Libertarian Socialism

[stonedape]

I've known some anarcho socialists and they could never offer a decent explanation. Even Noam Chomsky can't define it clearly and he's a linguist. The only think you hear about in the news is the stupid teenagers looting starbucks for being filthy statist oppressors.



Here's why the size of government needs to be limited in order to limit corruption. The bigger it is the more corruption will sneak in to dominate.

[Dystopia]

Even though I'm some kind of libertarian, that would be better if you took the word socialist away. I'm still trying to understand how is there a connection between socialism and less government intervention, most seem to want the opposite.

Anarcho-socialism? No, anarcho-capitalism

[downbeatplumb]

Anarcho-Capitalism is the very worst form of society which has been tried over and over again and always leads to oppression and social inequality.
You want to see unfettered capitalism look at sweat shops, child labour.
If you want social justice and equality socialism IS the way to go.

[Dystopia]

Anarcho-Capitalism is the very worst form of society which has been tried over and over again and always leads to oppression and social inequality.
You want to see unfettered capitalism look at sweat shops, child labour.
If you want social justice and equality socialism IS the way to go.

Socialism seems to me more social injustice than justice, it is highly incompatible with our nature.

Has anarcho-capitalism ever been tried? I don't think so, I've never heard of abolished states with a capitalist system - Anarcho capitalism assumes that there is NO state and a full free market system, if everything would fit it would be perfect - I'm talking about utopia here, by saying Ancap is better than Anarcho socialism, by far.

BTW, tell me about societies that work perfectly using a socialist model? China, Cuba, N Korea?

Don't bring the northern European countries as a model - Those countries are a perfect example of capitalism working with regulations, their growth is due to capitalism, they are not socialist

[stonedape]

Blackout
Downbeatplumb

I actually think the mistake is mutual exclusivity between socialism and capitalism. I think capitalism is great for individual efforts and syndicalism (worker owned) is great for collective efforts. There is also the need for public services, property and assets from voluntary sources. Capitalism, just monetizes everything. We'd be confined by toll roads if we lived in an An-Cap utopia. Nobody would bother building the roads in an An-Soc utopia. It would take a mutual combination of free association to build the roads to be open and free.
All that matters is Personal Ownership. You own yourself and the services you provide. Nobody should be treated like a resource unless they own the resources they provide.
The market is determined by self interest. Personal ownership sounds like self interest to me. It also stands with a really important principal that there is more to life than money.

[Dystopia]

stonedape, your perspective is the one I adopt, even though I still prefer capitalism over socialism, I don't discard socialism because government intervention is necessary. I was merely talking about an utopia, IF it worked - As far as I know, not only does pure capitalism fail but anarchy has also never worked for a long time, but assuming both could work by 100% - Then Ancap would be great, considering individual liberties would be maximized and everyone would have an allocated job.

Other than that, I share your perspective, I'm a kind of social democrat.

[stonedape]

BTW, tell me about societies that work perfectly using a socialist model? China, Cuba, N Korea?

Cuba would be the most honest example, since they are the least authoritarian. Cuba does three things really well Healthcare, Education and Jazz. The three things they suck at is breakfast, lunch and dinner. Since everybody gets paid the same, the socially rewarding careers are over saturated and the dirty work is neglected. But I'd rather live in Cuba than work at Foxconn.

[tjakey]

I like the idea of "personal ownership". For a while now I have felt that any successful society would entail two basic premises, 1) no one can coerce another in any way for any reason, and 2) no one should profit off the labor of another. (Similar and maybe the same idea as Personal Ownership.)

When it comes to liberty though, I take a different tack than the libertarians. I think history has shown that liberty only exists in a complex, modern society that is deeply committed to universal human rights. Liberty is not an individual thing, it is a corporate thing that is shared in a society where everyone demands that freedoms are protected for all. I think personal liberty is the most valuable, and the most difficult, goal of humanity and simply can't be accomplished individually. Truly liberated people have access to health care, quality education, a non-polluted environment, and enjoy job (or income anyway) security. They are not at risk of corporate whims and malfeasance, not subject to religious dogma driving political decisions, and do not routinely fear for their safety at the hands of either outlaws, the police force, or religious fundamentalists.

Liberty cannot thrive in a self-centered, greed driven, crony-capitalist, violence loving, war-mongering nation where the "rugged individual" (as much a myth as any god) is worshiped along with corporate profits. It cannot thrive while "government" is derided as "the problem" by the very people who what to be elected to run the country. Liberty cannot exist in a theocracy.

Which is why liberty is being lost in America, with little hope of recovery. We have simply abandoned all of the pathways that lead to it.

