Libertarian Socialism

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Then what you need is a mountain bunker, removed from other human beings. Keeping it at a minimum is pretty much the best you can hope for in a society. The township of Legal Pedo is never going to happen, no matter how many catholics gather in one place, just as an example that shows how stretched the idea of equality as each community having the power to make their own decisions actually becomes. There are limits.

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.

Get your candidate in office then. -Your- tax money isn't going to build any infrastructure buddy, you aren't that rich. Bet you couldn't even afford the sections of pavement you drive on if you had to pay it's full cost (and I mean the royal you...your whole town). We'll need -everyone- pitching in on that count....and I doubt that everyone is going to agree to it - even if they all use the energy created by it. So whats the deal, we just can't do it unless everyone agrees..-or- we leave some portions of the US (the dissenters) as barren wastelands? Nope, I say we drag em kicking and screaming into a better future. "You don't want green energy? Too bad, go fuck yourself, we already spent your money - and we'll be back for more later". I know, I know, the same could be said of WW3, but them's the breaks, huh? It's just absurd to think that any man, city, county, or state could actually be an island...spending it;s resources (again, unequally distributed) -only- on what it/he/she wants. It's just not that kind of world anymore.

I don't want to

Neither do I, but others do, and they got their boy in office. I don't think that the system is functioning properly atm, but even if it were it would still be possible for things I don't like to occur on my tax dime (if I paid any, suckers).

Does that mean I get to make their decisions for them?

If they make bad decisions, then yes...somebody has to stand up to the tyranny of the majority, if that's a factor.

[stonedape]

Get your candidate in office then.

What candidate? Maybe if Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul run on the same ticket. Rand is a bit of a koch whore.
I did go to a couple city council meetings about out door smoking and vaping. It didn't work, because the council was a bunch of former school teachers that thought we should be governed the same way they governed class room. That'll teach me for voting for educators without doing my research.

I know where you democrats are coming from. I've been one most of my life until about the last year. I think Obama fabricating the war in Syria was the last straw.

I know the sales tax, gas tax, payroll tax, registration fees and bullshit fines I've paid would be more than sufficient to pave my block. I actually know this because I know some oldschool draft dodging anarchists that have paved their own roads. They built their own homes, built a water system and dug their own septic tanks. So I actually do know how Anarcho-Socialism works on a community scale. It just operates on common generosity and courtesy, not state controlled order.

EDIT: I forgot to mention anarcho socialism isn't for everybody, but the idea is that it doesn't have to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I'm not a dem - I'm a non-participant.

They made the pavement and equipment did they? They logged the forests and sawed the timber, they distilled the chemical treatments? Or was that little bit of misery pushed off on somebody else? They subsidized the industries that provided the required materials (to the tune of billions over generations)? Doubt it. I think you're not really looking at the bigger picture that makes something like that an untenable position to be in. They -still- had support from others, even though you nor they were seemingly aware. We're all long...long past island status. We may hide a cost or shuffle it off but it still exists. Somebody has to square away that bill. Even the simplest of projects (like building a shed) relies on the vast and (for american's such as myself anyway) largely out of sight machinery of state. We complain about what we see as though it weren't just the tip of a behemoth iceberg, but the whole enchilada. Hell, the shit we notice probably isn't even the stuff that would effect change in the overall landscape -if it, specifically, were changed-

Don't even get me started on all the maintenance -after- a block has been paved. Sorry bud, but I'm not buying what you've sold yourself regarding your tax contributions. Sounds to me like your buddies anarcho socialism -itself- was subsidized by the state.........damn that state!

[TaraJo]

Then who would you suggest establish the rules and regulations we need to have a functioning society?

You, me, everybody.
What really matters is the quality of our society. That comes from us, not from rulers. Not to say there shouldn't be rules, but they really are up to us to enforce. You can't depend on an imaginary authority figure to make anything happen. You can only count on your community.

I believe you mean one of two things

1) You prefer the people to govern directly instead of electing representatives to govern for them

or

2) The government is so out of control that the people no longer control it

Option 1 has a lot of serious problems, but I still get the feeling that you're leaning towards option 2. Thing there is, while I acknowledge that the government is out of control, libertarian proposals exactly had any solutions to it that would lead to more freedom for your average person. The "solutions" proposed would dial us back to the dawn of the industrial revolution, with most American workers in sweatshops with few rights and little money while the property owning elites lord over us the way mideval land owners lorded over their serfs. And, yes, I'm aware that if everyone decided not to work with the elites and didn't give them business or refused to work for them, this wouldn't happen, but that's just what we want to happen, not what would happen. As it is, I would be thrilled if people stopped going to church every Sunday to kiss the butt of an invisible friend in the sky, but since I know it isn't going to happen, I take religion into consideration when I deal with others. Likewise, while I would want us to abandon power hungry monsters of corporations, since I know we wouldn't, I don't want to give them free reign to rule over us like corporate dictators.

