Corporate wars? First off, what is the bottom line for an business? Profit. That is the usual leftist complaint about business, the selfish drive for profit. War is too costly and antitherical to selfish profit.

And wait, this corporate war, corporation vs corporation suddenly, inexplicably turns against the only source of profit, consumers? There goes all the profits. Won't happen given that all business is driven by selfish profit motive.

You also seem to view the people as a hopeless, helpless mass--the way most Marxists view the people. The people aren't, they would form neighborhood watches to protect themselves and their property, neighborhoods would form coalitions, towns and city areas larger coalitions--again, just like N Syria did to defeat ISIS, the American colonists the British. The libertarian literature is replete with explanation how self-governing would institute self-protection.

And the option is what, socialist central planning?

Are we just going to pretend that most major corporations are not profiting majorly off wars today?

[Captdon]

Proctor and Gamble is one of the top "defense" contractors in the US. They make billions from US government contracts. Their first government contract came during the civil war, selling soap to the northern military.

Google was started with the help of CIA seed money.

Microsoft is arguably the biggest beneficiary of intellectual property laws in human history.

What a load of nonsense.

Google was started by two guys as a directory. Twenty years ago they were just a blip on the net. They started looking for sites instead of making sites beg to be listed. That's what made them big.

Intellectual property has the same protection fights as a book does. There are copyright and patent right?

Yea, Procter and Gamble is making a mint selling soap for the military.

Wow.

[Green Arrow]

Oh, boy.
Ethereal have fun.

[Chris]

Are we just going to pretend that most major corporations are not profiting majorly off wars today?

Yes, indeed, as Smedley Butler said, war is a racket, and Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, business and government colluding is a major issue. Works because the government can tax by force. Businesses cannot.

[Ethereal]

So people have been debating what would happen if we were to simply abolish the state and let a "truly free market" emerge to fill the power vacuum. Here's how I envision that working out:

Without any laws stopping them from doing so, the companies that are already the most powerful ones would all form their own private armies and simply destroy their competitors by force. Corporate wars would break out everywhere in this way until a certain array of forces emerged victorious, whereupon the victors would form a new, feudalistic state (i.e. a state that is privately owned) and govern society henceforth. Thus would humanity lapse into a kind of modern-day, corporatist dark ages. We'd all wind up looking something like Russia does today in essence. That's sort of how I imagine "anarchist" capitalism working out. It may not actually be the best available option.

Well, a "truly free market" and "capitalism" are not necessarily the same thing. The former describes an economic order that emerges spontaneously as the result of voluntary exchange between buyers and sellers, whereas the latter describes an economic system centered around private property. You'll note that none of the classical liberals like Adam Smith or John Locke ever used the term "capitalism" to describe their economic ideology, nor did they advocate for the comprehensive privatization of an economy. Classical liberals believed in a mixture of private and common property based on Locke's labor theory of property. Things like land, air, sunshine, rain, etc., were considered as common property, existing independently of our individual labor. Things like crops, buildings, equipment, etc., were considered as private property, being the product of our individual labor.

[Ethereal]

Oh, boy.
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) have fun.

The ignore feature is your friend.

[Green Arrow]

The ignore feature is your friend.

Oh, you have him on ignore? Damn, I was hoping for an intellectual drubbing.

[Captdon]

Oh, you have him on ignore? Damn, I was hoping for an intellectual drubbing.

I take it mean him by me. He's afraid to debate me. I have his number.

[Chris]

Someone said shoo before. Soon as threads focus on posters they go downhill.

[Ethereal]

Personally, I see "anarcho-capitalism" as somewhat of an oxymoron, since capitalism generally requires the state in order to exist.

Probably the best example of this is private land ownership. Without the state to enforce these claims, individuals would have to take on all the liability and odium of excluding others from the land.

Another example are intellectual property laws. In the absence of a state, the enforcement of such laws would be nearly impossible. Indeed, even with vigorous enforcement of IP laws by the state, the "theft" of "intellectual property" remains fairly ubiquitous.

However, a "free market" can exist in the absence of the state, being a spontaneous order that emerges as a result of voluntary exchange and association between free people. The fact that free markets are emergent presupposes or implies that they exist on top of a preexisting social order of some kind. And that is where classical liberalism fills in the gaps that libertarian ideology has tended to leave. Most people do not know this, but before Adam Smith wrote his seminal "Wealth of Nations", he wrote "A Theory of Moral Sentiments". Classical liberals understood that in order for a free market to work properly, it had to exist in the context of a moral and virtuous society.

[Ethereal]

Oh, you have him on ignore? Damn, I was hoping for an intellectual drubbing.

