How to Convince a Socialist to Become a Libertarian (Bill Evers) - The Turney Collection
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- Bill Evers was a resident scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution (and is currently a research fellow there) and also served as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Education from 2007-09.
In this lecture from 1985, Evers speaks at a Libertarian Party of California event about convincing socialists to become libertarians. He talks about dismantling some of the preconceptions socialists have about their own beliefs by using framing devices such as the socialist calculation debate to show adherents how the political dimension in central planning eventually takes over the entire system.
Download the .mp3 version of this lecture here: bit.ly/UF2owc
The Turney Collection: Never-Before-Seen Archive Tapes
My topic today, "How to dress like Abraham Lincoln"
Arguing from principle doesn't seem to go very far with most people. It usually seems to end with them saying "sure that principle is correct but it doesn't work in practice". My gut reaction to that is "if you think correct principles and correct practice can be different then I hope you never design an aircraft". That doesn't go over well.
The irony of a communist accusing someone's principles not working in the real world is pretty funny
It surly should not, if that was true humans could not be in socities, those only start to make sense when you spend a lot of time thinking.
Comparing free-market politics with state socialism in a binary framework may be an intellectual dead end.
I am an anarchist and it is there isn’t just one type of socialism there are hundreds like there are hundreds of different ways of doing capitalist. They all kinda lead down the same road but different paths on there roads. Some are more authoritarian and some more libertarian. It isn’t this binary that a lot of people think it is.
Yeah, classic Black and White fallacy.
I have a feeling that the only people who liked this were Libertarians in the first place.
William Chapman no shit, sherlock.
Alex Kozliayev It's just elementary, my dear Watson. :)
+William Chapman Who else watches economics videos on youtube?
Bullshit. Pure equality could totally exist.
Lock everyone in a cage. They all have equally opportunities and treatment.
Gary Sanders Even then, some would be more attractive, some would have a body shape better suited to being in a cage, some would be claustrophobic and others not etc etc
Even If it could exist, it's not a good idea to have it, less motivation less work will be done
+Gary Sanders In this respect the US would be the most egalitarian society. No nation have incarcerated such high percentage of its population.
From a scientific/biological viewpoint we would have gone extinct a long time ago, luckily not all of humanity is not as fucking stupid as you .
+Gary Sanders Who does the locking? Whoever does the locking means they have higher power. So no, that is not an arrangement that leads to equality.
I've been looking for this for a while. Thanks for posting it again.
This is an important video. Few know of this guy, or his sales pitch that he invented. It's really brilliant and worked great. I'm not in the LP anymore, after 33 years, but Bill Evers did a great job of rhetoric development. A real pioneer.
"It was likely closer to libertarianism than any socialist will call a country socialist, or closer than any democratic country could be called a democracy."
So since a triangle is closer to a square then an octagon, we can just round it off and call all triangles squares then?
That's my original point, the libertarian movement has not birthed any societies, ergo no libertarian societies have any accomplishments to their name.
The Libertarian movement is an attempt to go back to how things used to be, back before communism was even a thing. Although no society has been successfully formed under the name "Libertarian", quite a few societies in the past can be retrospectively labeled "Libertarian", including the early U.S.A.
@@Tzizenorec That's not true at all. That's trad-con which many far right slap libertarian onto as a virtue signal.
True and libertarianism, as a philosophy, was created by Socialists as a socialist movement by thinkers like Kropotkin and Emma Goldman. Capitalists then stole the term much later on and really doesn't mean anything because it assumes that all freedom is just negative freedom.
The problem with convincing people away from socialism is that it's impossible to get people to stop believing in the irrational by means of evidence.
The problem is that each side treats the other they way you have just done
Tom Kilworth Ok dude. Try to convince a born-again Christian that there isn't an imaginary man in the sky that watches everything you do, by presenting evidence. Or for that matter, try to convince a statist that the state is anyting but a tax farm and that "government" is a means of subjugating people, with evidence. It can't be done. The difference with one side is that it is backed by evidence and the other is backed by wishful thinking. Once people have decided to go the wishful thinking route, evidence is worthless.
Excellent comment!
cable619 "Try convincing a libertarian that it's an implausible pipe dream fed to them by the rich"
Tom Kilworth I think that particular opinion is based on an improper understanding of "libertarianism." It assumes that it's the only political ideology that has monied interests behind it. A cursory examination of the facts will prove that assumption false. Secondly, it's not something that needs to be "fed" to anyone. Governments create nothing. The money we use is worth nothing. Our economy is based almost entirely on trading paper (effectively nothing). Government intervention in the market has reduced the value of the dollar by up to 95% (depending on the source.) I mean, the evidence against the two-party dynamic, as well as the social and economic policy of the last century is overwhelming.
