[Noumenon]

That's hardly a crystal clear answer. Again: How will less state interference render the economy more stable?

State interference is what causes banks to print more money. Stop that, and the sequence I described won't happen.

"Mob", "rob", "gang up" - that's simple propaganda lingo. Give me some significant examples please.

Almost any example of a democratic decision will work. Since I am more familiar with American politics, lets say prohibition in America from 1920-1933. Not a purely democratic decision in that no direct vote was taken, but close enough. In the name of the "good of society," alcohol was prohibited. As we all know, the result was greatly increased crime and lost civil liberties. Was this really for the good of society? Absolutely not; it made society worse. So why were the people so collectively stupid? The mob mentality (and they are still making this same mistake with the drug war). On an individual/small group basis, people know better than to assault their neighbors freedoms and forcibly prevent them from getting the things they desire. If I attempted to prevent my neighbors from obtaining alcohol, only bad could result. Even if I were somewhat successful, my neighbors would end up hating me and would likely retaliate with violence. Aggression breeds aggression, and the interest of society is not served by that. We know very early on that using aggression on our friends and neighbors is not the way to solve our problems. Why then do we use aggression when we can vote on it? Well, we probably won't see the victims and we don't feel any personal responsibility for the democratic decision. The bad results are diffused throughout society rather than directed solely at us. This is why extremely large groups cannot be trusted to make decisions.

This doesn't really make sense. Are you saying that there will be less people living in a Libertarian society?

No, I'm saying there will be very few situations where 100 million people get together to make a decision. A libertarian society may be democratic, but the range of democratic decisions to be made will be very limited. A society based on the individual has no need for groups that large to be making decisions. They will get together and work cooperatively, but not in groups that large.

I find this to be an incredibly egocentric way of reasoning. "Not exactly to your liking"? There are enough resources to feed the all people of the world, but nevertheless approximately 25,000-30,000 people die of starvation each day. What you or I think is insignificant in comparison.

And the majority of those starving people are not living in society where supply and demand is given free reign. So I don't see how you can blame supply and demand for those deaths.

Capitalism may not be the perfect way of providing for people's needs, but its far better than socialism.


Why?

Pure economic socialism has been a failure everywhere it was implemented. If you are arguing the benefits of the capitalist welfare state versus the laissez faire capitalist state, that is a more difficult comparison. There is no laissez faire state to contrast with the numerous welfare states of the world. The US and Sweden are both welfare states, its just a matter of degree. While it is true that the US is closer to laissez faire than Sweden, it is nowhere close at all. Using the US as an example for how laissez faire would work is like using Sweden as an example for how communism would work. As for why I believe laissez faire is better than a welfare state, that is a belief formed through many small observations and other beliefs about how the world works. I can't just point out one thing and say "this is why laissez faire is better than welfare statism."

Africa may not be capitalist, but the countries that exploit Africa are.

Ok lets see here, African nations aren't even capitalist, much less laissez faire. That much you admit. Western countries that "exploit" them are not even close to laissez faire. That exploitation, where it exists, is most likely a result of non-free trade policies. And your trying to argue that the failure of Africa are due to free trade and laissez faire? That really does not make sense at all.

*sigh* Evidently, I jumped to conclusions when I thought that you knew the differences between Socialism, Communism and Totalitarianism. You know, it's very tiresome to have to teach basic politics to someone that frequents a political forum. Okay, for the umpteenth time:

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this crap about correct labeling. There is a huge ocean between us, and we speak different languages. Our different use of labels doesn't make one of us educated and the other not, it simply makes us different. A label is just a word. Get over it. I view socialism as a system opposed to capitalism. Different people will give you different definitions of those things. The one I have chosen to go with is "capitalism: private control of means of production," "socialism: collective control of means of production." Excuse me if that doesn't agree with your definition. I suggest we drop it.

