Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

strelok

Brian? wrote: »

its my firm belief that the term libertarian was only used by extreme capitalists in the beginning to draw people in as the term "anarcho-capitalist" isn't very palatable.

the term libertarian was adopted in america as the term liberal was coopted by the american left and just wasn't working any more for anyone with more of a 'small government' outlook.

but by all means carry on with your weird conspiracy theory of the evil anarcho capitalists trying to sucker the feeble minded into their nefarious trap.

Brian?

strelok wrote: »

the term libertarian was adopted in america as the term liberal was coopted by the american left and just wasn't working any more for anyone with more of a 'small government' outlook.

but by all means carry on with your weird conspiracy theory of the evil anarcho capitalists trying to sucker the feeble minded into their nefarious trap.

It's not a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying there's a secret plan behind it all. There's a quite public plan, I don't happen to agree with.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

As I said it is an oxy moron as per the definition that most people in this thread understood....

Let's just close this thread someone....You have done your job in hijacking....I got my answer...nothing else to discuss here really

I was actually hoping to have a decent discussion about it, not hijack anything. If opposing views are not welcome maybe you should find a libertarian forum to post the question on.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

I was actually hoping to have a decent discussion about it, not hijack anything. If opposing views are not welcome maybe you should find a libertarian forum to post the question on.

Mission accomplished Well done

johnnyskeleton

gobsh!te wrote: »

You are not a libertarian? Then I guess this is not directed towards you.

I disagree with you on your above statement.

I would never go back to being a Catholic depending on the Pope for example.

Being a "Catholic" refers to a specific organisation or sect of Christianity. The descriptor "catholic" is very different, meaning universal.

If there were only two political parties in Ireland, the socialist and libertarian parties, then your point may have some substance. But they are both generic descriptors of general positions, and more specifically positions relatove to the status quo. A socialist wants more redistribution amongst society. In a perfectly equal society one would expect very few people to be called socialists - they would just be normal.

More importantly, libertarian is a general descriptor of a more extreme form of liberalism.

By the way, when I was in college the term libertarian was virtually unheard of, at least in its modern form, and that wasnt terribly long ago. So even if you could demonstrate that no one has gone from being a self described libertarian to a socialist, this would not prove the superiority of libertarianism; it would at best show how relatively new the term is and how ill defined its core principles are. Sure who doesnt like freedom and liberty?

Akrasia

gobsh!te wrote: »

As I said it is an oxy moron as per the definition that most people in this thread understood....

Let's just close this thread someone....You have done your job in hijacking....I got my answer...nothing else to discuss here really

Actually anarcho capitalism or right wing libertarianism is the oxymoron

It's not true freedom when it's one dollar one vote

Akrasia

strelok wrote: »

the term libertarian was adopted in america as the term liberal was coopted by the american left and just wasn't working any more for anyone with more of a 'small government' outlook.

but by all means carry on with your weird conspiracy theory of the evil anarcho capitalists trying to sucker the feeble minded into their nefarious trap.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just a natural evolution of language. Libertarianism now means right wing laissez faire capitalism. It barely even refers to socially liberal attitudes anymore because it has been corrupted by the influence the conservative religious right in America. Ron Paul for example was the darling of the American libertarian movement, but he opposed gay rights and abortion and secularism

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By the way, when I was in college the term libertarian was virtually unheard of, at least in its modern form, and that wasnt terribly long ago. So even if you could demonstrate that no one has gone from being a self described libertarian to a socialist, this would not prove the superiority of libertarianism; it would at best show how relatively new the term is and how ill defined its core principles are. Sure who doesnt like freedom and liberty?

Same here. I've never heard it in real life myself. I first became aware of the term via the sitcom Parks and Recreation. I watched the Guardian journalist Owen Jones, who identifies as a Marxist all but accuse Douglas Carswell, UKIP's sole MP of being a libertarian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pa-e_kzg2s

ancapailldorcha

Lockstep wrote: »

I've taken a much more libertarian view on social issues as I got older. Economically, I'm still fairly left of centre.

Personally, I see around as many teenage libertarians as I do teenage socialists. Adhering to a dogmatic ideology gets a lot harder as you get older and realise the world is much less black and white than you might have previously though.

I try to keep an open mind about things and concepts like socialism and libertarianism are too pure and simple to be enacted in their purest forms IMO.

coolemon

Approaching 30 now and for the last 4-5 years have defined my political views as a libertarian socialist and anarchist. For the preceding 8-9 years before that I was a libertarian Marxist. I am still mainly a libertarian Marxist in that my perspective is most informed by Marxist theories such as historical materialism. However I think due to the predominance of authoritarian 'Marxism' (Leninism and all of its derivatives) a certain counterbalance and shift needs to occur. For this I think the promotion of anarchist forms of socialism to be a good starting point.