Like the Tea Party, Libertarianism is being slowly co-opted to serve the two-party dynamic. "Man, these crazy Libertarians want to let multi-national corporations run wild! They're a bunch of racists and if it was up to them they'd bring back slavery! Their isolationist policies would lead to chaos throughout the world and disaster for America!" In reality, The United States was founded as a libertarian nation and it's those ideals that allowed the nation to become the superpower that it is presently (though for how much longer, I'm not sure). As a political party, Libertarianism is doomed to failure as it is attempting to operate in a system that cannot permit personal liberty. As an ideology (perhaps more accurately expressed as Voluntarism), it is the most logically consistent viewpoint that I've encountered to date.
Thank you! This is what I'm always telling people.
This is a great talk
Amen, brother!
I'm not supporting socialism but the initial quotes seem a bit out of context at least Engels.
"But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life. "
That's what he went on to say. Isn't he saying he does believe in morality, just that currently human beings shape their morality around their own individual place in society? Can someone clarify ? I agree socialism is immoral, but it just seems like the quotes didn't represent fairly.
In my own experience questioning them and pointing out the flaws of no landlords is a good place to start as well.
I believe the anti-ethics argument is the most powerful option, especially if one utilizes Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" approach (a libertarian variant of discourse ethics).
Taking a wide guess that he doesn't socialism is democratic worker/community control of the means of production (the business etc and what we mean as private property), end of wage labor and in some versions replacing markets with local central planning, or you know the historical and most broad definition of it
+Illya Lypyak not having private ownership of property either land of things destroys the physical basis of freedom which is required for innovation. Innovation is required for human existence to continue in the long term. However no majority socialist society has existed long enough for that to happen. The crumble before that point because humans act out of self interest not altruism.
+no pe The human nature is founded on mutial aid and cooperation. If self interest was our driving force we would still be slugs. Most societies in human history was anti capitalist. Socialism existed in various forms all the time.
no pe Private property to leftist refers to private control and ownership of the means of production, not what is considered personal property like home, car, pen etc.
So what you are saying is that there wasn't any innovation in the pseudo socialist/communist countries like China, Cuba, the USSR etc. If so you're quite mistaken, just look up who launched the first satellite, animal, man, women ect into space. To say their was no innovation is ridiculous.
Their is no such thing as human nature, maybe outside a few aspects like being social creatures, self preservation and repodcung. What you may consider human nature aka bing naturally greedy is unfounded in psychology and even explained in the theory of the superstructure and the base. Both fall under the notion that humans are a byproduct of their environments/are influenced by it, such influence being capitalism and its values.
You seem to not grasp the simple concept that the democratic part of the word refers to as voting/discussion among the community/worker on what to do with the means of production; things like what to produce, how to produce, what to do with what is produced etc. This can range from direct democracy (they're different versions of this, I personally prefer conscious decision making), or elect delegates to a council or whatever combination of the two.
Other than several baseless assumptions, the biggest being that there will somehow be still such a large divides within the community even though the largest difference of owners and workers being overcome, be such blatant violence against ppl that would personal know one another and somehow not have a limits or balances of said power. In short this comment is a mess.
I found this part to be very funny: 'who decided to elect a representative to commit crimes against their fellow workers and community, on their behalf, for that period of time.'
You sound a lot like Marx here: “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”Except what Marx was talking about referred to the divisions amongst classes and one of the many roles the state plays in keeping ppl passive through the illusion of choice in an intentionally centralized, alienating effects of representative 'democracy'
How does writing a book or being a taxi driver exploit workers or alienate them of which are problems that are common within the private ownership of the means of production? I think its hard to follow your train of though since you would need one for me to understand.
I'm now a sort-of libertarian (or classical liberal, definitely not anarcho-capitalist) for the same reasons I used to be a socialist. It comes down to some kind of utilitarianism. I still want to make the world a better place. Nothing has and can as much as capitalism and liberal democracy. Socialism not only can't deliver...it delivers the exact opposite of what it promises.
Check the description. 1985, somewhere in California.
when was this filmed?
1985 bruh
Where did you go to school?
Socialist have been using libertarianism a lot longer than capitalist have.
WRONG, the original Libertarians (classical liberals) were Anglos of the ilk of Edmund Burke and America's founders, they followed in the Anglo tradition of limited representative government as exemplified by the likes of Sir Edward Coke, William Blackstone, the Magna Carta etc. etc. They predate the communistic "liberals" of the French Revolution. The first communists were mystical apocalyptic theocrats, they were communalistic catholic monks (Joachimites, Dulcinians) followed by groups such as the English "Levelers and Diggers", the bloody Munsterites and Batenburgers, the "Zwickau prophets" etc. etc. There is no true liberty in socialism and collectivism.
No wrong, liberals used to be the word we used for libertarians until Marxists got involved.