Contrary to the Socialist policy to try to form mass movements, the Bolsheviks formed a small elite party. Socialism does by definition utilise parliamentary methods. The Bolsheviks did not use parliamentary methods - they destroyed the parliamentary system through a coup d'état. The Bolsheviks did not support Socialist movements - the Mensheviks, the Russian Socialists, were removed from power and Socialist parties were prohibited. They didn't not strengthen the rights of the workers - they supressed worker councils and unions and enabled less workers' rights than in a Capitalist society even. They didn't redistribute the wealth properly - they invested it in party elite palaces, mastodontic monuments, and military armament.

As you hopefully can see for yourself, you don't really know what you are talking about.

No, it is quite clear that you do not know what you are talking about. I described the USSR as having a form of economic socialism, and what you just argued was that politically, it was not socialist.

Very well, that's a reasonable perspective. However, it doesn't change facts: Sweden is clearly closer to Socialism than the USA; the USA is cleraly closer to laissez-fair capitalism than Sweden. Sweden is equal or superior to the USA within most fields; if you take population proportions into account, Sweden is superior to the USA within almost every single field.

Both the US and Sweden are so far from laissez faire that it is ridiculous to use them to comdemn laissez faire.

Unfortunately for you, I'm Swedish, so you can't get away with your propaganda this time. Yes, it's true that the the average gross income is somewhat lower in Sweden than in the USA. However, that's from a strictly monetary perspective. Remember that Swedes have to spend considerably less money on e.g. healtcare and childcare and - above all - expensive insurances. This might surprise you, but the average living standard is higher in Sweden than in the USA and the average technology level is considerably higher in Sweden than in the USA. Also, see the UN's Human Development Report 2004.

Maybe you shouldn't talk about things you don't know about?

I'm not about to defend the US here, as that is a trap libertarians often fall into. The US is not libertarian, and there is no reason for us to defend it. I'll pass up this Sweden vs. US debate, thanks.

Evidently, you mean Social Liberals. Be that as it may. If you can't see the difference between a Socialist and a (Social) Liberal, then maybe you shouldn't frequent a political forum.

Ah, an ad hominem attack on you is so tempting. But I'll resist the temptation.

I agree. Needless to say, I'm fiercely opposed to Bolshevism. What's your bloody point?

Tell me how you can be a socialist and a capitalist at the same time, and maybe then I won't assume that socialism means collective ownership of the means of production (for which my arguments against the Soviet Union's economic system apply).

This argumentation is based on the assumption that the resources of the world are unlimited. It has been estimated that if the whole world should get the same living standard as the Western world, we would need more than one Earth. Unfortunately, no fancy economic theory can change the fact that the resources are limited.

I didn't say free trade would make them equal to the US, only better off. Being better off doesn't require unlimited resources.

You talk about trusting the judgement of the individual. Nevertheless, you don't trust the judgement of the individuals if they co-operate. I think you are a hypocrite.

Nope, I made it quite clear that I trust the juudgement of individuals working alone or in small groups, just not gigantic mobs. Sorry, no hypocrisy there.

You have to make a distinction between small businesses and big businesses. The essential resources and industries Socialists usually want to nationalise don't really affect small businesses.

Banning entreprenuership for only the most important things does not make you pro-entrepreneur. You are neither pro- not anti-, but somewhere in between.

What do you know about that?

About what? The high costs? I know that Swedes pay some of the highest taxes in the world. A few questions: do you advocate going much further than Sweden with socialistic programs? And if so, how do you plan on paying for that? At some point, you encounter diminishing returns. You cannot have 90% taxation without getting much less revenue.

This doesn't make sense - please elaborate. You aren't trying to hide lacking argumentation skills behind economic lingo, are you?

Look, its simple. Monopolize one industry, and you have a certain number of variables: how many shoes to produce, what kind, etc. If you have two industries, you have to factor in much more opportunity cost variables. Is that machine part better used to produce shoes or automobiles? This increases the number of variables many fold, and it just keeps increasing the more industries you monopolize. This isn't BS economic lingo, its common sense. And the failures of the USSR's economic system coincide perfectly with this common sense.

You are talking about brands, I'm talking about aesthetics. It's something I find quite scary when I meet Americans: you all look alike, like clones. You mistake product diversity for real diversity.