To a certain extent as you get older you become more pragmatic and less inquisitive, but not necessarily more objective. Without a cohesive and consistent ideological framework I think it would be very easy to drift in a more conservative direction. I have a good grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of my ideological perspective, and without it I would have no marker point and my views could easily drift over time.

In the 15-16 years involved in activism I have seen people come and go. Some of the most enthusiastic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Anarchists disappear off the face of the earth and into the workforce. I often find however that these peoples knowledge of the subject at hand to be rather superficial and is often a transient identity politics they gravitate towards in their college years.

More broadly I think socialists are of all ages. Paul Murphy is the youngest of the socialist TD's in the Dail, and he is hardly some spot faced college student. You will find that most socialists in organisations in Ireland are not college students either. In fact in many places on earth the Communist Party's are made up of old men radicalised at another historical juncture.

So I think the stereotype is wrong and most often repeated by people who most probably know very few socialists in real life.

coolemon

gobsh!te wrote: »

I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

You must have never heard of Anarchism then.

PopePalpatine

gobsh!te wrote: »

A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Thanks for hijacking the thread.



I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

Good luck trying to form a trade union in a libertarian society, you'd see how quickly your "freedom" doesn't apply in that case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good luck trying to form a trade union in a libertarian society, you'd see how quickly your "freedom" doesn't apply in that case.

you could form one, just nobody would listen to them. They would be as irrelevant as they are now, only with the last shred of power they have over the public service removed.

PopePalpatine

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you could form one, just nobody would listen to them. They would be as irrelevant as they are now, only with the last shred of power they have over the public service removed.

Oh, they would be listened to...by a Pinochet-wannabe's secret police.

Eric Cartman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh, they would be listened to...by a Pinochet-wannabe's secret police.

I see you managed to wade through the hundreds of socialist dictators and murderers to find the one dictator who had free market ideals. Not saying he was in any way a good individual but with a 30,000 death toll under his regime he is by far one of the most benign dictators by comparison. He was also a US installation which doesn't help.

a libertarian society doesn't need enforcement and government would not be large enough to even fund a 'secret police' body as you so describe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely. His economic advisors were Friedmanite economists fresh from the Chicago School though. Isn't Milton Friedman someone you often recommend on the libertarian reading list?

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I see you managed to wade through the hundreds of socialist dictators and murderers to find the one dictator who had free market ideals. Not saying he was in any way a good individual but with a 30,000 death toll under his regime he is by far one of the most benign dictators by comparison. He was also a US installation which doesn't help.

a libertarian society doesn't need enforcement and government would not be large enough to even fund a 'secret police' body as you so describe.

Suharto?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their ilk were as much socialist as Pinochet was libertarian. Their actions were an anathema to socialism, which is an inherently democratic philosophy. These people were megalomaniacs pure and simple, right or left.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely. His economic advisors were Friedmanite economists fresh from the Chicago School though. Isn't Milton Friedman someone you often recommend on the libertarian reading list?

It took quite a bit of lobbying along with a financial crash to persuade him to attempt a free market solution to Chile's economic problem.

Iwasfrozen

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely. His economic advisors were Friedmanite economists fresh from the Chicago School though. Isn't Milton Friedman someone you often recommend on the libertarian reading list?

Not really, socialism can be tyrannical or anarchistic, libertarianism by its definition can only ever be anarchistic or semi anarchistic. So Pinochet was not libertarian but Stalin was certainly socialist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

joseph brand

Eric Cartman wrote: »

serious income : enough to afford your mortgage, run a car , contribute to a pension and put food on the table , pay for kids etc.. at the moment above 40k a year.

actual work : (earned income) money derived from your continued labour , not trust funds, inheritance, lottery wins, personal injury claims, song royalties etc.

A bleak view of the world, not really. People reap what they sow and some people have done amazing things by working hard and achieving great economic results for themselves and their families. Those people are optimistic about achieving and go out and earn what they deserve. The other side of the coin are the people who sit around in negativity and proclaim "the government owes me this, ill never afford a house unless gov'ment gives free, give me more shekels I don't have a job and its all your fault"

I think a crisis of confidence is the biggest issue. You'd be hard pushed to find a socialist with an optimistic vision of their or the nations future.

When I read the above I was instantly reminded of an article I read recently:

Winning the lottery makes you more conservative, study finds.

A sudden windfall makes people less compassionate and 18% of winners immediately switched support to conservatives.

Forget tax breaks or middle-class welfare. Rightwing political parties’ best chance of rapidly winning over voters could be via the lottery, according to new research.