Marxists infect every part of society.
max rav Libertarianism is the word we used for anti-state socialist until capitalists watered down the meaning.
Arguing over the definition of words is pointless
"In the purest sense, free markets cannot exist"
Looking forward to this. I think that there are many aspects of socialism that make society unbelievably better. I certianlly don't want a centrally planned economy. Just one that gives everyone a share in the means off production.
I also think that core services should be socially owned and managed: education, health, emergency services, the military and so on.
So that's where I stand at the beginning of this video.... let's see how I feel at the end.
OK. So in watched it. I'm gong to guts that Bill had never convinced a socialist to become a libertarian.
You've got the makings of a terrific sophistic defense of feudalism there. Just add a part about the sanctity of freely agreed upon contracts and you're set.
Anarchists aren't mostly socialists. And in capitalism, the means of production are owned by people who save their money in order to make a capital investment.
Rebuttal
1. Equality - The egalitarian ideal or goal is not "pure equality" as no such state possible. Egalitarianism is valued as a social goal precisely because people are different and inclined toward prejudice. We may all have some ideal that we aspire toward, but just because we will never achieve it doesn't mean that the striving isn't valuable to us. We wouldn't say, I will never be perfect or reach my ideal therefore I will have no ideal and act in my "natural" state. In fact, there is no natural state. So,arguing that equality is not a natural human outcome and therefore isn't worth striving for is not a sound argument.
Libertarians, I've noticed, are uncomfortable with ambiguity. Equality, may in fact, be an unfortunate term to get at what we're trying to define. Obviously, equality is not a thing you can point to and observe as a fixed phenomenon. Equality, in the way we're discussing it is a metaphysical term, and is defined through dialectic. It becomes normative through our institutions which makes common understanding possible. You and I can disagree about what equality or justice means to us personally, but given that we are contemporaries living in the same society, we will have roughly the same concept of it. But because we don't all agree about the definition or application of terms doesn't mean we can't talk about them. In fact, it is the talking about them that is the process for definition.
Yes, we will all, as individuals, treat some people with more respect than others. We all have our prejudices and preferences, our subjective take on things. Does that mean we should give free reign to our prejudices? Some people think so. I don't. Some people have been more successful economically and socially than others. We regard wealth and beauty highly in our society. Does that mean our preference for the wealthy over the poor and the plain should result in more voice or more rights for some people than others? Most of us would probably say no (outside the libertarian community) but that would be somewhat hypocritical because clearly we do defer more to some than others. It's the job of our institutions to represent our values and ideals, not give way, as we do individually, to our preferences.
Btw. It isn't socialists or progressives that don't understand the term egalitarianism, in my experience, it's libertarians. Look it up. Egalitarianism is not pure equality. It's the ambiguity that probably bothers you.
This guy would shit bricks if he saw what the youth were being persuaded by today
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Libertarians want the dissolution of power, like sugar dissolving in a glass of water. One huge cube of power at the bottom of the glass is what you get when you support and create central authoritarian regimes. Life is sweet for those closest to the power center, but the further you get from this government the less sugar you will experience.
The greatest argument for being a libertarian is that the change we want to occur in society does not depend on forcing other people by using the power of the government. we don't need to protest or pass legislation. Nature is libertarian, we simply need to accept this and stop pretending handing all the power to a small group of "leaders" will help anything. In fact this belief in central authority is the source of the most pervasive forms of corruption experienced by man. Nature is not authoritarian but diverse... socialism is unnatural..
Self Education Radio "In fact this belief in central authority is the source of the most pervasive forms of corruption experienced by man. Nature is not
authoritarian but diverse"
A powerful argument against the tyranny of bosses and managers.
bmortloff But everyone is a boss and a manager. It's not the same as political power. I can hire someone to remodel my kitchen... all of a sudden I'm a boss! When you walk in a subway and order a sandwich, you're a boss for that short time.
+Self Education Radio
I'm sorry but that's bullshit, if I am a wage rat working from 9 to 7 everyday on a little wage the I am not a boss.
We'll all be equal when we're dead.
+Scott Bieser we will all be free when we are dead. Depending on who you believe. And just the prospect of death, that we are all subject to it, means we are all equal. There is no one in charge.
I agree ; Its the philosophy of altruism that has us convinced we should all give in to allowing our money to be taken for the purpose of helping others.
Rebuttal
4. civil liberties in a socialist society are anchored in property rights -
But this begs the question of what property rights are and where they come from (more on that later).
Evers asks how to guarantee freedom of the press in a socialist society. First, I am not advocating for Evers' concept of a socialist society where the government owns and controls the press. A democratic socialist is someone who advocates for socializing certain social functions, such as education, health care, housing, energy, etc., i.e. the public goods, with democratic institutions as a means of governance. So, there is no conflict in my brand of socialism and free press. Democratic socialists understand that democracy depends on people's ability and right to make government accountable, and a free press is crucial to this task.