Are you telling me that among 2000 brands, you can't find anything aesthetically pleasing? The fact is, if you can't find something that suits you, you just have to look harder. We live in a global economy, and hardly anyomne is so isolated that they literally cannot find anything they are looking for.

And it is simply not true that all Americans look alike. It may true among different subsections, like fratboys, punks, goths, businessmen, soccer moms, etc; but all together, we are not lookalike clones. Personally, I feel no need to have different clothing. I just wear jeans and a t-shirt most of the time. Individuality is expressed in personality, not in clothing.

That's one component in Socialism

But if capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, then how can socialism keep that and still be socialism?

I see. So, basically, the space industry - among many other industries and research fields - would disappear in a Libertarian society? Is that the capitalist progress you are talking about?

Technology has not advanced to the point where space travel is worth it right now. NASA has been fucking around the last 20 years at enormous cost, and very little actual benefit to real people here on earth. When science is ready, we will explore and colonize other planets and average people will gain from it. Let science advance in the private sphere, and eventually the space industry will become a private thing not requiring a government.

[phillipofmacedon]

Inequality by itself doesn't cause social unrest.

Right, but Libertarianism A/ proposes to do nothing to ameliorate the inequality and B/ proposes no uniform method of security/order. I'd say Libertarianism isn't well thought out, as it completely disregards forseable problems. It's Utopian like Marxism... and Utopia becomes Dystopia.

Tax is just a word. You, me and everyone have mandatory expenses laid on them for the benefits received and for the further perpetuation of our society. To see this as unjust alien extraction irrrespective of amounts or methodology is fantasy.

I am fairly certain you have double-standards here. What if I walk up to you and announce I am your new personal bodyguard, here to protect your life and property? What if I then refuse to leave, and say that if you don't pay me for my services I'll shoot you? Do you have a duty to pay for the services received even though no one ever asked if you wanted them? You may really need the services, or you may not. But regardless, I just don't have the right to force you to both accept my services and pay for them.

Not sure I get your point. From a Libertarian perspective can you not see law and order as a contract? Why is it outrageous to have the same rules for all?

Libertarians want two mutually excludable things. They want a peaceful and property protecting society but they don't want to pay for it.

That is just false. How does contributing voluntarily equal not paying?[/quote]

Contributing Voluntarily? It seems like an oxymoron. It would be competively disadvantageous to give anything at large. A thing has value or it doesn't. If you have rights you have obligations. Why do Libertarians think their rights are free goods?

[Noumenon]

Right, but Libertarianism A/ proposes to do nothing to ameliorate the inequality and B/ proposes no uniform method of security/order. I'd say Libertarianism isn't well thought out, as it completely disregards forseable problems. It's Utopian like Marxism... and Utopia becomes Dystopia.

I don't see A as a problem. There is nothing wrong with inequality, as long as no one's rights are violated. Nor does it cause social unrest, as you admitted.

As for B, I don't know what you're getting at. Security and order would operate more or less the same way they do now, except they would be funded voluntarily.

Not sure I get your point. From a Libertarian perspective can you not see law and order as a contract? Why is it outrageous to have the same rules for all?

There is no such thing as a social contract. I don't agree to the government's rules simply by living in the area they managed to conquer and dominate. To use my bodyguard example, what if I declared your entire neighborhood under my protection, and each one of you must pay me for my services (which you never asked for)? Claiming that you made a contract with me by simply living in your neighborhood is utterly ridiculous. Likewise, to claim that you made a contract with the government simply by living in your country is ridiculous. That is what social contract theory claims, and it is completely wrong.

Furthermore, there is no moral need for a social contract in a libertarian state. The social contract is an idea used to justify the obvious injustice of using the government's aggression against citizens who have committed no aggression (for example, laws against non-violent marijuana users). The idea is that these innocent people, by living in a given country, implicitly "sign" a contract to abide by that country's government's rules. Of course, that "signing" is completely imaginary. Marijuana users never agreed to not use marijuana by living in the United States, and government aggression against them is completely unjustified. If government force is only directed against criminal aggressors, then the need for a social contract disappears. Why do we need to obtain a murderer's consent before using force against him, when he clearly demonstrated his contempt for consenting, voluntary action by taking someone's life against his will? We don't. Since a libertarian government's forces of law and order are directed only against criminal aggressors like murderers, rapists, and thieves, there is no moral need for a social contract. And social contracts do not exist anyway.

