[FrenchFried]

I can't seem to really understand what is libertarianism. Does it has to do with the economy ? Am I wrong if I associate it with right-wing politics ? Are free market, laissez-faire and private property concepts specific to libertarianism ?

Or does it only means little governement power ? I understood the ideology is all about individual liberty. Would there be taxes in a libertarian society ? And would healthcare and education be private ?

Is libertarian socialism actually libertarian ?

I'm totally lost. I need help.

[mikema63]

before economics and everything else the core principle of libertarianism, as i see it, is that people should be able to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others. this includes entering into agreements with each other, either socially, or economically.

now that aside i am willing to say libertarian socialism is libertarian, i say this because the economic theories that libertarian socialists ascribe to says capitalism is exploitative and harmful to one side, which would infringe on the rights of others from that exploitation. libertarianism at its core is that people should be able to do whatever they like if it doesn't harm others, so i think the large divide on the economic freedom level is largely about how each side perceives capitalism, as either harmful or not harmful, so it should either be completely allowed in every way, or not.

free-markets and laizze-faire are not neccesary to libertarianism but as ive said its something of an all or nothing ideology about what people can and cannot do. now i do think capitalism is a powerful force for good and i do not think it is at all exploitative, but i understand the position of those that do and understand their motivations.

Or does it only means little governement power ? I understood the ideology is all about individual liberty. Would there be taxes in a libertarian society ? And would healthcare and education be private ?

since government uses force, and force should only be used to stop one from infringing on the rights of others and not anything else, then yes libertarianism tends to be minimalist when it comes to the government. as for taxes healthcare and private education it really depends on the libertarian and what they think could be done on a free market and what couldn't. taxes would generally be low (we will stick mostly with free market libertarianism for this) and possible voluntary or non-existent if your an ancap. healthcare would be private though many would push vouchers for the poorest people to get care. as for education there is more of a split there, most are for reforming the public education system with vouchers and tying all school funding to them, others for complete privatization with vouchers for the poorest, and others complete privatization with charities being the only provider of education for the poor.

its really just an ideology that puts its entire focus on the individual and that person being able to chose almost anything they desire. while other ideologies tend to have varying levels of subservience to the government, society, or the majority.

that being said if we are talking about left and right in the economic sense then most people who call themselves libertarians without the socialist qualifier are very much on the right. i just think the ideology at the core transcends that economic dichotomy.

[Soixante-Retard]

I can't seem to really understand what is libertarianism.

In short, libertarianism is concerned with the freedom of individuals from coercion.

Does it has to do with the economy ?

Yes. But it depends on whom you speak to. A right libertarian does not distinguish between economic liberty and social liberty, they're two sides of the same coin - personal liberty. As for a left libertarian, they can explain the distinction, if there is any.

Am I wrong if I associate it with right-wing politics ?

It is not exclusive to right-wing politics (whatever that is) as much as it left-wing politics (whatever that is).

Are free market, laissez-faire and private property concepts specific to libertarianism ?

Yes, yes and yes. Left and right libertarians can peacefully co-exist under a free market where private property is sacrosanct.

Or does it only means little governement power?

Yes, government epitomizes coercion. Government has the legal monopoly over the use of force and so it can compel you to do things against your will under the threat of imprisonment (or in some societies, death).

I understood the ideology is all about individual liberty.

Absolutely.

Would there be taxes in a libertarian society.

Yes, libertarians are, on the whole, not anarchists. I think a quote from James M. Buchanan gives a good summary pertaining to this:

To the individualist, utopia is anarchist, but as a realist he recognizes the necessity of an enforcing agent, a collectivity, a state.

Since there has to be some form of collectivity, a state, it must be financed by taxes of some sort.

And would healthcare and education be private ?

Yes insofar as it is not provided by government. But the methods to financing these services can vary - it's a free market.

Is libertarian socialism actually libertarian?

You're not the first to question this. A large amount of left-libertarians do call themselves libertarian socialists in that they do not want a government either. However this is to distinguish itself from state socialism, which is coercive and thus against libertarianism.

I hope that has answered some of your questions.

[Phred]

Is libertarian socialism actually libertarian ?

