Libertarian Socialism

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet they both agree to hand out trillions of dollars in corporate welfare to coal crooks.

See how well they're doing? That's an example of the state working fantastically - just not for you, or me...lol. I understand that you feel that it might be mutually beneficial for two groups to cooperate - and that sounds nice...but it's not exactly a "truism". It -just might- be more beneficial to my group to annihilate your group and claim your resources. Take N. America for example, I mean...you know...if we hadn't already......(couldn't resist)

[TaraJo]

So, yeah, tribalism could work. But I don't see it happening. It's far more common for tribalism to result in more violence and fighting and destruction and less general progressiveness.

We are getting way off subject here. I was talking about decentralized direct democracy. It would be mutually beneficial to co-operate with one another despite our differences. We could work out our differences through co-operation. That's the nature of free association.

You think people want to cooperate? I mean, yeah, it would be nice, but when one group is bigger and stronger than the other, they have a tendancy to say "Screw the cooperation! Were gonna take what we want!" Especially when resources are scarce.

I do recognize the strength that comes through centralization. But you gotta look at the problems that have gone unmanaged. Politicians on the right talk about the evils of the welfare state and the democrats pretend to take global warming seriously. Yet they both agree to hand out trillions of dollars in corporate welfare to coal crooks.

Agreed, there ar problems with the system as it is, no questions there, but I want to fix the system and deal with the problems as they come up; keep the good while fixing the bad. Your solution feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water; eliminating the good and bad together.

[stonedape]

Yet they both agree to hand out trillions of dollars in corporate welfare to coal crooks.

See how well they're doing? That's an example of the state working fantastically - just not for you, or me...lol. I understand that you feel that it might be mutually beneficial for two groups to cooperate - and that sounds nice...but it's not exactly a "truism". It -just might- be more beneficial to my group to annihilate your group and claim your resources. Take N. America for example, I mean...you know...if we hadn't already......(couldn't resist)

If we could annihilate the coal industry by giving all of their subsidies to clean energy, that'd be amazing. I'd sign up for that means of annihilation. I'm sure most people would. Just not the two parties of government. They are annihilating each other and themselves.

Not to sound like a bitch but......Right now, we are showing the symptoms of exhausted empires. Losing expensive wars to expand control over resources-CHECK. Massive debt from unwinnable wars-CHECK. Run away inflation-CHECK. Once supply and demand stop meeting, it'll be time to think about plan B. I think plan B should be an improvement over the slow motion car accident we are driving.

[The Grand Nudger]

Every good ride comes to an end. UK seems to have done aight. We'll be fine.

[stonedape]

You think people want to cooperate? I mean, yeah, it would be nice, but when one group is bigger and stronger than the other, they have a tendancy to say "Screw the cooperation! Were gonna take what we want!" Especially when resources are scarce.

What do you think is going on now? Scarcity isn't really an issue when you can provide services to adapt to circumstances. That requires as much flexibility as power. I think direct democracy offers flexibility and free association offers power.

Agreed, there ar problems with the system as it is, no questions there, but I want to fix the system and deal with the problems as they come up; keep the good while fixing the bad. Your solution feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water; eliminating the good and bad together.

I disagree. I believe we can have the best of both worlds and isolate the worst of both. What I'm getting at is a choice in the matter of our best intentions and interests.

Here is an analogy of what I'm thinking of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFOFFkXrtGg
Imagine if we could freely regulate the market by placing bulk orders for responsibly produced goods. Other companies would follow suit and compete.

[stonedape]

Every good ride comes to an end. UK seems to have done aight. We'll be fine.

Are the British peasants still ruled by lords and kings....nevermind.

[Brian37]

Direct democracy is not in anyway a good idea, just saying - Democracy is already full of flaws with a representative system, most people are too ignorant to directly decide what's good or bad, are easily influenced by emotions and are not scientifically educated enough for it. Not even semi-direct democracy...

If there were 2 referendums, one asking "Do you wish for MORE public health services?" and another saying 'Do you wish higher taxes?", people would probably vote Yes and No respectively, which is incoherent by nature since public healthcare needs to be funded.

I have met many people in my life, older, younger, middle aged, and most possess basic or good skills for their lives, but I wouldn't trust 90% of them to make public decisions for all of us, even if there was an absolute majority - Majority doesn't equal being right.

To the person whom you were responding to.......

What the fuck? "Democracy" isn't about trusting your neighbor, and you are an idiot to assume that "democracy" simply protects the majority. Can voting be "mob rule by vote" yes. But in the secular west we also protect minorities. Westernized governments have systems of oversight including the ability to protect the minority from a majority.

I fucking hate utopia talk like this. Without voting you have a dictatorship. By proxy of political party or class. No one should ever claim or want voting to be an absolute either.

Humans run everything both public and private, and since evolution is not a perfect utopia any system you set up is open to flaws because humans are flawed. But only a fucking idiot wants to be dictated to.

When you say "I don't trust others" and at the same time don't think voting works all you are saying is the same utopia crap I get either from Libertarians(no government at all) or Che supporters(Lets become Cuba) "I want to be the alpha male".

Where the hell did you get the idea that voting is the only thing that constitutes a democracy? That is as stupid as a wheel being the only thing that constitutes the entire car.

[Madness20]

including loss of private property and wealth, into becoming community profit, and everything should be regarded with having the prespective of having community as the priority over self interests.

