To My Fellow Libertarians,On Improvements Needed in the Movement.

[Libertyandlife]

How are you for a free market and a socialist, unless you consider an capitalism to be “stigmertic socialism”. To what extent is your belief socialistic?

My grumble about left anarchists is some of them being sympathetic to government programs. I mean if socialism is going to exist in a state of anarchy, a government wouldn’t be able to control things, or else it wouldn’t be anarchy.

Define socialism.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Oh, don’t get me wrong. As far as socialism goes;

I believe strongly in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and certain forms of welfare (to the proles and lumpen proles).

I hold healthcare and education as a right that the system is trying to rob us of, sometimes I include subsistence as a right as well. I’m very anthrocentric in that regard.

I am pro-internationalism, and ergo anti-war and immigration policies.

I also don’t trust a businessman as far as I can smell him.

I would push for people to set aside land for public use and environmental conservation.

As far as free market goes;

I think Mises, Rothbard, Smith, etc and other free-marketers are largely correct on how economies work (until you get into their politics. But the supposed value-free statements are largely correct imo), and I think communism (abolition of markets) is at least 1000 years in the future (when we have replicators and in such a manner that they are very widespread).

I don’t believe in forced education. I don’t trust institutionalized monopolies on violence. I think tax systems are inherintly unfair; rich people will always find a way to worm out of it. Any tax to me is inhumane, especially ones that effect anybody but the wealthiest 5% of a given population.

I find the state as nothing more than a way for wealthy capitalists (non-derogatory in meaning there lol) to push out competition and secure the markets for their own benefit. I am anti-fed, completely. And uh, I don’t follow with some socialists who see any self-interest as greed (greed to me passes a certain breaking point of self-interest).

There’s probably a bit more, and that may not have been that rational of a way to lay it out, but its the best I could do off the top of my head

[Snowflake]

So, the million dollar question is why you support the welfare programs? You would support anarchist versions of them? Forceful redistributions of wealth?

[Libertyandlife]

^This is what I mean, if you believe in people supporting each other voluntarily in their own labor, how can you believe in strongly people doing the same through coercion. I mean, if I don’t want to pay for social security, doesn’t that make social security coercive and taking away my freedoms as a person?

I mean if you want to support the struggling voluntarily you could in an-socialism, but you could in an-capitalism too.

I mean this and the problem of diversity is what turned me off of left anarchism. How are people going to organize to handle the demands of diversity? For example, there is food and entertainment, but there is so much of it. How are you going to make everyone happy or even manage that?

Why does anyone owe me education, or even food?

I’ve always been suspect of internationalism too, but I’m a bit iffy.

Honestly though, I feel if anarchy happens, and people want to go with an-socialism, they would have to have some type of market to even work.

More importantly then these questions, what do we have in common? Shared causes can be so simple, you don’t need to be an anarchist to be against war, or pro gun, or pro drug legalization.

[Snowflake]

@Libertyandlife

More importantly then these questions, what do we have in common? Shared causes can be so simple, you don’t need to be an anarchist to be against war, or pro gun, or pro drug legalization.

Beating up on social security and the minimum wage is just an intellectual exercise. In truth, we don’t know what the right policy is any more than we know what the right speed limit or price of potatos should be. If I were smarter, I would never debate policy.
Don’t private corporations have “socialized” healthcare? Chesapeake energy has their own doctors on site in their Oklahoma office. They pay their employees $1,500/yr to work out at their on site gym. Guess socialized healthcare can work…

The only question that matters is how policy is chosen. If you can get that right, you’re gold. We should focus on how to choose policy (voluntarism versus aggression), and everything will become much clearer.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

This is what I mean, if you believe in people supporting each other voluntarily in their own labor, how can you believe in strongly people doing the same through coercion. I mean, if I don’t want to pay for social security, doesn’t that make social security coercive and taking away my freedoms as a person?

I apologize if I didn’t make it clear that I’m not a fan of putting guns to people’s head to make them agree with me.