I'm not sure who you're referring to. I have several members on ignore.

[Chris]

Personally, I see "anarcho-capitalism" as somewhat of an oxymoron, since capitalism generally requires the state in order to exist.

Probably the best example of this is private land ownership. Without the state to enforce these claims, individuals would have to take on all the liability and odium of excluding others from the land.

Another example are intellectual property laws. In the absence of a state, the enforcement of such laws would be nearly impossible. Indeed, even with vigorous enforcement of IP laws by the state, the "theft" of "intellectual property" remains fairly ubiquitous.

However, a "free market" can exist in the absence of the state, being a spontaneous order that emerges as a result of voluntary exchange and association between free people. The fact that free markets are emergent presupposes or implies that they exist on top of a preexisting social order of some kind. And that is where classical liberalism fills in the gaps that libertarian ideology has tended to leave. Most people do not know this, but before Adam Smith wrote his seminal "Wealth of Nations", he wrote "A Theory of Moral Sentiments". Classical liberals understood that in order for a free market to work properly, it had to exist in the context of a moral and virtuous society.


Capitalism has two meanings, one free-market capitalism and the other state capitalism. I grew tired of trying to explain the difference and simply rely on the full context of what I post to distinguish. You can't control the words people use, that would be unlibertarian.

One needn't own the land to have a right to its use. Besides, if no one can own the land then not collective can either.

Agree, free markets are emergent and moral.

[Green Arrow]

Yes, indeed, as Smedley Butler said, war is a racket, and Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, business and government colluding is a major issue. Works because the government can tax by force. Businesses cannot.
They can if they form governments. There’s also virtually no difference between a tax and a business raising prices to “tax” you.

Regardless, it’s a fact that war is extremely profitable for business, contrary to what you said.

[Chris]

They can if they form governments. There’s also virtually no difference between a tax and a business raising prices to “tax” you.

Regardless, it’s a fact that war is extremely profitable for business, contrary to what you said.


Still begs the question HOW they will do so without the government to back them up with force.


It is profitable, that's what Butler meant. It is profitable because the government takes from the people in the form of taxes all it needs to buy it's war machines. This has been the case since the first states appeared, taxation to preserve the state.



What I find interesting is all these fears of corporations attaining power really derives from what we experience now and have experienced hsitorically under governments, even government that are supposed to protect us from that. It's just like the argument people are selfish and greedy, well, ok, so you want to put selfish and greedy people in charge? All these so called statist solutions are the problem.

[The Xl]

Big corporations will always dominate without a vigilant and invigorated public. Whether it's by proxy through Government, or outright by their own force.

[Chris]

Big corporations will always dominate without a vigilant and invigorated public. Whether it's by proxy through Government, or outright by their own force.

If the political means of getting what you want are eliminated and only the economic means remain, then how would corporations dominate?


“I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor, and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the ‘political means’.”

– Franz Oppenheimer, The State

[Ethereal]

Big corporations will always dominate without a vigilant and invigorated public. Whether it's by proxy through Government, or outright by their own force.
Perhaps, but I feel like they would be much less dominant in the absence of the state. I highly doubt that people would meekly stand by as a Walmart army marched into their town and declared corporate rule.

[Ethereal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs

The best thing about Sweden is that it's small and culturally homogeneous.

[Green Arrow]

Still begs the question HOW they will do so without the government to back them up with force.
How what? How would they tax the populace? Raising prices, I already said that. How would they form governments? Same way humans have formed governments throughout history.

It is profitable, that's what Butler meant. It is profitable because the government takes from the people in the form of taxes all it needs to buy it's war machines. This has been the case since the first states appeared, taxation to preserve the state.
So replace a government bought by corporations with a government made up of corporations. War is still profitable for them in almost every circumstance.

[Green Arrow]

Perhaps, but I feel like they would be much less dominant in the absence of the state. I highly doubt that people would meekly stand by as a Walmart army marched into their town and declared corporate rule.

I disagree. I think it would be even easier for them.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't understand the fear of or the need to slander socialism.

Propaganda is really a powerful tool.

The establishment relies on this strong foundation of fear and ignorance.

[Chris]

I don't understand the fear of or the need to slander socialism.

Propaganda is really a powerful tool.

The establishment relies on this strong foundation of fear and ignorance.


Socialism is defined generally economically as central planning.

Central planning doesn't work.

[Chris]

How what? How would they tax the populace? Raising prices, I already said that. How would they form governments? Same way humans have formed governments throughout history.

So replace a government bought by corporations with a government made up of corporations. War is still profitable for them in almost every circumstance.

The same HOW I've been asking all along, how would, sans the state and its monopoly on force, would corporations attain power?