A joint Australian and British study has found that lottery winners tend to switch their political allegiances to rightwing parties after their windfalls. They also appear to become less egalitarian and less concerned by the challenges faced by people on low incomes.
“The amount won in the lottery is completely randomised but we saw that the more you win, the more right-leaning you become,” he said. “You are more likely to favour rightwing ideas, such as lower taxation, and are less favourable to redistributive policies.

'Set a beggar on horseback, and he'll ride to the devil'.

joseph brand

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that phrase : "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain." comes to mind.

My parents, who are in their 60's, have shifted to the right and now read The Daily Mail. The above phrase was put to me on a few occasions.

I believe that people long for the old days as they age, and conservatism is all about regression and retarding progress. Of course older folks become less idealistic, but I would change the '40' in that phrase to '50'. (we probably had shorter lifespans when that phrase first appeared).

Being conservative at a young age is odd.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, a few things actually, major labour market reforms would be required in a world where 'work' is radically different. If there is a huge surplus of labour due to much more efficient production, then reduce the working week, increase the number of paid holidays, introduce schemes to allow workers to take paid career breaks to upskill and retrain and raise their children.

Wealth taxes would be absolutely essential to prevent consolidation of wealth and resources into the hands of the owners of capital.

Imagine a not too distant future where Walmart, a privately owned company (in contrast to publically traded companies) can have almost their entire operation automated. Self driving logistics, automated warehouses, self service tills, robotic cleaning etc

They could conceivably reduce their workforce from 1.4 million employees to 100,000 employees. The profits made at the company will remain within the Walton family and far less of the wealth is redistributed in the form of wages.

Lower demand for workers would put downward pressure on wages so there needs to be a counter balance, to force employers to improve the conditions of the workforce.

The benefits of technology are potentially huge, but we need an economic system that is capable of handling it.

Brian?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not really, socialism can be tyrannical or anarchistic, libertarianism by its definition can only ever be anarchistic or semi anarchistic. So Pinochet was not libertarian but Stalin was certainly socialist.

Socialism cannot be "tyrannical", it has been used as excuse for tyranny. If you think Stalin was a socialist, you have a very poor understanding of socialism.

I agreed already, Pinochet was not a libertarian. He was a tyrant.

I think I need to say this again in clearer terms. Socialism is not the opposite of libertarianism. The 2 philosophies are intertwined. The recent movement of capitalist libertarians taking sole possession of the term libertarian confuses the issue greatly.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Socialism cannot be "tyrannical", it has been used as excuse for tyranny. If you think Stalin was a socialist, you have a very poor understanding of socialism.

I agreed already, Pinochet was not a libertarian. He was a tyrant.

I think I need to say this again in clearer terms. Socialism is not the opposite of libertarianism. The 2 philosophies are intertwined. The recent movement of capitalist libertarians taking sole possession of the term libertarian confuses the issue greatly.

Yeah National Socialism is not tyrannical either. Hitler just warped it. If you think that is true National Socialism then you have a very poor understanding of National Socialism.

The difference between Libertarianism and Socialism is use of force.

In Libertarianism everything is voluntary.

In Socialism, if you don't pay the taxes you get thrown in a cell.

I'm anti violence, this is my main reason to be against socialism

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not really, socialism can be tyrannical or anarchistic, libertarianism by its definition can only ever be anarchistic or semi anarchistic. So Pinochet was not libertarian but Stalin was certainly socialist.

Marxism and Trotskysim both contain a 'vanguard state', a totalitarian party which implements the socialist structure, and this vanguard state is supposed to 'melt away' after the revolution.
Problem is, that people don't voluntarily give up power, and there are always excuses for maintaining the totalitarian structure to prevent counter revolutionary activity

It's one of the deepest flaws with marxism. Libertarian socialists recognise this, and the structure of a libertarian socialist society is based on mutualism and cooperation between loads of different autonomous groups.

There are problems with the logistics and decision making structures in this kind of ideology, so most libertarian socialists push for social democracy with direct democratic structures as the best real world way of accomplishing many of the same goals.

For libertarian socialists, the state is a problem, but capitalism without regulation is much worse, so in order to protect against unfettered capitalism which is brutal and exploitative, left anarchists are prepared to support the state and try to promote increased democratic accountability within the state.

This is why libertarian socialists hate anarcho capitalists so much. they're almost polar opposites of each other

sonny.knowles

No

gobsh!te

Akrasia wrote: »

For libertarian socialists, the state is a problem, but capitalism without regulation is much worse, so in order to protect against unfettered capitalism which is brutal and exploitative

This is nonsense...The only reason a company gets to be brutal is through state help....show me any company that lasts without the help of the state.

I suppose you are hoping Uber gets "regulated" then?

Maybe the internet can get regulated too.....Once you see the state as force, everything else becomes clearer.