I mean if you want to support the struggling voluntarily you could in an-socialism, but you could in an-capitalism too

Exactly. Like I said, even in a socialist country (not communist. communism is the ending of markets, socialism is the means of productions owned by the workers as a whole. 90%+ people recieving somewhat significant dividends from stock is a ok with me ) markets will still be markets.

How are people going to organize to handle the demands of diversity? For example, there is food and entertainment, but there is so much of it. How are you going to make everyone happy or even manage that

Pretty much how they do now, with slight modifications. Central planning is not really a hallmark of socialism, really not even Marx is. I advocate for people to be more charitable, as both an ethical and practical issue.

Why does anyone owe me education, or even food?

Cuz you’re a human silly , don’t be so barbaric. Honestly I really have no justification farther than that (at the moment), and I’m fine with it. I find the notion that healthcare and education (probably even subsistence; food and housing) are not rights out-dated, barbaric, and somewhat draconian.

Also, on more practical notes, do you agree/disagree that education is good for markets and their actors in general?

I’ve always been suspect of internationalism too, but I’m a bit iffy
I think national-anarchy, imo, will work out about as well as national-socialism did (both kinds, nazi’s and stalin/maoists). IOW, not well.

what do we have in common? Shared causes can be so simple, you don’t need to be an anarchist to be against war, or pro gun, or pro drug legalization.

distrust of the state, belief in markets as a good and progressive thing (all socialists do, if they’re true to historical-materialism. capitalism > feudalism), distrust of politicians, we probably both like Ron Paul, anti-war, drug war, pro gun, probably both believe education in america needs major reforms, desire for less intrusions in our lives, belief in liberty as the highest human ideal (probably wildly different definitions of that tho. i’m going to tend to think you don’t go far enough, but hey, every little bit counts)

most importantly, voluntary cooperation > coercion

Idk, what music do you listen to, probably some of that too haha

[liberty_student]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I am a… libertarian socialist, techno-anarchist, free market, progressive, chomskyite, labor friendly, anti-establshment, democratic (not will of majority, but more anti-plutocracy of any kind), peace monger…?

Logically consistent?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I try to be.

EDIT: Missed your post Sieben. I completely agree.

[liberty_student]

If you’re consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process? Aren’t they just two parties in an exchange? What about you is free market if you favor labor and distrust business? It seems to me you’re not inclined to freedom but special interests.

Also, how are you free market if you favor welfare socialism and income redistribution? What is free market about public use for land?

It seems to me you’re wrapping yourself in a lot of labels without actually considering the consistency of any of the correlating ideas, and particularly without considering the consistency of ideas in combination.

You say you are against institutionalized coercion, then take a weaker stance on taxation. Then follow it up with some of the above, most of which necessitates a tax, or at the minimum, the power to regulate.

Maybe I am not understanding you?

[liberty_student]

@Scott, this ^^^^ is what you’re up against.

[AnonLLF]

@Jackson

“Alliances: Without suggesting that we betray principles(which was never my intent) I think we should be more open to alliances and collaborations with other groups on an issue by issue basis.”

no. have you ever seen these professional protestors or gone to any of their events. a protest against, say, raising student loans will draw crap from feminism, free palistine, legalize marijuana, end drilling, outlaw eating meat etc. do you really want to add libertarianism to this hodge-podge joke of ideas. you won’t be making a stand, you will just be out there rubbing one out with the rest of the malcontents.

(All rather cynical.Why shouldn’t libertarians be part of things such as these when they are applications of our principles.)

“In the past Rothbard aligned with the left on war and peace and today I think we should seek to do the same.”

there’s a reason the rothbardians stopped all that nonsense.

(True.However just because it failed at a specific moment in time does not mean it’s impossible.Take for example Anti.war.com, not everyone there is libertarian yet they work together for peace ,oppose empire etc.)

“To clarify ,in seeking alliances we should neither be universally and unconditionally supportive nor universally and unconditionally opposed.”

if you have principes, that’ll be a difficult thing to live up to.

