Thread: Tell me about Libertarianism(discussion)

I have to agree with ninja: libertarianism is the flip side of Marxist communism, pleasing for idealists to contemplate, but impossible to implement without disastrous consequences.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I have to agree with ninja: libertarianism is the flip side of Marxist communism, pleasing for idealists to contemplate, but impossible to implement without disastrous consequences.

These kind of posts should be left to Extended Discussion, should they not?

Socalism and Communism doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarianism. Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.

Most libertarians do take a practical approch and do believe some government is needed. They just stress that the government should be taking a smaller part.

Originally Posted by Alric

Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.

Can you give an example of a libertarian nation in history?

By the way I live in socialism, I also voted a couple years ago...

The US was very libertarian starting out. Libertarains want us to be a lot more like we were, when our country was formed. With a few adjustments however. We had some really bad banking practices early in our histroy that no libertarian would support.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

By the way I live in socialism, I also voted a couple years ago...

they were talking about pure communism though (which I agree people interchange socialism and communism when they are different)

Here is the original thread, which has some very detailed explanations of what libertarianism is plus some discussion about the extent of its validity.

http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=94520

If you want to debate any of that, please do it here.

Blueline is correct, my post was not suitable for the Ask/Tell thread here, so I split this discussion to ED.

Originally Posted by Alric

Socalism and Communism doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarianism. Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.

Most libertarians do take a practical approch and do believe some government is needed. They just stress that the government should be taking a smaller part.

On your first point, Europe's "practical approach" to Democratic Socialism doesn't seem in danger of devolving into tyranny anytime soon, alarmist cries to the contrary notwithstanding.

A great many libertarians take cues from Ron Paul, and at least pay lip-service to total deregulation and the elimination of all progressive taxes (i.e. bracketed income tax, estate taxes) and "safety net" social programs. While the world has not yet seen a "Libertarian USSR," the purist approach to libertarianism would likely lead not to anarchy, but also totalitarianism, placing unbalanced power in the hands of corporations rather than the state.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

On your first point, Europe's "practical approach" to Democratic Socialism doesn't seem in danger of devolving into tyranny anytime soon, alarmist cries to the contrary notwithstanding.

How do you know? It always happened in a hurry when it happened in Europe.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

A great many libertarians take cues from Ron Paul, and at least pay lip-service to total deregulation and the elimination of all progressive taxes (i.e. bracketed income tax, estate taxes) and "safety net" social programs. While the world has not yet seen a "Libertarian USSR," the purist approach to libertarianism would likely lead not to anarchy, but also totalitarianism, placing unbalanced power in the hands of corporations rather than the state.

A totalitarian government that does absolutely nothing?

I think he might have been referring more to a corporatocracy sort of situation where the actual government has little control, while corporations effectively control the society.

Originally Posted by Alric

Socalism and Communism

Please, do yourself and the world a favor and do not make that generalization. The two are very different things.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Please, do yourself and the world a favor and do not make that generalization. The two are very different things.

On paper, they are different. When put into practice, communism is the same as pure socialism. Everybody owning everything and nobody owning anything amount to the same thing. In both cases, the government actually owns everything and lets the people partake in some of their stuff.

Let's pretend an entire nation owns everything in that nation. What does that really mean? Can I walk into the house where you sleep and walk off with the television because it belongs to both of us? No, the government wouldn't allow it. Property is not really collective in communism. You use the television because the government let you use it. The government has control of the economic system, and they distibute stuff out as they please. That is pure socialism. Communism and pure socialism work the same way. The differences are only in the way their names and plans are labelled.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

On paper, they are different. When put into practice, communism is the same as pure socialism. Everybody owning everything and nobody owning anything amount to the same thing. In both cases, the government actually owns everything and lets the people partake in some of their stuff.

Let's pretend an entire nation owns everything in that nation. What does that really mean? Can I walk into the house where you sleep and walk off with the television because it belongs to both of us? No, the government wouldn't allow it. Property is not really collective in communism. You use the television because the government let you use it. The government has control of the economic system, and they distibute stuff out as they please. That is pure socialism. Communism and pure socialism work the same way. The differences are only in the way their names and plans are labelled.

Uhm not quite, you're still painting socialism and communism (pure or whatever) as the same thing. Socialism is about government intervention whereas communism is about government control.

Private property still exists in socialism. The only reason people group it with communism (namely in the US) is to make it sound evil and negative. Propaganda.


Blueline, the way you make corporations in the free market accountable to the customers, as in "if they're bad people will realize it and stop buying from them"... To me it would just create a cycle of people getting screwed by shady business practises and switching to another company, getting screwed again a little while later and switching once more, etc. Point being, it's a reactionary system where people only switch providers/brands after the damage has already been done. When the government intervenes with regulations to protect the customer, it's a precautionary measure so things don't have to get that bad before something is done.

