Vote Libertarian OR Socialist

[KnightOwl]

Capitalism is an economic situation. Libertarianism is a political philosophy.
Socialism and pure anarchy are contradictory.

Anarcho-syndicalism is not pure anarchy and not libertarian but is very socialist.

It is hard to be a libertarian and not be a capitalist in as much as a capitalist is simply a person who understands what capitalism is and sees that it is not only not harmful, but is a completely natural construct. When a squirrel gathers acorns for later use, he is practicing capitalism... he is turning using his assets (sharp pointy teeth) to create something else of value (stored food). When a member of a small commune plants a seed in their organic garden before heading off to a "Che was great" rally, they are practicing capitalism.

In common usage however, capitalism is usually used to mean the opposite of socialist or collectivist philosophies.

What libertarianism really has as its roots is classical liberalism which is the school of thought many of the founding fathers ascribed to. A great example of classical liberalism would be Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" Bastiat was the propounder of the Baker's Window Fallacy in which he refutes a common argument of his time. The argument was that we should cherish the prankster who throws a rock through the bakers window (and other destructive behavior) because it promotes commerce. The thinking being that once the window is broken, the baker must fix the window by hiring a glazier who in turn has to buy the new window and upon being paid, uses that money for a variety of things setting off a chain reaction of economic activty. Bastiat pointed out that there is what is seen and what is unseen. In the foolish example above we see the economic activity that was set into motion by the vandal. What we don't see is what would have happened if he hadn't thrown the rock. The thing or things that the baker would have bought such as a new coat or a new oven to bake more bread in, etc. which all would have been a net increase whereas the broken window activity must first overcome the cost of the broken window before any thing productive starts accruing.

 

[Revoltingest]

The pledge however, if taken seriously prescribes pure anarchy and should be done away with IMO.

As I interpret the pledge, it's in the Jeffersonian tradition. We are non-aggressionists, but that doesn't mean we don't reserve
the right to rise up, revolt, & even resort to violence when warranted. But as part of a political process, we're non-violent.

Libertarianism has its roots in social libertarianism (anarchism). Its just that in America, people falsely associate libertarianism with capitalism, when libertarianism has traditionally been a socialist/anarchist construct.

That association doesn't look false to me. Capitalism beats other systems by requiring less governmental control over people.
Of course, in a libertarian country, people would have the right to form voluntary associations employing another method.

 

[KnightOwl]

As I interpret the pledge, it's in the Jeffersonian tradition. We are non-aggressionists, but that doesn't mean we don't reserve
the right to rise up, revolt, & even resort to violence is warranted. But as part of a political process, we're non-violent.

The key words in the pledge that speak to this are "uninitiated force." If someone is using force against you, you have the right to use force in your own defense. As anyone who's studied libertarian philosophy knows, the government is by definition an agency of force. If one believes they exist as individuals and not just as part of a collective group known as the citizens, then the government's force is uninitiated.

Because you have the philosophical right to answer this uninitiated force with defensive force, doesn't mean that is the best option. Sometimes it is best not to answer it at all. Sometimes it is best to use other methods. Sometimes one recognizes that not ALL uninitiated force is evil.

The founding fathers decided it was time to use defensive force and I'm happy they did.

 

[lunakilo]

Socialism works for us Europeans....

I was just wondering about all these socialist european countries you keep talking about.
I happen to be european, and I can't think of a single socialist country in Europe.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Now where in Europe is this true?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Now where in Europe is this true?

European nations are socialist more by comparison than by political definition I will concede.
The welfare system, universal heathcare etc..these are socialist derived ideas adopted by post war european democracies.
It is these social safeguards that highlight the differences between Europe and say the US.
Where there is a more 'libertarian' ie repressive approach taken toward social issues.
Insufficent & limited welfare, private health insurance, poor workers rights and protections...etc..

 

[lunakilo]

European nations are socialist more by comparison than by political definition I will concede.

'by comparison'

So, from a USAsian point of view any government which is not to the right og the US government is automatically socialist I guess

How many non-socialist countries exist in the world then?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

'by comparison'

How many non-socialist countries exist in the world then?

Yes by comparison as many nations operate with elements of socialism.

I think currently about 80% of the nations of Earth operate a fundamentally capitalist economic model.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just wondering about all these socialist european countries you keep talking about.
I happen to be european, and I can't think of a single socialist country in Europe.
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Now where in Europe is this true?