[stonedape]

Meh, I'm not a dem - I'm a non-participant.

They made the pavement and equipment did they? They logged the forests and sawed the timber, they distilled the chemical treatments? Or was that little bit of misery pushed off on somebody else? They subsidized the industries that provided the required materials (to the tune of billions over generations)? Doubt it. I think you're not really looking at the bigger picture that makes something like that an untenable position to be in. They -still- had support from others, even though you nor they were seemingly aware. We're all long...long past island status. We may hide a cost or shuffle it off but it still exists. Somebody has to square away that bill. Even the simplest of projects (like building a shed) relies on the vast and (for american's such as myself anyway) largely out of sight machinery of state. We complain about what we see as though it weren't just the tip of a behemoth iceberg, but the whole enchilada. Hell, the shit we notice probably isn't even the stuff that would effect change in the overall landscape -if it, specifically, were changed-

Don't even get me started on all the maintenance -after- a block has been paved. Sorry bud, but I'm not buying what you've sold yourself regarding your tax contributions. Sounds to me like your buddies anarcho socialism -itself- was subsidized by the state.........damn that state!

You are absolutely correct sir. There is no way any of this could have happened without the large formless organism known as the market. Supply and demand are not bias, but individuals are. That's how you create a market bias. So you are a participant, like it or not.

BTW. My anarchist friends never even talk about anarcho theory. I've probably talked more about it with you guys than them. There is just the social ethic of throwing a party without leaving a mess.
It's a formless theory. There are no contracts or formal agreements. If somebody is being a scum bag you treat them like a scum bag. They'll either correct their behavior or they'll fuck off.
It takes several marketable skills to build your own house. My friends were raised learning those trades from their parents. So they actually have a pick in who they work for, usually they'll go for the job that treats them like an individual, rather than who pays the most. Or they can work for themselves, building their own house if there are no decent jobs.
There's also social barter. I've had my car repaired for the low price of cigarettes and beer. I've helped lay bricks and pour cement for a couch to crash on.

There is nothing radical about libertarian socialism. It doesn't require raging against the machine. It's informing yourself on what that machine is and not feeding it.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you are a participant, like it or not.

Sure, sure, my non-participation is only relevant to party affiliation and voting. I don't vote (and never have - most likely never will), I'm not a member of any political party, so the "you dems" bit doesn't really apply to me. Of course I participate in the system et al, I can't avoid it any more than your buddies, but I don't involve myself -in that particular bit-. I have no interest or impetus. I'm just about convinced that it's nothing more than theater. I'm at that rung of society where a change in leadership has no discernible effect on my life.

There are no contracts or formal agreements. If somebody is being a scum bag you treat them like a scum bag. They'll either correct their behavior or they'll fuck off.

Or- they'll take to you and yours like a plague for all you're worth...not because they're scumbags, but because they have mouths to feed that are more important to them than your own. You wont be able to fend them all off by yourselves, no one can - it's hubris to think otherwise - every position falls......and so we make a compromise with the state for security...-if-nothing-else-.

It takes several marketable skills to build your own house. My friends were raised learning those trades from their parents. So they actually have a pick in who they work for, usually they'll go for the job that treats them like an individual, rather than who pays the most.

How wonderful to be able to make such choices. Sounds like they aren't starving. Privileged people...go figure? I'm suppose I may be the worst guy to have this discussion with.......I've seen actual anarchy, not coddled malcontents playing anarchist under the loving arm of an existent state. I've picked up the rubble (and the severed limbs of human beings) and rebuilt the houses (and destroyed them again as well...no sense in omitting that I suppose), witnessed (and caused...at least in part) that misery first hand.... and I simply cannot forget it.

Anarcho -anything- isn't just "not for everybody" - its for nobody, I could not stand by and let it occur here, to me and mine. I suspect that you only entertain it as a plausible or workable model because you don't have firsthand experience. If you do, please, elucidate - wreck my assumptions and help me to have better nightmares...lol. Let me be clear......I think that the state very often oversteps it's boundaries - but I couldn't point to that as an argument against the existence of the state. I understand it's failures, but I also appreciate why we have a state.

[stonedape]

I believe you mean one of two things

1) You prefer the people to govern directly instead of electing representatives to govern for them

or

2) The government is so out of control that the people no longer control it

I'll take one on the local level and two on the global level.

If you go back to the dawn of the industrial revolution, unions began to form. Many of them were anarchist. These populist movements created the middle class. Prior to this it was completely unheard of that labor could dictate how much they were paid and what conditions they could work in.