My question for Evers is how to maintain the integrity of a "free press" when the press relies on corporate advertising? There is potentially as much conflict in business influence on the press as there is on the government. If you look at totalitarian socialist states such as the ones Evers refers to, then the influence of the government is usually pretty obvious and quite deplorable. The problem with the press in a capitalist economy is that the influence is less obvious. In the case where a few large corporations own most of the major media outlets you've got a problem with conflict of interest whether or not the influence is obvious because the management will self censor even when there is no explicit pressure to do so.
I wonder if anyone is a supporter of Libertarian Socialism?
Hi
thephysicsgamer123 hello comrade. :-)
That is a contradiction of language.
socrates877
No. It isn't.
socrates877 The term Libertarian was first employed by the Anarchist Communist Joseph Déjacque.
....Sorry.
Can someone explain to me the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism? What is the difference between socialism and anarcho-socialism? What is corporatism?
+gideondavid30 Capitalism implies private ownership of property/means of production, while socialism means collective ownership of means of production. Thus, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism merely means the above, except without the government.
Typically, people use 'socialism' to imply state-ownership of the means of production, though anarcho-socialism is a sub-ideology of socialism.
Corporatism is government interfering in markets to serve special interest groups. Corporate bailouts, state-sanctioned monopoly rights etc. This is what socialists refer to as 'capitalism'.
Regulations are sometimes considered corporatism (some believe that regulations intend to rein in on capitalist recklessness, but actually prevents entrepreneurial firms from forming due to the high cost of compliance - this becomes, effectively, a state-sanctioned system of oligopolies)
An altruistic act could be donating your body to science, not because you believe in the merit of doing it, and what one gains while still alive; but because you are making a "sacrifice" for some good that gives you nothing in return. If you receive something in return, you are not truly making a sacrifice, and not acting altruistically.
ive actually been googling for this for quite a while, ive been trying to find some info on how to convert a statist to a libertarian
courts can easily be provided in an anarchic setting.
Department of Education - since No Child Left Behind, there has been no improvement in public education. By abolishing the DoE, and sending the responsibility back to the states, or even private companies, we would encourage competition between schools to capture the funds of parents, and create an environment in which thousands of different teaching styles could be tried, and those that were successful would become emulated while the unsuccessful would be abandoned.
My topic today - how to not drive on a public road
Yes. It's very important for libertarians to clarify that they are pro-business, anti-corporation (limited liability monsters petitioning the State for favors such as creating barriers to entry into the market, subsidies, etc). A corporation as such, does not exist in a free market. Wiki-
An incorporated entity is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process established through legislation.Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities
good strategy, but you're in for a flood of ever shape shifting definitions :)
There's no problem with definitions
The problem is lolberts are mentally stunted to not understand the definition of Socialism which is understandable
@@roguegenesis7020 Ok Define Fascism. Pro-Tip: It's not whoever you don't like.
@@doochicka I assume you should take the Pro tip and shut the fuck up
@@roguegenesis7020 That's not an argument my guy. Here's another Pro Tip. Saying shut up doesnt make you correct.
@@doochicka neithers your lolbert, so maybe take your own pro tip
Because most people who think that IP exists are utilitarian, the best way, I've found, to convince them that IP doesn't actually exist is to simply point out...
"Your brain makes a very crude copy of every memory you watch, and thus you are infringing on copy rights by merely watching the movie. Unless you are ACTUALLY advocating for a brain-wash after every showing, then please stay consistent and deny IP's existence."
You could also point out that science can't exist with REAL IP.
Too big to manage. Too big to fund. Too big to function efficiently. Too big for transparency. Too big for honesty. Too big for results. There should be no alternative because there is simply no need for them to exist in the first place.
Rebuttal
2. Envy - Yes, envy is a human emotion, part of the human condition. It's not going away until we get to a "pill society." But democratic socialism by no means claims the goal of eliminating envy.
Envy can't be completely eliminated through social engineering, but we know in which societies envy is most prevalent and in which it is the least. Egalitarian societies have the least envy. Currently, Australia and Western European countries score highest on happiness indexes and have the least envy because they have the highest standard of living with the least wealth disparity. Envy in the US is increasing as the wealth gap in our society increases.
Envy can motivate someone toward higher achievement -- but not envy alone. Envy can be an aspect of adulation and be relatively healthy. I envy certain people their talents and am inspired by them. I don't simply envy them in a negative way, that would be resentment which Evers, I think, mistakes for envy. Typical of the wealthy to think this way.