Also, how would a libertarian economy handle certain socialist regulations or practises that are already common. Things like minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, working hours, unions, paid vacation, etc.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Uhm not quite, you're still painting socialism and communism (pure or whatever) as the same thing. Socialism is about government intervention whereas communism is about government control.

What does that mean?

The government controls the money with pure socialism, and the government intervenes with communism. Both involve government control/intervention. The government owns the money and lets people use it at the government's discretion in both systems. Is that not true?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Private property still exists in socialism. The only reason people group it with communism (namely in the US) is to make it sound evil and negative. Propaganda.

How is the property that the government owns and hands out as they please "private property" in socialism and not "private property" with communism? Can you give more specific details of the difference?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Blueline, the way you make corporations in the free market accountable to the customers, as in "if they're bad people will realize it and stop buying from them"... To me it would just create a cycle of people getting screwed by shady business practises and switching to another company, getting screwed again a little while later and switching once more, etc. Point being, it's a reactionary system where people only switch providers/brands after the damage has already been done. When the government intervenes with regulations to protect the customer, it's a precautionary measure so things don't have to get that bad before something is done.

What worth a damn company doesn't care about losing customers? Do you have any idea how obsessed with money big business owners and executives are? They go into convulsions when two cents are on the line.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Also, how would a libertarian economy handle certain socialist regulations or practises that are already common. Things like minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, working hours, unions, paid vacation, etc.

The government would no longer be so nosy. Companies would worry about losing employees, especially in a really good economy, which we would have if the government would get out of the way.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Uhm not quite, you're still painting socialism and communism (pure or whatever) as the same thing. Socialism is about government intervention whereas communism is about government control.

Socialism is actually more about government control, whereas Communism is more about communal control. The two become blurred because Communism may or may not require a state.

Private property still exists in socialism. The only reason people group it with communism (namely in the US) is to make it sound evil and negative. Propaganda.

Well both are terribly destructive ideologies and don't require much propaganda, but this is beside the point of the thread.

Blueline, the way you make corporations in the free market accountable to the customers, as in "if they're bad people will realize it and stop buying from them"... To me it would just create a cycle of people getting screwed by shady business practises and switching to another company, getting screwed again a little while later and switching once more, etc. Point being, it's a reactionary system where people only switch providers/brands after the damage has already been done.

When I say people will switch businesses, of course it would have to be after damage has been done to initial buyers. It would then be relayed by various media outlets and word-of-mouth so others would not even buy the product.

This is assuming people don't do research on whatever they're going to buy and everyone is an impulse buyer. But the likelihood of that, to me, is slim. It also assumes businesses will just pump out shitty products. People don't start businesses to piss off customers and lose money.

When the government intervenes with regulations to protect the customer, it's a precautionary measure so things don't have to get that bad before something is done.

Unfortunately those regulations rarely help the customer in the long run and hurt honest businesses, which hurts the economy.

Also, how would a libertarian economy handle certain socialist regulations or practises that are already common. Things like minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, working hours, unions, paid vacation, etc.

Minimum wage would probably (read: hopefully) be abolished. Sick days, maternity leave, paid vacation, and working hours would be left up to the businesses/employees. Unions would probably exist but hopefully wouldn't be as ridiculous as they are now.

This is assuming there is a small government.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Uhm not quite, you're still painting socialism and communism (pure or whatever) as the same thing. Socialism is about government intervention whereas communism is about government control.

Actually socialism consists a whole field of thinking in which communism is a sub-category. You have:

-Communism [ Usually called Marxism ]
-Fascism
-Saint-Simonism
-Fourerites
-Owenites
-Proudhonism [ Also called Mutualism ]

It just goes on.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Private property still exists in socialism. The only reason people group it with communism (namely in the US) is to make it sound evil and negative. Propaganda.

Well not necessarily. There is 'private property' in fascism but it's not really private. It's just property supposedly granted by the state which an individual is allowed to steward.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Blueline, the way you make corporations in the free market accountable to the customers, as in "if they're bad people will realize it and stop buying from them"... To me it would just create a cycle of people getting screwed by shady business practises and switching to another company, getting screwed again a little while later and switching once more, etc. Point being, it's a reactionary system where people only switch providers/brands after the damage has already been done. When the government intervenes with regulations to protect the customer, it's a precautionary measure so things don't have to get that bad before something is done.

Nonsense. For one the government is already screwing people by its very existence. So where is the logic in having a monopoly that prevents monopolies? Also are you really ready to announce that every corporation is out to screw people? Also if someone is getting constantly screwed over then what is stopping them for becoming a provider of goods in the market and not screw over people?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Also, how would a libertarian economy handle certain socialist regulations or practises that are already common. Things like minimum wage, sick days, maternity leave, working hours, unions, paid vacation, etc.

Abolished the laws that make it compulsory to have these measures. If businesses still wish to keep these measures then it is their choice. I think workers will naturally seek out professions that offer the best services.