Definitely not, since "Libertarian" Socialism requires the initiation of force against those who prefer to make their living as either employers or as employees.

Would there be taxes in a libertarian society ?

Not necessarily. While it is true that Libertarians (as opposed to Anarcho-Capitalists) recognize the need for a government (albeit a strictly-limited government), Libertarians point out that it has never been convincingly demonstrated that the funds required to effectively run that limited government cannot be raised through means other than coercive taxation.


Phred

[Daktoria]

Libertarianism is an ideology for knowitalls who believe you can preserve private property and rights to privacy without social values.

To be fair, however, it's partially out of compromise. For example, libertarians endorse abortion, tolerate drug usage, and oppose religious institutionalization.

That said, libertarians can be outrightfully bonkers. On the libertarian forum I participate on, they call me socialist for being conservative and opposing cultural relativism.

How that works out, I don't know.

[FrenchFried]

Wikipedia states that libertarianism implies little or no government power. That said, do you think anarchy is part of libertarianism, or that they're two distinct ideologies ?

before economics and everything else the core principle of libertarianism, as i see it, is that people should be able to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others.

That's how freedom was described in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Considering you're an extreme right libertarian, you must believe in private property and economic freedom. In my opinion, that's a bit contradictory. You claim everyone should be given the rights to do what hurts no one else. But doesn't private property results into accumulation of wealth and inequality incomes and, therefore, prevents others to benefit of the same things as the owner of those means of production ?

Yes, yes and yes. Left and right libertarians can peacefully co-exist under a free market where private property is sacrosanct.

I didn't get that. Left libertarians agree with private property of means of production ? Am I right if I claim that libertarian socialists depise private property and would like the economy to be run by trade unions for instance ?

While it is true that Libertarians (as opposed to Anarcho-Capitalists) recognize the need for a government (albeit a strictly-limited government), Libertarians point out that it has never been convincingly demonstrated that the funds required to effectively run that limited government cannot be raised through means other than coercive taxation.

Interesting, but if those libertarians don't believe in taxation. Why else would they want a government ?

Thanks to all for answering most of my questions.

[Soixante-Retard]

Am I right if I claim that libertarian socialists depise [sic] private property and would like the economy to be run by trade unions for instance ?

Left libertarians, specifically, despise the hierarchy within the economic realm - shareholders, managers, employees etc. Private property can mean that a collection of individuals can share in the profits etc. provided that each individual of the collective agrees to do so voluntarily and that there is no coercion on some individuals by others who don't think that they're getting their "fair share". Voluntaryism, basically.

Right libertarians don't mind the hierarchy - it has its benefits, such as limited liability on behalf of the employer and employee (profits are not guaranteed, but wages are - see the subjective theory of value). Right libertarians don't mind co-operatives etc. but those and capitalist firms must face each other as competitors in the free market - there is no protectionism.

If you want a good starter from a libertarian thinking about economics, there is the timeless essay from French libertarian (right economically, left socially (as all libertarians ought to be)) Frédéric Bastiat That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.

[mikema63]

That's how freedom was described in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Considering you're an extreme right libertarian, you must believe in private property and economic freedom. In my opinion, that's a bit contradictory. You claim everyone should be given the rights to do what hurts no one else. But doesn't private property results into accumulation of wealth and inequality incomes and, therefore, prevents others to benefit of the same things as the owner of those means of production ?

i do believe in private property, but i dont think its contradictory.

people on the left (economically speaking) like yourself view a free market as an entirely different beast than i do, namely you see capitalism as exploitative. i however see capitalism as something that increases the standard of living for all, im sure you've heard the rest so i wont go on extolling the virtues.

the difference between us is a completely different set of understandings on what capitalism is, its effects, and its very nature. i do not see it as coercive so i do not oppose it, those on the economic left however see it as coercive and an infringement on peoples rights.

libertarianism only allows force to protect peoples rights, so given your beliefs about how capitalism works then it would be perfectly libertarian (from your view) to scrap the entire thing.

now suffice it to say i think your wrong about capitalism but that is for a different thread, we simply view the very essence of capitalism differently.

as for the hierarchy that many despise about capitalism i think its just an extension of how its seen as coercive, any society is going to have some kind of heirarcy if it claims any type of order at all.