As for the point of my previous bodyguard example, I (the bodyguard) was acting like the government in declaring some area under my protection. It is obviously immoral for me to forcibly extract payment from people I declare under my protection, when I never asked if they wanted my service. Likewise, it is immoral for the government to forcibly extract payment from people it declares under its protection (the entire country) without asking them if they wanted the service first. Thus, taxation is immoral.

In a libertarian society, the same laws apply to everyone (but force is only used against criminal aggressors). I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

Contributing Voluntarily? It seems like an oxymoron. It would be competively disadvantageous to give anything at large. A thing has value or it doesn't. If you have rights you have obligations. Why do Libertarians think their rights are free goods?

Contributing voluntarily an oxymoron!? Last time I checked, people gave to charities, gave to their children to pay for their education, gave up time for community service, helped old ladies walk across the street, and all without being forced to do so. It will surely be a sad day when everyone thinks like you do; that in order to get anyone to do anyone to do anything good they must be forced to at gunpoint. No, believe it or not, people can and will do things voluntarily if given the chance. In the case of funding government, people see the necessity of a government and will contribute voluntarily to keep it running. You may or may not feel a moral obligation to fund government, but everyone has an obligation to not force people to do things against their will. That latter is what makes it immoral to force people to fund government.

[6079 Smith]

Again, my appologies for the late reply. Contrary to all (?) of the Libertarians in here, I actually work, so my spare-time is limited.

I bet that they said in the 18th century that, "I've yet to see a nation, country or government that isn't a monarchy." I agree that in the current system, politicians tend to watch their own interests. However, I'm sure that it's possible to change the system, although it might take a long time and be very difficult.

Sure they wouldn't say that. Rome was at one time a Republic, and not to mention democracy coming from greece and all. The point I think is that I don't wouldn't think that type of government could be pulled off.

My point is that we might be to primitive today to understand how such a system would work. The people of the future will probably know better. To be quite frank, I'm 100 % sure that capitalism will join feudalism in the Museum of Primitive Systems. It might take one or two centuries, though.

Principally, I agree with you: man has a free will. If nothing else, one makes a choice whenever one uses a drug. Principally, I would agree that the majority shouldn't be punished for the destructive behaviour of the minority. In practice, however, I agitate for prohibition. There are simply to many examples of heavy drug addicts which have committed serious violent crimes against completely innocent people. Hence, I want to minimise this risk.

Not so. The prohibition of Alcohol in the Unitied States in the 1920s led to the rise of mobsters and organized crime. Society has been plagued with it ever since. They gave up on prohibition of alcohol. Yet organized crime still controls the illegal drug market and is very rich. If we de-criminalize the illegal drugs, a lot of violent crime will decrease.

Well, I disagree. There are drugs and there are drugs. Legalise pot and it will probably reduce criminality in the USA. Legalise GHB and you will most probably get more violent crime.

Also, notice that many addicts start using drugs when they are teenagers. If adults are permitted to use drugs, it will become easier for youngsters to get drugs. Can a 15 year old boy or girl really handle this freedom?

Kids can get Marijuana in America easier than they can get a bottle of Booze. I know, because I've had kids ask me outside the stores to buy for them a 6-pack of beer, but yet I see (and smell) kids all the time smoking weed. The kids are doing it rather it is illegal or not. Put the same restrictions on all the drugs, tax it, and leave parents to parent their children.

Please don't be geocentric. The use of narcotics is generally speaking lower in other industrialised countries. For instance, you can hardly get possession of marijuana as easily in Norway as in the USA.

Indeed, alcohol can be a menace. However, just because we have allowed one menace, we don't have to allow another one. It's probably a quite unfair analogy, but just because people are allowed to own guns, they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to own poison gas.