(My principles do not require me to oppose leftwing anarchists who truly oppose the state and aggression.They lead me to seek to ally with such people.There’s nothing in our principles that opposes that)

“Considering specifically Anarcho-Libertarianism ,this is a brilliant possibility which hasn’t really been tried before.We could seek an alliance with other anarchists”

…something tells me you haven’t talked to many non-capitalist anarchists. I’ll save you the time by telling you no, it’s a horrible idea and there is no point in the attempt.

(I’ve talked to a few left anarchists.Granted it hasn’t always gone well.But in so far as we are anarchists we’ve had common ground)

“This too would help aid our mainstream public image.”

anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism will never, ever, ever, ever under any circumstances be popular with the public or a majority.

(I can see why you might think that.However we just can’t know)

“Who knows we might just learn something new.”

my money is on ‘no, I won’t learn anything new.’

(Impossible to know.So your saying you won’t learn of a new commonality? or individual both groups like? or idea we agree on or etc…

“We must get out of the habit of talking of the economy today and in history as though it has been laissez faire,capitalist or libertarian.”

you need to really stop bandying about that collective pronoun as a) this is not the rev left forums and b) I and most of the people who have anything to do with LvMI don’t talk of the economy as if we have a free market.

( My apologies in regard to (a). As for (B) well I have seem some equate Capitalism(which I assume means the same as a free market) with the current economy intermittently with calling it Corporatism or Socialism.Which is confusing and contradictory.

“So it is a grave error for us to talk of the glories of Capitalism in raising the average person’s living standards.Instead we should talk of the market”

“if someone is so much of a simpleton that the difference between a successful or unsuccessful conversion to libertarianism is whether I use the word capitalism or speak vaguely of markets…well…that’s not somone I really feel that will contribute in any way to progressing the ideas of economic freedom.”

But If you mistakenly call what we have today Capitalism and then claim we are for Capitalism (as in a free market) then your sending out mixed messages.It’s a problem though thankfully not a big one.

“we should also acknowledge that Wal-mart is involved in eminent domain,lobbying for laws which hurt smaller businesses and is also in part tax payer funded in respect to it’s infrastructure.”

“hate the game, not the player.”

I don’t buy that.It doesn’t make sense.

Same could apply to rapists,criminals,politicians,soldiers,terrorists etc.

“if you still target out businesses that are simply playing by the dirty rules that are given,”

That’s not an excuse.There are businesses who get by fine without them and also I was referring mostly to businesses who received massive principles such as huge subsidies or military contracts.

“then you are still playing into their rather childish anti-rich/anti-business sentiments.”

That’s rather simplistic view if you think anti- corporatist business = anti-rich/anti-business.

Rothbard certainly did not think so.Robert Higgs certainly does not think so.

This is a major part of our philosophy. It that aspect makes us in part or in whole ‘leftist’ then so be it.Corporatism is the prevailing regime of our times.I’m not saying we should oppose all businesses no matter what.I’m just saying we should oppose them gaining from statism or even seeking to expand it.That’s not strange.It’s just applying principles.

Furthermore beyond libertarianism, I would say corporations are not exempt from morality e.g. in the case of weapon manufacturers who know who the weapons are going to and what purpose or what likely purpose.

" not the players who have to go through these hoops to scrape out a living."

This is only one aspect.

Also I do not see any sign that players have to go through hoops to scrap a living when the state so quickly hands out corporate welfare.

“However these critiques can at times go too far in denouncing all environmentalism as statist or socialist”

“outside of arbitors making rulings on whether or not someone’s pollution has harmed another’s property, what environmental techniques are not statist or socialist?”

Buying up property.Voluntary organizations dedicated to cleaning up rivers,homesteading the sea etc.This is all mentioned in free market environmentalist literature.It’s a major part of libertarianism.

I’m not quite sure I understand what your getting at.

“Whether or not you believe in AGW this cannot cloud your mind to the fact that because we live on this planet our acts on the environment affect other people.We must come to see that though typically Environmentalism is Eco-centric,misanthropic and anti-market ,that it need not be so.”

“Kumbaya Save The Whales Kumbaya”

That’s exactly why other people do not take us seriously and view us as cold.Sure you can be libertarian and not care about the environment excepting when pollution etc violates rights or aggresses.But Libertarianism shows us a different kind of environmentalism.