[FrenchFried]

If you want a good starter from a libertarian thinking about economics, there is the timeless essay from French libertarian (right economically, left socially (as all libertarians ought to be)) Frédéric Bastiat That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.

Thanks for helping me clarify different libertarian point of views, no matter how incompetent I may be. But when you say that libertarians ought to be at the right, is it because you consider libertarians should consider economic freedom as any other liberty, and that is contradictory that left libertarians claim freedom for all but mostly abhor economic freedom ? And thanks for the recommandation, I will read it. Do you also have any recommandation for a libertarian socialist essay ? Or any left libertarian work perhaps?

now suffice it to say i think your wrong about capitalism but that is for a different thread, we simply view the very essence of capitalism differently.

as for the hierarchy that many despise about capitalism i think its just an extension of how its seen as coercive, any society is going to have some kind of heirarcy if it claims any type of order at all.

Thanks for the input. I just wanted to have the point of view of a libertarian that's obviously on the far right. It's enriching. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity someday to confront our ideas about capitalism.

[mikema63]

Do you also have any recommandation for a libertarian socialist essay ? Or any left libertarian work perhaps?

i dont know any specific essays but for libertarian socialism you could read noam chomsky stuff as a start.

i always thought the core of the economics debate between our two sides has been the zero-sum and positive-sum view. im curious which you think is correct, i might be wrong that its the central difference but i might as well ask.

[FrenchFried]

You must see capitalism as a positive-sum situation, where everyone in a given location benefits from the expansion of a company. In my opinion, capitalism is a zero-sum situation. It is a competitive battleground and the fact that someone starts to accumulate money is automatically resulting in the loss of wealth of its competitors.

[mikema63]

ive started a thread in the opinion poll section, we can argue this there if you want.

[Soixante-Retard]

Thanks for helping me clarify different libertarian point of views

You're welcome.

But when you say that libertarians ought to be at the right, is it because you consider libertarians should consider economic freedom as any other liberty, and that is contradictory that left libertarians claim freedom for all but mostly abhor economic freedom ?

Yes. Individuals should be free to make whatever economic contracts they want.
[youtube]oWAyEzyp2xQ[/youtube]

Do you also have any recommandation for a libertarian socialist essay ? Or any left libertarian work perhaps?

Works by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Hope that helps.

[Phred]

In my opinion, capitalism is a zero-sum situation.

And there's your difficulty. Capitalism is certainly not in any way a zero sum situation.

If it were true that the only way one could prosper is by taking some of a limited and fixed amount of goods and services from others, thus inevitably leaving those others worse off than they were previously, then you might have a plausible objection. But it doesn't work that way. There is not a fixed amount of goods and services in the world, there is (almost always) an ever-increasing amount. Wealth, before it can be consumed, must be produced. Since wealth is produced through human effort, and with every day that passes, more human effort is expended, the quantity of wealth in the world tends to increase over time. Even leaving aside the moral aspect of Capitalism (it is the most moral method of interacting with your fellow humans) it is empirically the best method of increasing wealth to the greatest degree with the least amount of human effort.

So it's a twofer.

But doesn't private property results into accumulation of wealth and inequality incomes...

Since humans have differing abilities, they will of course tend to accumulate wealth at different rates, yes. That is obvious, so your observation up to this point is accurate.

... and, therefore, prevents others to benefit of the same things as the owner of those means of production ?

But here is where you go off the rails. Your conclusion has no connection to the accurate observation you just made. The fact that I might own an injection moulder that I use to produce replacement parts for fittings used in the automotive industry, for example, doesn't prevent you from becoming a successful novelist or a carpenter or an accountant or a doctor or a web designer or whatever. Heck, it doesn't even prevent you from acquiring your own injection moulder and competing directly with me in the same niche market.

Interesting, but if those libertarians don't believe in taxation. Why else would they want a government ?

The issue isn't taxation. The issue is government. Taxation is just one of many possible methods for providing the funds that government uses to provide its legitimate services. Libertarians say the only legitimate function of government is to assist the citizens of a country in defending themselves and their property. To that end, government runs the military, the justice system (both criminal and civil) and the diplomatic and intelligence agencies. Period. Full stop. That's it, that's all. Nothing more.