Americans typically think they are the envy of the world. In fact, most people in the countries I mentioned above don't envy Americans because our wealthy are wealthier than theirs or because we consume more of the world's resources. In fact, they have a certain contempt for our excesses, which is also the case with progressives vis a vis those for whom great wealth is a goal. We don't envy them their value systems. What we feel is resentment. We resent their privilege because we reject meritocracy as condoning inequality.
You say Evers mistakes resentment for envy, when in fact envy is partially defined by resentment (or a synonym thereof). You just defeated your own veritable book long "rebuttal" on Ever's point on envy by demonstrating that you do not even understand the meaning of the word.
Awwwwee, who's the smart little fella? ;D
The key is that in a more municipal order, the immediately affected public has more direct control on how the localized gov't spends their tax dollars. It's not perfect, but certainly more "free" than what we have now.
Regarding egalitarianism (equality) there are 2 main views which almost completely contrast one another. One is equality of oppurtunity and the second is equality of results. Equality of oppurtunity is a more correct view of egalitarianism. This means to not view individuals and violate individual rights because someone places that individual into a collective and provide collectivist rights instead of individual rights. On the other hand, equality of results violates individual rights.
You're cool.
Altruism isn't being forced. It is the underlying philosophy which is inspiring the use of force. Nobody is forced to believe in altruism. We don't need to tone down the excessive use of force by the government directly (a monumental task). All we need to do is convince people that altruism is wrong, then statism will wither away once the people stop supporting it. Then poverty will begin to disappear. That is what I want.
'Markets', or the concept of, at least, isn't really a "system", in so far as it requires support to operate. Central planning does not deny markets, it just assumes superior knowledge of them in order to allocate resources (I'm assuming you mean the price system vs. central planning as both pertain to markets.. anyway just out of curiosity, what is your ideal system? And I realize it's hard to communicate effectively on CZcams with character restrictions etc.
Can you summarize the basic tenets of "Libertarian Socialism"? What distinguishes it from "U.S. Libertarianism"?
Im responding to a comment from 8 years ago lmao. But libertarian socialism is basically the belief that workers should own the means of production without that entailing that the State owns the means of production. It wants to eliminate wage slavery, and one of it’s most basic understandings is that a society with such vast inequality of resources has an authoritarian control of a few over production of resources which will inherently lead to an unfree society or one which gradually becomes unfree. It is against state socialism (i.e. Bolshevism, Maoism) and attempts not to expand or wield state power to achieve socialism. It recognizes the flaws of a centralized state, but also finds accumulations of private power via wealth (corporations) to likely be worse since there is no accountability of the population at all. Fundamentally, it shares the spirit of many Classical Liberals, but veers in a different direction because society’s situation is currently so vastly different from that when the classical liberals were writing (private power, whereas the Classical Liberals were skeptical of State power, Church power, etc). Another important tenet distinguishing it from us libertarianism is that it doesn’t believe in a binary and fundamentally opposing relationship between liberty and equality, and they would actually mutually enhance one another other.
personal property is not sufficient because it is constrained by occupation and use. the minute you leave your home to go to work a robber is just in raiding the house and pilfering anything he can get his hands on because you temporarily cease to occupy and use the property. during instances of temporary vacancy your property becomes private. likewise, If I invest 10 years worth of time, labor, money, etc. into a property, even if I cease to use it, I am still deserving of compensation for it
I wouldn't say that equality is the core issue of socialism. According to Marx the core issue is the abolishment of capital - the part of a corporations profit that is reinvested for the sole sake of creating an even bigger profit the next year. To be fair the speech is from 1985 when most Americans where brain washed to associate all notions of socialism with the Sovjet Union. Where in reality Leninism is only one of many interpretations of Marxism.
It is going to be a long night for the libertarian to convince a socialist, if the libertarian doesn't even understand the basic concepts of socialism. What you would need to prove is that capital does in fact not leave a devastating environmental, social and economic deficit. Good luck!
Was it the one in your head?
Did this lecture ever convert a socialist to libertarianism?
Property is instantiated effort. Property rights are human rights.
In the extreme (and thus unlikely case) one person cannot buy and maintain everything without paying some if his property to workers.
"How to convince a socialist to become a Libertarian"
Giving them a highly paid job at a think tank funded by oil conglomerates seems to work most of the time.
+John Lemieux Two Libertarians walk into a bar. A fire breaks out and they both die because the owner found it more profitable to have no fire codes or emergency exits.
+irllcd13
3/10
+irllcd13 and they both DECIDED, aware of the risk, that lack of security meant, to go to that bar. What was your problem again?
Laurin Haase
No, because the bar owner lied and said the building was safe. This was allowed because corporations are people and entitled to freedom of speech, even if that speech is a lie.
nustada They don't need insurance because there is no government to require they have any and they get a high interest predatory loan from a bank that doesn't care if they pay back the principle because they'll seize the assets and sell them off.