Sure, the current government bought by corporations could turn into government made up of corporations. But that is the problem with statism.

Here we're talking no government and thus there's nothing to transition. Where would the profits come from to make corporate war profitable? Sans the government there's no forced taxation.

[Ethereal]

I disagree. I think it would be even easier for them.
I don't see how. Armies are very expensive and wars are even more so. In 2007, Exxon Mobile made about $40 billion in profits. Assuming they reinvested every single dollar of that profit into building a military, it would be enough to finance one roughly the size of the German military for one year. That may seem large until you realize that only about 20% of a given military consists of combat arms like infantry and armor. The large majority of a military consists of logistical and administrative positions. So for Exxon's theoretical private army, that would translate to roughly 40,000 combat troops. That's about the same amount of police officers who work for the NYPD. Exxon is probably the largest corporation in the world in terms of gross profits, so 40,000 combat troops is about the theoretical maximum we could expect in terms of a corporatized military outfit. And this scenario doesn't even account for all the previous expenditures that would be required in order to train those troops and to acquire an institutional memory and culture over many years. It also assumes a military operating under peacetime conditions. If such a force went to war, the costs of maintaining it would increase in direct proportion to the intensity and extent of the conflict. It would also result in massive complications for their existing commercial operations, which require constant reinvestment in order to continue functioning properly. So what's the worse that this military force could do? The US military, which is far larger and far more financially stable, couldn't even defeat motley insurgents in Vietnam and Afghanistan after many years of occupation and fighting. Americans possess over 300 million private firearms. If only 1% of the American population decided to engage in armed resistance, that would be a fighting force of about 3.2 million people versus a corporate force of about 40,000 combat troops.

[Chris]

We're going in circles lately so let me offer a way out. Besides, I promised kilgram a criticism of libertarianism.

In the following, consider "enemies" evil corporations or, much more realistically, other nations that do not adopt libertarian principles. It ignores the vast libertarian literature on private police and private defense, but is, I think, legitimate criticism of libertarianism.

It's a criticism of NAP, the axiomatic principle of nonaggression, sort of Mill's do no harm. It comes from the ideology called propertarianism, that builds off libertarianism in a corrective way, so lays claim to classical liberalism, started by Curt Doottle and others like this guy, Eli Harmon. It's something I've studied now and then, here and there as I come across it, but it's pretty heady stuff, so I will let Eli do the criticizing.

From Propertarianism: Core Concepts (https://propertarianism.com/2018/03/29/propertarianism-core-concepts-by-eli-harman/):


Non-Aggression vs. Non-Parasitism
Besides the different conceptions of property and rights, the main point of departure of propertarianism from libertarianism is rejection of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP.) The NAP is in some sense question begging, because it depends critically on a theory of property. Without a theory of property you can’t tell what is aggression and what isn’t, what is defense, retaliation, etc… So libertarians and communists, for example, could conflict bitterly without ever engaging in aggression (against their own respective theories of property) but only to defend, on the one hand, property homesteaded by original appropriation or acquired by subsequent exchange, and, on the other hand, the surplus value created by labor and various equal or universal entitlements…

But there is also no reason to extend enemies the benefit of non-aggression if they will not extend the same to you. That’s non-reciprocal. That’s a cost without benefit. You have to forego the benefits of aggression against your enemies, either preempting their aggression or actually plundering, looting, enslaving, or killing them, and you don’t get anything in return for your generosity or forbearance. They certainly won’t avoid doing any of that to you if they have the opportunity.

Libertarians maintain that voluntary transactions and exchanges are always mutually beneficial (or if not, they’re simply, one-off errors and not systematically non-beneficial, or non-mutual.) So “voluntary” is the only requirement transactions have to meet in order to be productive, according to libertarians. This is consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle. But fraud by asymmetry of information is certainly possible, even if someone makes no explicit representation of the suitability of their product or service for a particular purpose, it’s possible to offer one that SEEMS so suitable, and only the individual or firm offering it knows better or knows different (until the fraud is discovered.) Libertarianism would license such fraud by prohibiting retaliation against it (because it does not rise to the level of aggression or explicit fraud.) But there might be
good reason to prohibit and suppress parasitism and fraud, in all of their forms, even at the cost of committing aggression, to limit people to genuinely productive behavior.

So to the condition of “voluntary” we must add “fully informed” and “warrantied.”

Finally, transactions and exchanges have costs and benefits not only to those directly party to them (who are in charge of making the decision to transact or exchange) but also to others, not party. If the interests of those others are to be accounted for when the decision is made to transact or not to transact, they must have redress, if the decision imposes a cost on them, or deprives them of some benefit.

