“We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same. What is the common goal of economists [i.e., classical liberals] and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible, and where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labor shall be as just as possible? … Only we approach this goal by different paths…. Why do you refuse to follow the path of liberty alongside us? … If you became certain that you had been mistaken as to the true cause of the evils which afflict society and the means of remedying them … you would come over to us.”
-Gustave de Molinari, “Letter to Socialists”
Depends what you mean by “socialist ends”. I would argue that centralising power in the hands of a few individuals (statism) is hardly a good way to engender equality. So if one means material equality by “socialist ends”, then one could easily argue that libertarian means are compatible with them.
The only way to accomplish material equality is by force. That has been the socialist modus for some time. Force everyone to be equal, and eventually everyone is equally poor. It requires aggression.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with equality, which is an end. Libertarianism is about means. The ends of those libertarian means are left to each individual to decide.
lol. Libertarianism has everything to do with equality before the law and with the rejection of authority - meaning individuals have an equal amount of authority over other individuals - that amount being zero.
I actually recently watched Long’s speech at L&R 40 Years Later. He claimed that the socialist agenda was material wellbeing for the masses rather than equality. The free market has a lot to do with quality of life, which I think is the point behind the OP.
It would be interesting to either see quotes from the elite vanguard of marxists, or otherwise a social sciences type ‘scientific’ polling of the ideas of modern socialists as to whether they are opposed to ‘absolute poverty’ or ‘relative poverty’
I don’t think the answer is obvious, it would be really illuminating to know.
Regardless of what they say, obviously socialists are typically opposed to relative poverty, since the average man is hundreds of times better off than the historical man.
Unless someone wants to advance a defendable definition of absolute poverty? hmmm
Regardless of what they say, obviously socialists are typically opposed to relative poverty, since the average man is hundreds of times better off than the historical man.
Unless someone wants to advance a defendable definition of absolute poverty? hmmm
I’ve actually recently begun explaining to people that everyone is really very open to libertarianism/anarchy, pointing out that regardless of however they want society structured, they would never come to my house with a gun and force me to pay for their programs. I think by pointing out their own behavior and showing its consistency with libertarian values, we can deprogram the doublethink.
Though I do agree, socialists tend to be control freaks with an utter disdain for liberty and enlightenment…
You know what I am saying. Sure, one can pursue socialist ends with libertarianism. Whatever socialism without genocide, slavery and destruction of property looks like.
But to say that libertarian ends are socialist ends? Gimme a break.
Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth — goals which can only be achieved through liberty and the separation of government from virtually everything — by imposing the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. ~ Rothbard, For a New Liberty, The Libertarian Heritage