PS it's "you have never *run* a business"
Socialism has many theoretical approaches in how to achieve it. There is the authoritarian strains of socialism, such as Marxism, and there are anti-authoritarian, libertarian strains of socialism, such as the socialism advocated by Kropotkin, Bakunin, etcetera. Anyhow, it's very important to clarify what one means when bringing up "socialism".
There are issues with inequality beyond mere envy. Even if we grant that all fortunes are fairly and honestly won, and the rich really are rich because they’re better and smarter and harder-working, and that the poor really are poor because they’re stupid and lazy, there’s still a problem with wealth inequality as a threat to liberty. As long as there are rich and poor, one class of people is going to push around the other. The rich will have their liberty, while the poor will have the direction of their lives dictated by the choices and preferences of the people with all the power and wealth. That’s just the nature of power and wealth.
Selfishness-Doing right within your own mind. Giving to charity is selfish if within your mind you gain something (pleasure) from helping people.
Altruism-Requires one to do "good" without regard for what is "good" within your own mind, esp. sacrifice. In "sacrifice" one is not choosing to do what one wants for one's self, only what is best for others.
it was in education. he's an educator. being a libertarian precludes him from gov't service? he didn't hang on for the duration to draw a gov't pension. the problem?
Its quite simple in essence. Socialism or Liberalism is a construct by large corporates (Corporatists who owe their entire existence to favourable regulation smaller firms find difficult/expensive to implement) at the point in the Keynesian business cycle where they transfer the wealth created during the 'Conservative', 'open for business' phase. An equivalent example would be Vikings raids on East Coast of England every 3 to 10 years, thus giving time for food/tools/precious items to be made.
I think all these labels, "socialist", "libertarian", "communist", "capitalist", are very confusing, and therefore not particularly helpful. It seems different people understand different things by each term. For instance, I considered myself a kind of socialist, but there are a lot of things he attributes to socialism that I don't agree with.
Maybe it would be better to call myself a "pragmatist" - although I'm sure there are some things associated with that term I don't agree with.
I just think the thing to do is look at the world, look at which countries seem to be doing things the best, in terms of the usual indicators -- life-expectancy, happiness, per-capita income, social mobility, etc. -- and just copy what they are doing. Maybe tweak them a little or even improve on them. But why try to reinvent the wheel?
The countries which are doing best in those terms are the northern European countries, like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc. That seems to me the best way to go. I don't know if there is a "label" for that.
You may be onto something…
What's interesting is that here in America, even though we are defined as capitalist, we have very equal amount of socialism, libertarianism and communism.
ast453000: I agree with your notion of confusing labels. What makes it even more confusing is that most people don't seem to realize that people around them might not share their understanding of the label.
"The countries which are doing best in those terms are the northern European countries, like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc."
All of them are capitalistic countries. Not only that but all of them have started to back down with social policies.
If you're pragmatists you would realize what harms would come when you mix socialism with capitalism. It will only lead into cronyism.
Funnily enough, Libertarianism allows for that. Do you, just don't steal and kill.
find 'money is debt II' here on youtube.
kinda wraps all the 'why' up for all your posts here;)
altruism is self sacrifice, communism and fascism require sacrifice of the individual for the state. Rational self interest is not short sighted selfishness.
You may want to rethink that. In fact all systems seem to work from slavery to complete anarchy. Take slavery - it was oppsoed on moral grounds not economic. Libertarians should not try to prove their superior economics justify their freedom. Self ownership does not need an economic justificaiton.
Private property is/as an extension of personal property. If I work to facilitate my existence (and more if I'm good at serving my fellow man), I will have more resources at my disposal. A stock of my work so to speak. That is private property and taking away that for any reason will break NAP.
You shouldn't be accepting the lesser of 2 types of slavery, you should object to any form of it whatsoever. What do you mean when you say wage slavery?
Also, socialists will tend to retreat to a notion of property that does not include 'means of production'. You can of course ding them on how they define means of production, and what happens to a newly created mean of production. Is it to be confiscated by the state at that point? etc.
My point is that they tend not to allow themselves to be led by a straightforward route.
It is because people accept altruism as the moral ideal that they consider a very strong centralized government to be necessary. People believe that selflessness is good but that mankind's nature is to be selfish, therefore they must be forced to be selfless in order to create a common good. Altruism is ALWAYS bad, because it requires everyone to sacrifice their own interests to everyone else as an automatic duty. But nobody is qualified to decide who should sacrifice what to whom.
18:30 - Good argument against Christianity
Libertarian socialism is not only an oxymoron but worse than tyranny. It is not libertarian as in its theory the collective / majority / society is endowed with full control over the indiviual. All checks and balances protecting the individual from the mob are removed in favor of direct majority vote, e.g. civil liberties do not exist as all rights can be revoked by the majority at any time.