[stonedape]

tjakey

Those rights you are talking about are not possible on a large scale. Every community has a different economy, culture and needs. Healthcare, education and labor need to be micromanaged. The one size fits all approach is the problem. It's unmanageable and dystopian. You do not want Ted Cruz making your decisions for you.

Everybody forgets what makes 'murica great. It's because we have 50 'muricas to choose from. But guess what, they are getting big and antiquated. They can't catch up to political will. The federal level is unmanageable because it has to keep up with the political will of 50 very diverse states.

The federal government has three jobs. Protect the constitution across all 50 states, settle multistate/multinational disputes and provide security. Healthcare, law enforcement, safety, labor and education is up to the states. With that said the states could do better. Each county could do better. Each city could do better. The federal government needs to do its job and do it right. Right now they are creating enemies abroad. They've given up on diplomacy. They let the multistate/multinational corporations control them. Now we each owe china $55,000.

One right you completely fucking neglected is personal entrepreneurship. Why would anybody work for McDonalds when anybody can make better food cheaper? Because bureaucrats won't let you open your own shop without filling a trillion forms. This has structurally created the rigged market that only works for those that can afford lawyers.

[tjakey]

tjakey

Those rights you are talking about are not possible on a large scale. Every community has a different economy, culture and needs. Healthcare, education and labor need to be micromanaged. The one size fits all approach is the problem. It's unmanageable and dystopian. You do not want Ted Cruz making your decisions for you.

Everybody forgets what makes 'murica great. It's because we have 50 'muricas to choose from. But guess what, they are getting big and antiquated. They can't catch up to political will. The federal level is unmanageable because it has to keep up with the political will of 50 very diverse states.

The federal government has three jobs. Protect the constitution across all 50 states, settle multistate/multinational disputes and provide security. Healthcare, law enforcement, safety, labor and education is up to the states. With that said the states could do better. Each county could do better. Each city could do better. The federal government needs to do its job and do it right. Right now they are creating enemies abroad. They've given up on diplomacy. They let the multistate/multinational corporations control them. Now we each owe china $55,000.

One right you completely fucking neglected is personal entrepreneurship. Why would anybody work for McDonalds when anybody can make better food cheaper? Because bureaucrats won't let you open your own shop without filling a trillion forms. This has structurally created the rigged market that only works for those that can afford lawyers.

I don't agree that liberty is not possible on a large scale. It isn't possible (at the moment anyway) in our society because our society is pretty screwed up. Things do need to be expertly managed, micro or macro are just points on a sliding scale.

I agree that the federal government needs to to its job and do it right. That would include preventing the States Rights fundamentalists from keeping minority Americans away from the voting booth, infringing on the rights of female American's, and forcing the rest of us (Fuck you Texas) to teach our kids Christian-Lunacy-Creationism as science. It is the States (mostly Republican) that are neglecting the Constitution. (With the help of a Republican SCOTUS). The Federal Government's main failure is letting them get away with it. You think the smaller the government the better. I disagree. The smaller the government the less fight it can put up against mega-corporations. Local schools are fucked up not because of the Department of Education, but because local school boards are run by Nut Cases who think god gave Adam a dinosaur to ride around the Garden. Teachers are neglected because that same School Board flunked Jr. High and is looking to get even. Small government only works when there is a big government standing over them making sure they play by the rules.

I completely fucking neglected personal entrepreneurship as a right because it isn't one. As long as your personal fucking entrepreneurship meets a market demand without trashing the environment or subjecting workers to sub-standard wages and working conditions, fine. But if history teaches us anything is that the fucking personal entrepreneur is mostly driven by greed, and he doesn't give a rat's ass about anything other than how much profit he can squeeze out of his workers, suppliers, and customers. As long as the Government is keeping the playing field level and fair, this is not a problem. Such a self-centered and harmful personal fucking entrepreneur would soon be out of business; abandoned by workers taking better jobs (or fixed by them starting a union), suppliers getting fairer prices and selling their wares elsewhere, and customers getting better products and serves from the shop down the street.

Unfortunately the mega-fucking-personal-entrepreneurs bought the Government with the help of the same Republican controlled SCOTUS. Most of us are seeing our rights flushed down the shitter as a result. Health care run by pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, and insurance companies. (Who make money from a sick society, not a healthy one - and who don't want to insure anyone who is likely to need insurance.) The environment trashed by big energy companies protecting their vested internists with - let us not forget - massive tax breaks from both State and Federal governments. Wall Street gambling our money away (when not buying hookers and coke) and walking away free because they didn't break any "regulations". Our "justice system" has been sold to some personal fucking entrepreneurs who run our prisons, and the result is America has the largest incarceration rate in the world. Ditto for weapons manufacturers, war and gun deaths.

Getting rich at the expense of everyone else in the community has nothing to do with liberty. So, fuck off ...