“but what we don’t cover enough is how the state harms the poor. if we wish to show we are not (as some non-libertarians belief wrongly) cold hearted or “anarchists for the rich”.We need to show two sides to the coin which is how it occurs in reality,that the state both privileges and at the same time harms the poor.”

anyhow, my response is generally a big, Rothbardian ‘so what?’

Somehow I don’t think that’s the correct response.

“what ‘progress’ can be made by pandering to flimsy emotivst &#*@s?”

Nothing emotivist about caring for poor people or any people for that matter.Again your coming off cold and heartless.

“why would you ever think convincing someone who makes a “Oh Won’t Somebody Please Think Of The Children” argument will accomplish anything?”

Who’s to say it couldn’t? I’m not saying that one argument alone could win someone over but it does show we do have solutions.We don’t just shrug things off.

“Those Socialists who are anarchist and willing to accept our stance on non aggression should be ,for anti-statist purposes, our allies.”

“so naive it hurts.”

I disagree. All I’ve gotten from you is that ,these people reject some of our ideas therefore “ahhh scary”! Really not helpful.

“anyhow. as I said earlier, anarcho-capitslism, libertarianism, accepting responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, etc. will never, ever, ever, be popular ideas.”

Accepting consequences for one’s actions IS a popular idea already.It’s just not applied consistently.

" sure, being a demagogue"

I haven’t argued for that.I’ve said we need to show we have solutions but that we shouldn’t make it up and that they are just applications of our principles.

“and yelling ‘SOLIDARITY BROTHERS’ may work when convincing the ignorant poor that they should be given things for free,”

I’ve never said anything about that.

" and as you can’t do that, you aren’t going to be able to engage the vast majority of humans on a level they find acceptable."

Your forgetting what Rothbard said.He knew that and what did he say in reply? People are interested in moral arguments(but also practical ones) These are the questions that again and again we are asked.

“and what makes you think that increasing our numbers will do anything?”

Make us have a larger voice.More people to do what we do now.Debate.Educate.argue.protest.Appear in books,magazines,radio,tv. Look how libertarianism has grew from being little known to at least mentioned in numerous people even if only briefly and even if only derisively in the main.

" what you do NOT do is put up a booth in between the holistic medicine stand and the sds registration table and try to grab walk-bys."

Why not?

" and wealthy, entrepenurial, principled men"

I don’t think that JUST those types of people will be involved.

(“the kind of men who molded america out of a stagnating britain” Into what exactly?

[AnonLLF]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I am a… libertarian socialist, techno-anarchist, free market, progressive, chomskyite, labor friendly, anti-establshment, democratic (not will of majority, but more anti-plutocracy of any kind), peace monger…?

I am truly an anarchist, no rulers, no styles, no schools. If it works, and gets us a step closer to a truly free and fair society, and also to colonizing space, I’m with it.

In short, I believe in self-determination as the truest path to true freedom, and I find institutionalized violence as destructive of that end.

What do you mean by “no styles”? how do you conceive of the anarchist community you’d like to live in?

[AnonLLF]

@liberty student

If you’re consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process? Aren’t they just two parties in an exchange?

What about you is free market if you favor labor and distrust business?

Nothing in libertarianism requires you to trust or like business as a whole but oppose using force against it.

It seems to me you’re not inclined to freedom but special interests.

Fair Comment.

Also, how are you free market if you favor welfare socialism and income redistribution?

Gary Chartier - a left libertarian - says that the Free market is redistributionist in that it breaks down wealth gained from privilege granted from the state.I think he has a good point.

What is free market about public use for land?

I think he means collective ownership in a voluntary sense and that’s not anti-libertarian.Just I’m not sure how it’d work.

[AnonLLF]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Oh, don’t get me wrong. As far as socialism goes;

I believe strongly in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and certain forms of welfare (to the proles and lumpen proles).

But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else.

I hold healthcare and education as a right that the system is trying to rob us of, sometimes I include subsistence as a right as well. I’m very anthrocentric in that regard.