Libertarian - Advocating freedom for members of society
Socialism - Workers ownership over the means of production.
I don't see how this is an oxymoron. The best domain of freedom is having more democracy in the workplace. Being able to control the workplace you work in is a part of freedom.
+Ancom Ramblings What if you want to start a business just you own, not the workers?
In a society where socialism is established, it's as simple as nobody will choose to work for you. It may seem convincing to say that a society where you can start a business is more free, but you could say the same thing about a dictatorship being the most free society, if you are that dictator and not a member of the working class.
Ancom Ramblings "In a society where socialism is established, it's as simple as nobody will choose to work for you" ... no, it is forced, not chosen.
If people wanted to work in Co-op's they can do so...today.
No force, just voluntary decisions maken by the workers.
As for technological achievements, I'm counting every one that was done for money. AND created a situation where people could do things faster, easier, or even more enjoyable.
If you compare that to things that were created/done without any concern for money but also created those positive situations you'll find the 95% difference I speak of.
There's good reason why communist examples like the Amish (as nice as they are) stay technologically stagnant for hundreds of years.
Sorry I missed it. Again why do oil companies require tax payer money? How much do they get?
Well, sort of. How do you define market forces? Is that not human design? Only, the design is not from the center, rather, it is from individuals within a region of spontaneous order.
Well, socialism is government ownership of the means of production, not worker ownership. Companies that are a hybrid of ownership by investors and workers, such as REI and United Airlines (United with stockholders and REI with customers), the profits are distributed among all parties, but with socialism all profits are owned by the government. So, effectually those workers can work harder, but make virtually no monetary gain because the government takes it from them.
If the government doesn't own anything then try walking into a police station and start taking all the stuff. When the cops try to arrest you just explain to them that the government doesn't own anything and I'm sure they will just let you go......
I think you do not understand what is being said. If you believe that personal property is the only just property and you are opposed to private property then you must believe that "a robber is just in raiding [your] house" when you temporarily vacate it because it ceases to be your personal property upon vacation. If you think this is a ridiculous notion then you must be an advocate of private property and thus you would agree with what I said. I was justifying private property
Obviously the dollar buys only a small fraction of what it did one hundred years ago, but this is really irrelevant. In 1906, the average worker made only between two and four hundred dollars a YEAR.
Inflation-obsessed persons leave this part out. They think of themselves only as consumers, and forget that they're also sellers of services, and the price of these services (=wages) INFLATE right along with everything else. Thus, inflation isn't the unmitigated evil they think it is.
Ultimately, you own your brain and your body. If you possess any sort of skill or talent, you can eventually accrue physical property. The degree to which you can is, in a free world, only limited by how intelligent you choose to be or how hard you choose to work. The functional phrase is "free world." We don't have that today, so don't work out Libertarian ideas against the background of today's world.
The right response to socialism, or communism, or anarchy, or fascism, or monopoly privilege (i.e., what we too easy refer to as "capitalism") is found in the writings of Henry George. Remove all monopoly privileges from the systems of law and taxation and the result is cooperative individualism: full equality of opportunity, full individual liberty, within a cooperative social framework. To paraphrase Adam Smith, the role of government is to ensure that a fair field with no favors exists. Markets operate efficiently and fairly when none of the participants enjoys privilege. Few understood better than Henry George the true nature of privilege and what must be done to remove all forms of privilege from our socio-political arrangements and institutions. Of these, he counted "rentier" (i.e., landed) privilege as the most destructive to the promise of democracy.
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
That’s basically just....Socialism.
You are shifting from extreme claims about property rights and taxation to a 'good governance' argument based on decentralization that wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on the previously discussed issues.
Great point. Liberty is having equal rights as everyone else. Not having the same as everyone else. Some people are better looking than others and get girls easier so lifes not fair. Having life that is completely fair is a paradox unless all people were exactly the same
It's actually harder to convince liberals that their positions are anti-liberty, unprogressive, and shortsighted, since they only communicate ideas with like-minded people and all the feedback they get is always positive. They certainly don't engage with conservatives, and mores the pity for it, since they might be humbled in the process and get some understanding of just how new progress is in human history, and begin wondering just how it came to exist. As a former liberal, that's my take.
I was just trolling and am not libertarian myself. You bring up some interesting points btw. peace
If your view of government is that it should determine how every dollar in America is spent, then I suppose the one we have might not seem very big. Would you like a 100% national tax rate so that the government will supply all your food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, energy, education, news, entertainment, etc? The larger the size and scope of government is, the fewer personal choices you have in your life. How much choice do you deserve? Do we have the right to decide for you?
