Highlights for deaf ears; even Bakunin admitted that anarchism did not reject authority entirely.
I’m sure the psychological witch-hunt was fun while it lasted, but why not get back topic for a change?
The term “socialist” is not being used as a pejorative here. When you say, “I’ve been called worse”, you seem to be taking it that way. You are a statist. I am not “calling you a name”. It is a statement of fact, like saying, “you are a human being”. You support statism. My tone is very matter of fact.
There is government, and there is liberty. On or off. One or zero. “Degrees of liberty” is not liberty. It is statism. We do not experience liberty. All of us here were born into a state, we live under a state. We can talk about liberty, write about it, theorize about it, but none us here (or anywhere) has ever experienced it (I did read the Irish example, but I have my doubts that they experienced liberty, it was a compelling case though).
How’s that limited government doing? Passed any more laws today? Tax increase maybe? Take over another industry? Another war, maybe? Printed another trillion dollars? (Now my blood is boiling) They literally printed $1.7 trillion in the past year! Do you know what they are doing to the economy? Do you have any idea? Are they protecting us? Defending us? Providing services for us? You know, it’s not a game anymore. They really have destroyed the economy. Yes, that limited government thing. I was a believer once too.
Chloe, I understand that in an-cap terms, liberty and statism are opposite ends of a spectrum but I don’t think that characterization does justice to the innumerable variations we see in politics.
I can see that you’re angry but I think that your anger is driving your ideology. I’m angry too though, I understand.
I started another thread so we could continue on this tangent if we want. I know it’s a really long post but I hope you guys take the time to check it out.
Like the colors in a rainbow?
What is there to be angry about? We live in the most free nation mankind has ever conceived of, right? We have more liberty than anyone else ever had, right? It is reasonable to work within the system, to change it, to vote. There are many shades of grey here. I see rainbows and happy litte birds all a twitter. We must not allow our anger to drive our ideology. We must look at things through the calm perspective of reason. See, I understand too. I see no reason for you to be angry. The state is firmly in control, as it should be, right?
I think it is serviceable to generally assign words to concepts according to (1) how they are more generally assigned within the tradition one is working in and (2) in a way in which superfluous synonyms are somewhat minimized and useful concepts aren’t left without labels. On both counts, and to avoid needless confusion, it seems advantageous to limit the term “socialism” to something like “a society-wide order under which the means of production are publicly owned”, and not as a synonym for bureaucracy.
You’re only looking at the variations on the statist end, and it seems to me, trying to convince us that the differences between a Hitler and a Stalin matter.
I’d like to say, I’m not angry. I got over angry a few months ago. Now all that is left is to work. To push good ideas and refute bad ones. To keep learning and to not take things for granted, because every day brings progress, if we can stop to see it. If you guys are angry, I’m sorry about that. Anger will not make the world a better place. Action will. Consistent, peaceful, tireless, principled action.
Also, chloe is right. No one meant socialist as a pejorative. If you support the state imposing your social agenda with force, you’re a socialist. Socialists don’t have a particular agenda, except as Hard Rain quoted Lew Rockwell in the other thread, to control people’s lives. Whether it is right or left, socialists want the same thing. To control someone else. How and why are simply a matter of aesthetics.
Good point. I’ll work on that.
Aren’t they the same thing? The state bureaucracy doesn’t exist but for the society wide order under which …
The reason why socialism/socialist is effective in debate with Jacob, is that he attaches negative ideas to them. If you say, “you’re a statist” he will reply, “absolutely I am”. If you point out that his ends and means are consistent with socialism, then he has to either address his ends and means, or try to differentiate them from what he considers to be “real socialists”.
The reason why I don’t like “public ownership” is because as methodological individualists, we recognize that there is no such thing as “the country” or “the public”. That all ownership is ultimately private.
Socialism in my opinion, is better defined as, the absence of property rights.
Yes, perhaps state bureaucracy does exist only for the sake of bringing on socialism. But that’s not the same thing as being socialism. Within a bureaucratic organization, means of production are publicly owned, but any given bureaucratic organization doesn’t necessarily encompass a whole society.
This is an interesting question. Is ownership, in terms of the traditional definition of socialism, a praxeological, a historical, or a legal category? I must say I don’t know the answer. But I’m too sleepy to reflect on it just now.
I should have been asleep hours ago. [:)]
We should revisit the latter portion sometime. I don’t know the answer to your question either.
I think semantics would make it more confusing. Bureaucracies as you call them still suffer from all the same economic calculation problems as full scale socialism only to different varying degrees(Accept that they don’t suffer from the lack of currency problem). Those bureaucracies are also socialist in nature as stated above, based on the definition, behavior, and concept of socialism. They cannot service consumer demand, and publicize ownership of property and production. That they are a small segment of our economy is no less a cancerous/socialist segment of our economy.
Abandoning our terminology to make people feel better is going to make progress more difficult. Worse, it’s going to be confusing to the possible hundreds of other readers who don’t participate here but seek to learn.
The terminology must be consistent and if the wrong word is being used than it should be scrutinized. I think bureaucracy would be misleading and weaken the Austrian argument.
And Yes, I agree. No one needs to be scrutinized or ridiculed. I apologize that it has seemed that way thus far.
Hi filc,
That’s a big “except”.
But it is, as you say, a segment. The whole point in the age-old capitalism vs. socialism debate was what is the best system for an economy as a whole. There’s a reason why Mises wrote a treatise called “Socialism”, an entirely different book called “Bureaucracy”, and used the term “Intervention” in still other titles. They are catallactically useful distinctions, and I don’t think blurring those distinctions does anything to further understanding.
I talked about clarity and avoiding confusion. I didn’t say anything about making people feel better.