I don’t see the system trying to rob anyone of it.

I am pro-internationalism,

as in cosmopolitan(looking at issues globally?)

and ergo anti-war and immigration policies.

Common ground.

I also don’t trust a businessman as far as I can smell him.

I disagree but ok.

I would push for people to set aside land for public use and environmental conservation.

Nothing wrong there.Not my idea of a hobby but ok.

As far as free market goes;

I think Mises, Rothbard, Smith, etc and other free-marketers are largely correct on how economies work (until you get into their politics. But the supposed value-free statements are largely correct imo), and I think communism (abolition of markets) is at least 1000 years in the future (when we have replicators and in such a manner that they are very widespread).

I don’t believe in forced education. I don’t trust institutionalized monopolies on violence. I think tax systems are inherintly unfair; rich people will always find a way to worm out of it.

Nothing wrong there.

Any tax to me is inhumane,

Agreed.

especially ones that effect anybody but the wealthiest 5% of a given population.

Disagree but ok.

I find the state as nothing more than a way for wealthy capitalists (non-derogatory in meaning there lol) to push out competition and secure the markets for their own benefit.

You mean Corporatism .

[apehead]

@Liberty Student

Ideological compromise is pointless and cowardly.

LOL, it’s gonna be a good day, tater.

Forgetting ideology for a minute, the chance of your vote mattering is statistically unlikely. Perhaps going through the motions just makes people feel better, like saying “I love you” at the end of phone calls.

I agree that voting sucks, but hey, the risk/reward analysis is favorable, at least. I don’t do it just because it satisfies some frustration that comes with being another’s slave, I do it because it’s easy and although statistically improbable, I may be able to affect change, at least in part. I’d take (practically) free lotto tickets any day of the week!

If you really want to use the political system, become a politician.

+1 for running for office. Also, keep it local and grassroots. It’s much eaier to have your vote count when only few hundred (maybe) or so people vote for city council, or constable, etc.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

If you’re consistent, why do you see businessmen as distinct from consumers in the market process?

DId I say I trust consumers either? Really, I think there’s a certain merit to competition that keeps untrustworthy businessmen in line if they desire long-term profits (repeat customers, etc).

What about you is free market if you favor labor and distrust business?

You don’t have to be an elite-apologist to favor markets . What about me could not be free market if I favor labor and distrust business? Remember, I favor markets, labor is a part of that.

It seems to me you’re not inclined to freedom but special interests.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow you there. What are you trying to say?

Also, how are you free market if you favor welfare socialism and income redistribution?

So, anybody who donates to United Way is anti-free market? Bill Gates giving $7b/yr to his foundation is anti-free market?

What is free market about public use for land?

What is anti-free market about a wealthy land owner who gives up a portion of his land as a public park?

It seems to me you’re wrapping yourself in a lot of labels without actually considering the consistency of any of the correlating ideas, and particularly without considering the consistency of ideas in combination

If I hadn’t considered this myself, I would have wanted to say the same thing to you. But I have considered it, and I don’t see anything inconsistent about it. I think I remember you saying in another thread, if it’s voluntary, it’s the market. (might have been someone else, thot it was you)

You say you are against institutionalized coercion, then take a weaker stance on taxation

I said I find any coerced tax inhumane. WHat more do you want? Just because I wouldn’t be as against a tax on the top 5%, doesn’t mean I’m pro tax. I would still be against it, it just wouldn’t be a top priority.

Then follow it up with some of the above, most of which necessitates a tax, or at the minimum, the power to regulate

If a community says to business “we will not buy your products if you can’t; take care of environment and workers, make a trustworthy product, etc” is that anti-market? It is a consumer demand, and if a business cannot keep up with that (and is not being coerced) that is not the consumer’s fault. That business just apparently didn’t fit market demands well enough and had to go.

Like I said, I find a lot of value giving everyone a stable existence. I would not put a gun to your head to make you agree with me, but I would hope you “see the light” (whatever that means).

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

What do you mean by “no styles”? how do you conceive of the anarchist community you’d like to live in?