So we must add another condition to our “non-parasitism principle”

“Nothing but voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, transactions, free from negative externality… else we fight.”

If you will permit me to speak metaphorically, the cold hand of Darwin will punish us just as surely for not engaging in aggression judiciously as for engaging in aggression injudiciously. Libertarians are content to leave the benefits of judicious aggression on the table for the sake of principle. But a principle of leaving benefits on the table is not an evolutionarily competitive one and that’s why libertarianism has never gone anywhere and never will.


NAP simply does not guarantee enemies, be they legal or corporate states, won't simply aggress, but it does guaranttee your reaction to agreesssion could very well be too late.

[jet57]

What gives you the notion that I'm a liberal?

So you have nothing of any credibility to back up your name calling that I'ma lying liberal eh?

I didn't think you did. If you can't post anything reasonable, how about not replying to me at all.

[jet57]

A dystopian novel about oligarchy. London's, nor Marx's, predictions came true. Besides it still leaves open the question of how?
So you haven't read it - of course - and once again you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Chris]

So you haven't read it - of course - and once again you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, so his predictions did come true and capitalism collapse and socialism filled the void. Dystopia.

[Chris]

https://i.postimg.cc/pr6F02Cs/lib.jpg

[jet57]

Oh, so his predictions did come true and capitalism collapse and socialism filled the void. Dystopia.

Why can't you just admit that you haven't read it.

[Don29palms]

Why can't you just admit that you haven't read it.
Probably for the same reason you can't admit you are the lying liberal you are.

[Chris]

Why can't you just admit that you haven't read it.

Why don't you admit you haven't.

[DGUtley]

Probably for the same reason you can't admit you are the lying liberal you are.

WARNING @Don29palms (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2871), refrain from insults and name-calling and discussing the poster rather than the thread. Thank you.

[jet57]

Why don't you admit you haven't.
I own the book dude. My buddie has it now: he wanted mew to watch Atlas Shrugged: I own that hard cover as well, and I wanted him to read Iron Heel.

You just can't help yourself from lying and trolling can you.

[Mister D]

I own the book dude. My buddie has it now: he wanted mew to watch Atlas Shrugged[/i]: I own that hard cover as well, and I wanted him to read [U]Iron Heel.

You just can't help yourself from lying and trolling can you.
Yeah, you say you own a lot of books but you have already been exposed as a fraud in that regard so why would anyone believe you at this point? You lie once and your credibility is shattered.

[jet57]

Yeah, you say you own a lot of books but you have already been exposed as a fraud in that regard so why would anyone believe you at this point? You lie once and your credibility is shattered.

Fraud - on books? Prove it.

[Mister D]

Fraud - on books? Prove it.
Already have.

[Chris]

I own the book dude. My buddie has it now: he wanted mew to watch Atlas Shrugged: I own that hard cover as well, and I wanted him to read Iron Heel.

You just can't help yourself from lying and trolling can you.

It's public domain, dude. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm


The reorganization of these countries took the form of revolution. It was a time of confusion and violence. Everywhere institutions and governments were crashing. Everywhere, with the exception of two or three countries, the erstwhile capitalist masters fought bitterly for their possessions. But the governments were taken away from them by the militant proletariat. At last was being realized Karl Marx's classic: “The knell of private capitalist property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” And as fast as capitalistic governments crashed, cooperative commonwealths arose in their place.

“And you saw what a general strike would do,” Ernest went on. “We stopped the war with Germany. Never was there so fine a display of the solidarity and the power of labor. Labor can and will rule the world. If you continue to stand with us, we'll put an end to the reign of capitalism. It is your only hope. And what is more, you know it. There is no other way out. No matter what you do under your old tactics, you are doomed to defeat, if for no other reason because the masters control the courts.”

“The millions of the discontented and the impoverished are ours,” the socialists said. “The Grangers have come over to us, the farmers, the middle class, and the laborers. The capitalist system will fall to pieces. In another month we send fifty men to Congress. Two years hence every office will be ours, from the President down to the local dog-catcher.”

[jet57]

Already have.
No OC, you haven't. You're just trolling again.

[jet57]

It's public domain, dude. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm

That doesn't mean you've read it. I have, London was great author.


It was a time of confusion and violence.

Much like today.

[Tahuyaman]

No OC, you haven't. You're just trolling again.

Too funny.

[Chris]

That doesn't mean you've read it. I have, London was great author.

[/I][/COLOR]

Much like today.


I guess you didn't notice I was quoting from Jack London's The Iron Heel. Now how did you miss that?

London was a great writer. He was also a Marxist.