Except that if they can't directly-democratically decide to own private property, wealth - against community "profit" and for their own self interests we're not actually talking about a direct democracy (if what they can directly democratically vote yay or nay for is limited in any way..say, by a constitution..we've left the field of "direct democracy" and gone on to other things). I think it's pretty well established that people do tend to vote yay for these things given the chance, btw. IMO, a better compromise is a system that protects those things and allows for them - but that also allows for people to -at the social or cultural level- not pursue them. That leaves the field open and amounts to more liberty. The fewer things that are specifically not allowed under a system the better. Doesn't mean that everything has to be permissible, or that the list of things not permissible can't be obscenely long, but every item on that list better have a damned good reason for being there, and if it doesn't -need- to be there it has no business being on the list.

I'm biased, I admit that fully..lol.

I think you are confusing democracy with fully anarchic liberty in itself. Democracy means "people's power" literally, and so in a democratic state you are assuming that "people" constitute the majority, and the "majority" should rule to cater to the same majority.

But this doesn't mean that people that doesn't have the competence to "vote" on economical issues should do it, after all the priority is cattering for what is really best for the people instead of what they think it's best for them, so decisions about economical aspects, must still be voted by compentent workers of the said area. (proletarian power as communists would say)
Obviously you won't put a fishermen voting on agriculture legislation, but you still don't really lose "democratic aspects" if you just allow fishermen to vote on fishing and farmers to vote on agriculture.

Despite, on the whole private property issue, the problem is that capitalism inherently undermines democracies, and it intentionally creates inequalities and depends on those for the system to work, and on the other way we all know how money can be used through perfectly legal means to influence people's votes and literally "buy them" out, and that's not even accounting with how international "pressures" and huge capitalsists can "subdue" countries to their rules - literally. In fact i might as well say that capitalism is a new form of monarchy where "higher classes" indirectly rule lower classes through economy, and these classes tend to be inherited by the persistance of such inequalities.

[CapnAwesome]

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.

I'm never going to defend the anarcho-capitalist position, because I think it's stupid, but those are poor examples. I don't think there has ever been an attempt at Anacho-Capitalism. It would mean that you would be getting rid of the government. The countries that buy goods from those countries, such as the U.S. an Europe definitely still have functioning governments. The countries that produce those goods, such as China, are as likely as not to be socialist countries.

---

Count me out of the "fuck you got mine" vision of America too. But you need to understand that individuality is our equality. Equality is each community having the power to make their own decisions. I don't want anybody making my decisions and I don't want to make anybody else's decisions.

I'm a libertarian socialist because I want my tax money to fund doctor owned healthcare. I want to fund competing teacher owned schools. I want to fund a green infrastructure. I want to fund homeless shelters and free rehabilitation clinics. I don't want to fund WW3. I don't want to trap victimless criminals in a cage. I don't want hard working refugees to be treated like "illegals". I don't want kids to be treated like criminals as I was. I don't want to fund ISIS, so I'll have to fund fighting them. Nobody asked me if I wanted to live in a constitution free zone.

I wish I could convince that southern hellscape called the bible belt to agree with me on healthcare and education. Does that mean I get to make their decisions for them? I don't want them to make decisions for me. I do not get to have it both ways. The bible belt sucks, always did suck and always will suck. I have no say in the matter. All I can do is encourage the oppressed to vote with their feet.

Did you just call the southern states in the U.S. a hellscape? Hahaha. Hyperbole much. Did you know that countries exist that aren't part of the pampered western world?

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously you won't put a fishermen voting on agriculture legislation, but you still don't really lose "democratic aspects" if you just allow fishermen to vote on fishing and farmers to vote on agriculture.

-That- would be oligarchy -if I'm getting your drift- (and a hell of a complicated one at that - are we going to assign a committee of knitting and a committee of dough kneading, to go with our committees on farming and fishing?). Any given oligarchy -may have - "democratic aspects" but that doesn't change the fact that it is an oligarchy (and just as a minor addendum - the sort of system I'd like to see -somebody- try at some point is often described as oligarchy with "democratic aspects" - I don't want you to get the idea that I'm poo-pooing any system that isn't a representative republic, with psuedo-capitalism shoring up the economy, like our own). I want to mention here, that under such a system (as you proposed), farmers -which make up less than 1% of our population in the US - would have sole jurisdiction over policies that affect 100% of our population. Not a situation I;d like to be in. By farmers, of course, I mean the dept heads of billion dollar multi-nationals....not mom and pops. Those guys are only slightly less mythical than unicorns. All the while, perhaps counter-intuitively.....farmers aren't necessarily good at what they do by virtue of being farmers. We're in a load of shit right now on that count - mostly because in many important ways - they aren't...or have no impetus -to be- even if they -could be-. A system in which "farmers" made those policies decisions would be one in which we were hostages to Monsanto, Con-Ag, etc......and they don't exactly have our interests in mind (even though they catch alot of unwarranted flak).

I mean, we could mix and match - blending different systems together and we'd probably end up with a wonderful (if bloated) system. The upper threshold for how bloated a system of government can be has increased dramatically since we left the days of sending notes on ponies between officials, so If governments problems are big - I see no reason that government should be of a size proportionate to the problem - but there does come a point... Would be a balancing act but we've been doing it for a long while. You won't find any glowing defense of or argument for capitalism either as an economic system or as a system of government from my corner. I think money is rationing by another name. I just want to make it very clear, in all of the above - that I'm not taking a black and white stance, or arguing for a pure form of -anything- as intrinsically superior to any other system in each and every circumstance. I would argue the exact opposite.