I view socialism a trait which can range from nothing to 100%....not entirely you-is or you-ain't. Certainly, the US isn't a socialist country,
but it is more socialist than in the days when JD Rockefeller was building Standard Oil. Relative to the US, Europe is socialist, even though
they're not entirely so. Moreover, a politician who advocates policy changes in the direction of socialism could be considered socialist, even
if he doesn't support full-blown common ownership.
"Ownership" itself is similarly not so black & white. Example: If you have title to a piece of real estate, then you nominally "own" it. But by
zoning laws, endangered species laws, subdivision control laws, deed restrictions, rent control laws, historic district restrictions, tax lien
law, public easements & eminent domain actions, it's possible that the government has more rights of ownership than the nominal owner.
It can be confusing....communist China is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. And part of it (Hong Kong), has arguably
the freest economy of all, beating out the US by a long shot.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I view socialism a trait which can range from nothing to 100%....not entirely you-is or you-ain't. Certainly, the US isn't a socialist country,
but it is more socialist than in the days when JD Rockefeller was building Standard Oil. Relative to the US, Europe is socialist, even though
they're not entirely so. Moreover, a politician who advocates policy changes in the direction of socialism could be considered socialist, even
if he doesn't support full-blown common ownership.
"Ownership" itself is similarly not so black & white. Example: If you have title to a piece of real estate, then you nominally "own" it. But by
zoning laws, endangered species laws, subdivision control laws, deed restrictions, rent control laws, historic district restrictions, tax lien
law, publicveasements & eminent domain actions, it's possible that the government has more rights of ownership than the nominal owner.

Quite.

 

[Revoltingest]

Quite.

I fixed some booboos in the post.

 

[KnightOwl]

Most people in the U.S. talk about other countries as being socialist countries but in fact the U.S. has a lot of socialism too -- it is just a matter of degree.

Government ownership of the means of production I generally think of as communism.

Facism would be when ownership is private in name only because the government has so much control so as to render the "owner" a mere figurehead lending the appearance of private industry.

Socialism does include government owned means of production but even if that is necessary to the technical definition, it certainly isn't how it is used, at least not here.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I think the US would solve a lot of its social problems by easing the financial burden upon it's poor instead of spending billions on locking them up and the legal processing costs when they inevitably resort out of desperation and demoralisation to crime.
The death sentence is another anti social aspect that could do with addressing in the remaining states that use it, the relationship between state and individual is very much dysfunctional when the state has the legal authority to terminate you.

I am rambling...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I fixed some booboos in the post.

Nice

 

[lunakilo]

I view socialism a trait which can range from nothing to 100%....not entirely you-is or you-ain't.
Certainly, the US isn't a socialist country,
...
Relative to the US, Europe is socialist, even though
they're not entirely so.

USA: 0% socialist (or close to)
Europe: x% socialist (100 > x > 0)

And since x > 0 Europe is socialist along with any other country to the political left of the USA.

You have made 'socialist' into a catch all label of anyone less capitalistic than the US
I just wanted to understand your terminology.

 

[KnightOwl]

I think the US would solve a lot of its social problems by easing the financial burden upon it's poor instead of spending billions on locking them up and the legal processing costs when they inevitably resort out of desperation and demoralisation to crime.

The death sentence is another anti social aspect that could do with addressing in the remaining states that use it, the relationship between state and individual is very much dysfunctional when the state has the legal authority to terminate you.

I am rambling...

Not sure what financial burden the U.S. is supposedly burdening its poor with. On the contrary, the government spends a lot of money assisting the poor and private charity adds much to that assistance.

I agree however that our criminal justice system is broken. Prison should be for locking up dangerous people. I do not fear the vast majority of drug users or prostitutes and find it reprehensible that my tax dollars are spent persecuting them.

The death penalty I feel is unethical mainly because there is too much chance for error in the criminal justice system which can never be completely overcome. Once people die, they don't come back to life (notwithstanding accounts of people declared dead who then regain a heart beat moments later) except in fiction.... like the Bible.

 

[Revoltingest]

USA: 0% socialist (or close to)
Europe: x% socialist (100 > x > 0)

And since x > 0 Europe is socialist along with any other country to the political left of the USA.

You have made 'socialist' into a catch all label of anyone less capitalistic than the US
I just wanted to understand your terminology.

I haven't "made" anything. I also quibble with your claim that the US is anywhere near zero% socialist.
The government has a major stake in my businesses. They have equity & control in the form of:
income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, licensing fees, employment laws, housing laws, zoning laws,
building codes, housing codes, credit/collection laws, etc, etc.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I agree however that our criminal justice system is broken. Prison should be for locking up dangerous people. I do not fear the vast majority of drug users or prostitutes and find it reprehensible that my tax dollars are spent persecuting them.

Precisely.

 

[lunakilo]

I haven't "made" anything. I also quibble with your claim that the US is anywhere near zero% socialist.

That was not my claim that the US isn't a socialist country, I was just quoting Revoltingest.

Certainly, the US isn't a socialist country, but it is more socialist than in the days when JD Rockefeller was building Standard Oil.

I just took that to meen that the US isn't very socialist.
But maybe I misunderstood...

(Note to self: quibble - nice word, must remember)

 

[Revoltingest]

Whether or not the US feels socialist seems to depend upon whether one is on
the receiving or paying end of benefits. That makes it a subjective & tough call.

 

[lunakilo]

Whether or not the US feels socialist seems to depend upon whether one is on the receiving or paying end of benefits.

Yep, that I think is true in any country.