According to my own interpretation.

But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else

I don’t really buy into that argument. They helped me quite a lot. I think there is a certain type of person that this will just become an excuse for laziness for, and that those people stick out like a sore thumb. But I grew up pretty poor (wheter you agree or not LS) and most of the people I know who recieved assistance put it to good use, and are not really poor anymore. More like lower middle class.

I don’t see the system trying to rob anyone of it.

Do you have student loans to pay?

as in cosmopolitan(looking at issues globally?)

I don’t believe in borders. But yes, I try to look at issues globally (which is why I don’t think afghan is a just war, google cia supports mujahadin).

You mean Corporatism .

Yes

[liberty_student]

@Jackson LaRose

LOL, it’s gonna be a good day, tater.

@Jackson LaRose

I agree that voting sucks, but hey, the risk/reward analysis is favorable, at least. I don’t do it just because it satisfies some frustration that comes with being another’s slave, I do it because it’s easy and although statistically improbable, I may be able to affect change, at least in part. I’d take (practically) free lotto tickets any day of the week!

Opportunity costs, nothing is free.

@Jackson LaRose

+1 for running for office. Also, keep it local and grassroots. It’s much eaier to have your vote count when only few hundred (maybe) or so people vote for city council, or constable, etc.

All politics is local.

[liberty_student]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

You don’t have to be an elite-apologist to favor markets .

This is why you don’t get ancap. You think it is, to quote Scott Horton, “the white man’s anarchism”

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

What about me could not be free market if I favor labor and distrust business? Remember, I favor markets, labor is a part of that.

Which means you implicitly disfavor one half of the transaction.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I’m sorry, I don’t follow you there. What are you trying to say?

You don’t seem to favor the market as a process producing voluntary outcomes.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

So, anybody who donates to United Way is anti-free market? Bill Gates giving $7b/yr to his foundation is anti-free market?

That is charity, not socialism.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I said I find any coerced tax inhumane. WHat more do you want? Just because I wouldn’t be as against a tax on the top 5%, doesn’t mean I’m pro tax. I would still be against it, it just wouldn’t be a top priority.

Taxation is theft and backed by coercion. Again, you pick and choose who deserves justice, and you do it arbitrarily, what seems like being based on marxian class analysis, which is a distortion of libertarian class analysis.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

If a community says to business “we will not buy your products if you can’t; take care of environment and workers, make a trustworthy product, etc” is that anti-market?

Of course not, but I am into methodological individualism. Communities don’t make decisions, individuals do.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

It is a consumer demand, and if a business cannot keep up with that (and is not being coerced) that is not the consumer’s fault. That business just apparently didn’t fit market demands well enough and had to go.

I am all for that.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Like I said, I find a lot of value giving everyone a stable existence.

Then be prepared to pay for it all by yourself because no one else is obligated to pay for it, including the rich.

[AnonLLF]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

What do you mean by “no styles”? how do you conceive of the anarchist community you’d like to live in?

According to my own interpretation.

Would you be willing to explain it more?

But all of those hurt the poor as well as everyone else

I don’t really buy into that argument. They helped me quite a lot. I think there is a certain type of person that this will just become an excuse for laziness for, and that those people stick out like a sore thumb. But I grew up pretty poor (wheter you agree or not LS) and most of the people I know who recieved assistance put it to good use, and are not really poor anymore. More like lower middle class.

In my experience it creates an incentive to become dependent.Sure some people will manage to overcome those incentives but I think it’s rare and in any case creates the thought in poorer people often that the state cares about them or wants to help them which is false.

I don’t see the system trying to rob anyone of it.

Do you have student loans to pay?

No.I don’t see the state trying to ‘rob’ people of welfare.I seem it more and more willing to give it.Corporate welfare is just one aspect of the general welfare.

as in cosmopolitan(looking at issues globally?)

I don’t believe in borders. But yes, I try to look at issues globally (which is why I don’t think afghan is a just war, google cia supports mujahadin).

I agree with you on this.I think most libertarians do.

You mean Corporatism .

Yes