Phred

[Sceptic]

I can't seem to really understand what is libertarianism. Does it has to do with the economy ? Are free market, laissez-faire and private property concepts specific to libertarianism ?

Libertarianism has to do with the extension of liberty to all people, however you may define liberty. Usually liberty means freedom from some form of constraint upon action.

Laissez-faire is thought to be the outcome of extending liberty, however it is not supported on its own merits alone by Libertarians because the extension of liberty is the most fundamental value for all Libertarians.

This is important because left-libertarians do not necessarily believe laissez-faire is compatible with liberty, especially libertarian socialists. Right-libertarians however are adamant that it is indeed compatible.

Property rights are thought to define each man's personal boundaries and therefore there own dominion over them selves and therefore, 'property is liberty'. This is particularly the view of righ-libertarians.

Am I wrong if I associate it with right-wing politics ?

Depends how you define 'right-wing'.

Many of the self-acclaimed 'right-wingers' on this forum claim that 'right-wing' politics encompass conservative values - a spirit of absolute moral values, traditional institutions and hierarchy based on merit. However most conservatives are also willing to enforce this outcome at the expense of liberty, therefore being incompatible with libertarians.

On the other hand, many right-Libertarians are adamant that the right wing of the political spectrum is defined by their individualist philosophy and many elements of conservatism are collectivist or 'left wing' even for the reasons elaborated upon above.

Is libertarian socialism actually libertarian ?

Depends who you ask.

Libertarian socialists can have the same beliefs with respect to property and liberty as Libertarians (that neither should be violated) but differ with respect to what constitutes violation of property. For more details, read into Georgism.

On the other hand, libertarian socialists can agree with Libertarians what constitutes a violation of property but disagree that a violation of property is a violation of liberty if it helps to benefit the economically vulnerable in this society (the 'working class' - that class of people thought to be engaged in selling the product of their labour to capital).

So you have theoretical divisions within libertarian socialism itself, even if they advocate the same outcome in practice.

Or does it only means little governement power ? I understood the ideology is all about individual liberty. Would there be taxes in a libertarian society ? And would healthcare and education be private ?

Understand that the answers to these questions lies in defining things like 'government power', 'ideology', 'liberty', 'taxes' and 'private ownership'.

[FrenchFried]

Since humans have differing abilities, they will of course tend to accumulate wealth at different rates, yes. That is obvious, so your observation up to this point is accurate.

But isn't that a problem itself ? At the beginning of the capitalist system, it may have been true that those who succeeded and those who had more money were those who had a capacity to accumulate wealth at a better rate. That phenomenon divided society into rich and into poor, and those who were born in one of those two classes immediately possessed more or less wealth than the other. The son of the poor has less capacity to acquire means of production since he has less money due to the circumstances in which he was born.

The companies held by the rich are expanding over time due to a competitive system in which some people have competed better than the others at the very beginning of it. These companies are expanding so much, it is impossible for someone to try to compete with them. He automatically becomes a worker. He works for one of those companies, forming the proletariat. And that is because he was born with less wealth than the son of an owner of a corporation.

But I resign myself on the fact that capitalism may be a positive-sum situation. In trade, everyone may win.

Laissez-faire is thought to be the outcome of extending liberty, however it is not supported on its own merits alone by Libertarians because the extension of liberty is the most fundamental value for all Libertarians.

I didn't get that. Could you please reformulate ? Especially the italic part. But thank you. You also answered most of my questions and in a marvelously objective way.

[mikema63]

the rich kid problem. they kind of annoy everyone and a lot of free marketers are willing to tax inheritance over them. that being said the tax is actually pretty easy to get around and there are various ways its done.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi2007112_609897.htm

besides that the money that those people has isn't totally unproductive since its invested mostly, and if its not they will over time lose that money back into the economy. so it does grow business's and creates jobs and many rich kids are more wealthy from a good education and a good upbringing and job (not all there are still the lazy assholes) which isn't really tied to inheritance anyway.

all in all if the money isn't "productive" in some way they will lose it, and since i cant really find a reason that it would be coercive or an infringement of anyone's rights, i cant find a justification for an inheritance tax (since it involves force itself). so in the end i have to tolerate them since i dont see how they hurt anyone, no matter how much they annoy me (or how much i envy them either).