The definition you’re advocating is quite a novel one. Socialism as “public ownership of the means of production” is the one used by Mises, Marxists, and most people in between. It seems to me that the “all government is socialist” conception is the one that is more likely to be confusing to readers.
No worries man! [B]
Can’t sleep. The reason I’m ok with being called a statist but not ok with being called a socialist is because I see them as fundamentally different concepts. On the one hand, I do believe there needs to be a state and that a state can serve a very useful purpose, on the other hand, I do not think the central ownership of the means of production is a useful or desirable end. So I think I can be a statist (minarchist to be more exact) without being a socialist, whereas you have the two terms conflated or at least have introduced them as interchangeable, which I contend is unfair.
Also, I don’t think this is necessarily true. Socialism doesn’t necessarily mean the utter absence of property rights, but the partial absence of property rights. The degree to which property rights are infringed upon can and does differ widely across the spectrum of socialist or at least commonist systems.
In fact, I would argue that only Marxist communism really tries to outlaw all forms of private property. I would also argue that communism is fundamentally a different animal than socialism but I’ll admit that I struggle when trying to explain the differences I see.
Ideology often seems to seek a single bullet explanation or introduce a “one box” viewpoint for policies and ideas which are best viewed, in my opinion, as being fundamentally distinct from one another. In fact, the main goal I think in this form of political theory is to build taxonomies of classification with many levels of criteria so as to be able to distinguish one species of theory from another. Block called it “biology envy” in that video.
Your responses are understandable but filled with a brazen contempt for me and an intense emotionality that Im honestly not trying to provoke. I think you’re being unfair with me here and trying to obviously trying to put words in my mouth that I haven’t spoken. You’ve mischaracterized some of what I’ve said here and while I understand the value of rhetoric, I don’t think it’s helping me try to answer your question.
This may be all my fault, but I really am trying to help you and me and everyone else find an answer to a very good question. I hope we can find a way to move on constructively in this conversation.
To get back to square 1 for a sec
A) While I am far from the humanist school in psych, and while I may not exactly agree with it, “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” may offer a decent start point for answering this question. If enough people feel they are in poverty, sex deprived, out of homeostasis, etc they will value those more concrete and “basic” needs over freedom
Also, I do not feel these needs are static, I believe they are all relative (most likely on some type of bell curve) and perhaps somewhat subject to propaganda
B) As Intellectuals may over value the desire for being “rational”, etc libertarians may overvalue the desire for freedom. The key word, I think, is “desire”, so long as enough desires are subsidized in a relatively convenient manner (population= complacent enough to not revolt) under govt rule, a govt will exist that restricts freedoms.
C) It is easier to sell a concrete wish (FOOD, MONEY, SEX, NOW!) with a more immediate and basic effect than a comparably abstract and ill defined idea such as freedom. Concrete (solid, visceral) vs. Idea (abstract. form) Concrete will win almost always.
D) Should you expect one to give up “power” in favor of “freedom”? If I have a subsidized power (through my vote, a subsidized “dream job”, subsidized wealth, or some other form of subsidized power) why the hell would I give it up? If the state/ tyranny do a decent enough job in subsidizing people to complacency (or it subsidizes enough people/ “right” people to their desire) I would expect it to be an established institution not going away anytime soon.
Likewise if I know I have the power to bend something to my will, what is stopping me from doing so? Achieving ones wants and desires of the moment, by whatever means is a much better sell to some (most?) than an idea of freedom. So long as this remains a somewhat significant reality, it remains a somewhat significant problem for freedom.
What is the silver lining for libertarians? Individual peace and production are the engine for humans to survive and trade is the fuel for civilization as we know it; no matter how atomistic, egoistic, or collectivist you wish to take things. Without those two items, we all die. Those who produce have the real power, and the only way for production to work is to have at least some form of a capitalistic mechanism.
I think this might be in line with what Hazlitt called the unseen consequences. The state is a central ownership of the means of production. I think I understand you are saying you are not a socialist because a socialist advocates/enacts an enlargement of such a centralization. You don’t advocate such and there in exists the difference. But that’s not taking into consideration the unseen which is by definition a state exists as a central organizing entity for a particular society. So thereby for the state to even exist it socializes something, whether you see it or not. There’s no way a state can get around that fact.
I think you are thinking that a socialist wants to increase gov’t and as a minarchist since you want to decrease and limit gov’t you are not a socialist. What everybody else is pointing out is a socialist isn’t about the increase or decrease agenda when it comes to the gov’t. Socialism is the centralizing apparatus itself. So therefore even if the gov’t is limited or decreased in size it is still a centralized organization - socialistic by nature to the whole of a society. I’ll explain a bit more below.
I think you may be conflating society, ie two or more people, with the political economy of such a society. Socialism is the absence of property rights, but that doesn’t mean all of society is necessarily socialized. Parts of society may very well be not socialized via gov’t and therefore property rights are justly maintained. I think everything is socialized today though. There isn’t anything that is considered property that the gov’t does not have it’s hand in somewhere along the production line. Even when I hunt, a deer can be maintained as my property without gov’t intervention but the gun I used had the gov’t intervening in numerous ways along the production of said gun. And without the gun I wouldn’t have killed the deer.
What matters if the state is socialist or not? The question is whether it is good or bad.
Is anybody willing to explain to me why AE’s (perhaps) incompatible with Biblical theism?
Please don’t say that it’s because Biblical theism is based on mysticism/nonsense or something along those lines. This is factually untrue, and thus, intellectually insulting. I am trying to understand and learn.
somebody is dropping the nets from the boat, baiting, and it’s not me.
I think it might help you to look up things by Gary North. I think he’s just completed a collection of books regarding the bible and economic theory or something along those lines.