At the time there was a draft to fight in ww1. The police backed the robber barons rather than the organized labor. Most of the exploited labor were immigrants that would be deported if they went on strike.

This forced the progressive era to happen. Industrialists had to start caving in and providing benefits, if they didn't want to be forced into an early retirement. At the time Democrats were a bunch of elitist, klan hooded, skull and bones motherfuckers. They didn't make these reforms because that was their party position, they made these reforms because they had to OR ELSE.

[The Grand Nudger]

These populist movements created the middle class.

Whahahahahat? You mean it didn't have anything to do with WW2 or the housing loan programs instituted by the state immediately following? You and I probably have a different idea as to what "middle class" means - that's understandable, definitions vary. Why not claim that the middle class was created in the UK, at the waning end of fuedalism?

The middle class and the state are pretty much tied to the f'ing hip - then and now, no matter where we place them.

[stonedape]

How wonderful to be able to make such choices. Sounds like they aren't starving. Privileged people...go figure? I'm suppose I may be the worst guy to have this discussion with.......I've seen actual anarchy, not coddled malcontents playing anarchist under the loving arm of an existent state. I've picked up the rubble (and the severed limbs of human beings) and rebuilt the houses (and destroyed them again as well...no sense in omitting that I suppose), witnessed (and caused...at least in part) that misery first hand.... and I simply cannot forget it.

War is the opposite of anarchy. That is changing somebody's will by force. That's the whole point of violence. You were not participating in anarchy, you were sent to a foreign land to control uncontrollable people with violence. I'm sorry if you were suckered into going to a foreign land, under the premise you were there to help. But you can't help anybody by force.

Militant extremists think they are trying to help. Be it beheading the the village homos in a Pakistani hamlet or operating a drone. There was a time when american militant extremists threw the village homos in rape dungeons. Now we mostly throw village junkies in rape dungeons.

I'm sure if my community had a democratic say in the matter, we wouldn't do such things. I'm guessing if your community had a say in the matter you wouldn't do such things.

If we all respected self ownership and natural rights, then we wouldn't have militant extremism. It's an objective value of yourself and others. Don't let yourself be exploited, don't exploit others and stick up for the exploited. Not with violence, but with the truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< fortunately, I wasn't part of the rash of recruits post 9/11. I saw the most horrid shit -not- in a warzone, but as a peacekeeper. As the cruel boot of the state (a foreign state, no less) - I did immense amounts of good. Relative to my other deployments, I actually take pride in that. I didn't see anarchy in the middle east. I saw war and misery, sure, but not anarchy. Of course I wasn't participating in anarchy in those (peacekeeping) deployments - I was there to put an end to it.

The aftermath of war -when all interested parties have dissolved or left people to fend for themselves (or have been limited such that they cannot do all that is in their power to help).......now that was heartbreaking. In the thick of it, the experience was much different. Interested parties capable of propping up a state (a military one, albeit) were still present and operating so while I may criticize the scope of their control I can't deny that a state existed. Things were better in the middle east even as rounds were flying than they were in other places where I plied my trade (where skirmishes were an infrequent or rare occurrence).

How about militant extremists that hand out MRE's, are they not helping? Respecting self ownership and natural rights only takes us so far. Someone, ultimately, has to be willing to enforce those things - because even if we all respect those things that doesn't mean that we all agree as to -who- owns -what-. Your community (with it's democratic say) might just be the origin of some tyranny of the majority - it's foolish not to at least entertain that possibility. Good things don't just flow from your community by virtue of it being arranged democratically. Sometimes large numbers of people are assholes along precisely the same lines and they democratically agree to engage in utter douchery. All of this, mind you, doesn't invoke the most drastic of scenarios, whereby you engage in war against your neighbor in the face of desolution, starvation, etc. People fighting for their very sustenance can be resisted, even killed - but I cannot judge them for what they do. Fight or die. We don't think about that much.....but it;s more prevalent than we'd likely care to consider. Sure, the potentate is just angling for power......but his soldiers are -starving- and the neighbors have food.

Anarcho-anything simply ignores this. It envisions some alternative universe where people can bunker up and provide for themselves or their group. They can't. That's abject poverty. You won't be able to build a mouse (and anyone who can isn;t going to need to trade with you -for anything-.......why would they need anything from you..they can build a mouse?) - the closest you'll get is a stone handaxe. So when you show up to their fortress gates starving and ragged...you think they;re going to hand you food and water, or that anything you have will be worth food and water? Maybe, if what you have consists of heavy armor and trained infantry (and isn't this okay under anarcho anything..it's not like there would be any laws against it) - otherwise, they're more likely to tell you to pound sand....just like we already do. How does that sound to you? You build a peaceful village, I'll recruit soldiers. Oh how wonderful our future will be......