The son of the poor has less capacity to acquire means of production since he has less money due to the circumstances in which he was born.

for this the money that the rich kid gets from investments is because of this, the investments and loans give the poor the power to gain means of production and start a business and then return the investment when they have made money.

[Rich]

(right economically, left socially (as all libertarians ought to be))

No not always economically right. The right supported the corn laws the left oppose it. The Conservative right support Iowa's farm subsides. The left oppose them. The right supported Palin's Bridge to nowhere. The left opposed it. Obama on the left was for cuts in Medicare entitlement, the Republican right was opposed labelling the reduction of government entitlement: death panels.

I consider myself far left but fairly strongly pro market, with redistribution and moderate intelligent regulation, to correct against monopolies, external costs and market failures. But lets take minimum wage. Generally thought of as a left wing policy. How is that a left wing or pro working class policy unless the government guarantees everyone a minimum wage job? By instituting minimum wage you're limiting workers economic freedom not increasing. What I find totally repugnant is when people support the reduction or abolition of unemployment benefits without abolishing minimum wage and trade union closed-shops. The right are liars, they don't favour tax cuts, they just want tax cuts for the rich, like Thatcher and her cronies who whacked up taxes on national insurance, VAT, booze, fags and petrol. The Republicans are even worse.

The left have stupidly allowed the right to occupy the pro market high ground.

[Soixante-Retard]

^ Of course, the definition of the axes change over time. When I said right economically, I meant broad support for free markets. And you're right, at the time of the corn laws, those who opposed it were on the "left" but the "left" back then supported free markets, and as you said, the "right" opposed it.

"Right" economically is different to "right" politically. Republicans being prime examples of that.

And as for minimum wage restricting freedom, don't get me started!

[Phred]

But isn't that a problem itself ?

No. Why on earth do you see it as a problem?

At the beginning of the capitalist system, it may have been true that those who succeeded and those who had more money were those who had a capacity to accumulate wealth at a better rate. That phenomenon divided society into rich and into poor...

No. Mankind's default status is poor. We come into the world with nothing. Everything we acquire from that point on must be wrested from nature through the application of productive human effort. All that is left to decide is --

-- whose effort should support whose existence?

...and those who were born in one of those two classes...

There are no "classes" in Capitalism.

... immediately possessed more or less wealth than the other.

More accurately, the guardians of the newborn human are the ones who possess the wealth. The newborn is as yet incapable of producing his own wealth. That incapacity is (with very rare exceptions) a temporary condition. The time will come when that new human will be capable of producing wealth of his own -- often far more wealth than his guardians possessed at the time of his birth.

The son of the poor has less capacity to acquire means of production since he has less money due to the circumstances in which he was born.

How expensive are the "means of production" necessary to write a best-selling song? To open a babysitting business or a dog walking business? To do yardwork? Or plumbing? Or carpentry? To become a property manager? Or a tailor?

The companies held by the rich are expanding over time due to a competitive system in which some people have competed better than the others at the very beginning of it.

True.

These companies are expanding so much, it is impossible for someone to try to compete with them.

Not true.

He automatically becomes a worker.

Well, duh. Why do you see this as a problem? One need not remain a worker for very long in order to accumulate enough money to buy the "means of production" necessary to make a very comfortable living in dozens (if not hundreds) of different areas.

He works for one of those companies, forming the proletariat.

In a true Capitalist system, one need not remain a member of the "proletariat" (an archaic and meaningless term) for very long at all if one doesn't wish to.

And that is because he was born with less wealth than the son of an owner of a corporation.

And if the owner of the corporation to which you refer were childless? How would that make it any less necessary for your hypothetical "poor boy" to expend effort to further his existence?

But I resign myself on the fact that capitalism may be a positive-sum situation. In trade, everyone may win.

There is no "may" about it, and I'm glad you recognize that.



Phred