Yes. Almost from day one the principle of private property has been eroded a bit at a time in the U.S. But the principle is a worthy goal within our reach. Do you consider it to be impractical that people should wish to own their own lives? Slavery is wrong, freedom is practical. Likewise, a little bit of slavery is also wrong (i.e., you can keep some of your stuff and the rest goes to "society"). If we can eradicate plantation slavery, we can get rid of the softer modern variety as well.
Exactly. The most selfish thing you can do is be good to your fellow man, as this path will benefit you the most. Its mostly a non-zero sum game. Crazy how circular it is.
And private companies still make roads. While in the US freeways haven't been made by private companies for quite some time. some major roads still are, so are some bridges. In China, most major roads and freeways are made by companies. This happens in the Canadian north, in South America, Africa and now is happening in Russia too.
You still believe water can only come from rain too?
If distributive justice implies that economic outcome of human activity is unjust and therefore demands redistribution... Then it is not possible for that human activity itself to be just - by the standard of this very distributive justice. So to do redistribution would be enough and the primary goal should be to search what is unjust in the very activity and then to criminalize that component. But that's never what socialists attempt to do. They rather claim that the whole nature of economics is unjust, which is obvious nonsense. The fact that you are born into certain situation cannot have anything to do with justice because it is outside of matters of human choice and power.
Oh, I see. So please describe the "free world" that would have to exist before your skills and talents would allow you to accrue 'physical property' proportionate to what said skills and talents would entitle you to.
Well, I'm just espousing Libertarian ideology. So far, I think I've been pretty consistent (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). Don't confuse Libertarians with anarchists. If you do, then there is no rational discussion here. My original point was that I find it hard to believe that if you own your own body and mind that it somehow becomes impossible to own property in a world where property rights are defended and negotiated for.
Rebuttal
3. Morality. I reject Evers' claim that all socialists are Marxists and I won't defend the Marxist concept of morality. I think morality is innate, like language capacity, and derives from empathy. And as language is necessary, because we don't live as isolated individuals, rather in societies with others and must communicate, and must care about others, as this is the way we evolved to survive and prosper, so too morality. But just because morality is intrinsic, as I believe it is, and I think most people do today, doesn't make the moral questions any easier to grapple with. So claiming that Marxists rejected the idea of innate morality is not particularly relevant to the socialist-libertarian argument.
Like equality, morality is an ambiguous term. "The only feature that the descriptive and normative senses of “morality” have in common is that they refer to guides to behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm to some others." -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That we have more empathy for people we know and care for than for people we don't is not an argument against socialism. I already addressed this in my first commentary on Equality. To recap, there is a difference in individual and institutional behavior. In a court of law, for example, I can't in good conscience, say that my family member deserves more rights or consideration than anyone else.
Did you actually just say that?
"The Nazi Fascists, the Mussolini Fascist Squadristis... were all for protecting 'private property..."
Murdering people is a violation of private property -- YOU OWN YOUR BODY.
You've been refuted by the most basic understanding of property rights. Hell, Thomas Jefferson refuted you in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life.
Good day.
Oh, I'm sure they could. But I'm not very well versed in anarchic forms of government and didn't post here to advocate anarchy, though I do understand it has its merits -- I don't dismiss the idea.
But my post was in response to an apparent statist. Any reduction in government is superior to his mentality.
Any one over a certain age will change
I find the more logical you are you discover how far off the person it is you are debating. I’ve realized that socialists lack so much logic that you can’t appeal to them. It’s not their political view you are trying to change. The problem is you can’t change someone who has a dysfunctional thought process.
Agreed... most authoritarian mindsets are so deeply insecure that they'll protect their egos first then get to truth later.
@@davejoe75 I've learned in my interactions with authoritarians that they almost always appeal to emotion first and then to complex abstractions last. The most problematic thing is that a sizeable portion of the general population reacts more favorably to Righteously Indignant (so called) rhetoric than to nuanced situational variables. Combine that with jealousy of accomplishment and the sort of "Loser" mentality that causes one to believe that they are deserving of things and then point out a group of people to blame for all the worlds ills and you have the perfect recipe for a mind that's emotionally fertile for the sewing of aggression and outright naked force against any and all who they believe stand in their way. These days, Authoritarianism is Masquerading as Humanitarianism and people keep falling for it.
if you want to be converted watch Milton Friedman's Free to Choose
Call it whatever you like. I give up.
Hahahahahaha. Largest growing? You don't even have enough members to book a meeting at the local community center.
Individualism is not a secret or a religious sect(cult),although our current leadership tries to make it so.But I do agree its paramount.Socialism(collective or governmental ownership)leaves no room for the individual except for the idea of sacrificing ones self for the benefit of others.If you were raised where Steve Jobs was you wouldnt have created his products.Its the individual and his mind/creativity that counts.Many succesful people come from meager backrounds.We all get bent about money.