That's a bad analogy. Fire Arms and poison gas is not at all similar. I have products in my home that I can make a bomb with, if I wanted to - household cleaning items. Anything can be a menance, that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. People die everyday from car accidents, should we outlaw cars? Bottom line, is that I think all drugs should be availible on the open market, not only will this eliminate a black market but it would take a lot of people out of the over crowed prison system, that are just there for possesing weed.

Well, it might be a bad analogy, but I hope you see my point. Alcohol is not prohibited because there are strong historical and cultural traditions; it can't be undone really. We can still keep narcotics illegal, though.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, some of the American states have rather strict regulations on alcohol. I know for certain that you have to be 20-22 years old in order to buy alcohol in some states.

The age is 21. And that isn't strict, it just seems wierd to Europeans. That is their puritan customs or whatever. I think you should be able to drink at 18, vote at 18, smoke at 18, do whatever you want at age 18. That is the age in America when a person becomes an adult.

OK. Still regulated, though.

Actually, I agree with you. I have a different solution in mind, though. If the people and the state are intimately interlaced, state indoctrination will become very difficult, possibly impossible. In essence, the people should have more to say about education. Today, the politicians decide for the people, but I belive the system can be changed.

I would like to see a change. Untill that day, I will home-school my children.

I won't stop you.

I think I'm older than you. But seriously, I know how you feel. However, they won't disappear just because you avoid them. You have to educate them in order to make them disappear, if you know what I mean.

How old do you think I am?

Well, 16-22?

I know they wont disappear, but I don't want to be involved with them. I just get frustrated.
I know what you mean on education, but I wont force education on anyone, that is their choice to be stupid or wise.

Force? Was literacy "forced" on people in the industrial countries? It's a gradual process and we have to be patient.

My question: Do you think that proportional representation, as manifested in most European countries, should exist in a Libertarian society?

I think I understand what you are asking now.
Scenerio:
In a Presidential election, instead of the canidate who won the majority of votes in the state getting all the electoral votes, he'd get only his percentage and all other canidates get their percentage of electoral votes equal to their percentage of votes by the public. Is this what you mean?

Sort of. There are good sources available on Internet if you want to explore the different election systems further.

A question: Since you believe in freedom of movement, do you think that the borders between the USA and Mexico should be completely open?

Yes! Thanks for asking this question. I would love for the mexicans to come up to our country - that is, after we impliment the Fair Tax plan. This way instead of most illegals not paying any tax at all, in order to live they must buy things (food, drink, etc.) and they will be taxed for consumer goods. Bang, we hit them with the tax, where as now, they find loop-polls to not having to pay income tax.
Anyway, yes - I think that movement should be free. Though I think their still should be some type of boarder, where movement is atleast monitored so we can keep statistics on how many are coming and going. Though, yea, I don't mind an open boarder. Though I think citizenship is a different thing. If they want to be citizens and have rights of a citizen they should wait in line like the rest of everyone else.

I'm impressed! That's a true Libertarian perspective, as I see it. You aren't a standard Bush boy in disguise after all.

Interesting. How come that the USA has considerably more severe poverty problems than most West European countries? I mean, the American system is certainly closer to laissez-fair capitalism than the Western European countries. It doesn't really make sense.

Are you talking proportionally? Because America's population is alot larger than most European countries.

I am of course speaking proportionally. Other comparisons are pointless.

I think that the welfare system traps people within its circle, I don't think it helps them get out at all. I think the best thing to do for a person would be to give them a stable job, not to give them money.

I agree. However, the capitalist system requires a certain degree of unemployment to function properly; otherwise, the wage labour market would collapse.

I find this to be quite narrow-minded. Basically, you make two assumptions: A) Big government and high taxes must always be ineffective. B) A system with a strong state must resemble the current systems. I'd say both these assumptions are uncertain. You need to present arguments to support your view.

I don't think that a Big government and high taxes are ineffective towards their goals, but towards my goals, yes. I think a big government and high taxes infringes on the rights and liberties of its people and is too dangerous to have sitting atop the population. As for "B", I define as "strong state" as a government having more power than the individual. I am opposed to this because it usually leads towards oppression, over-taxations, and infringment of liberties.

Obviously, we have completely different perspectives. I trust individuals to co-operate through democratic processes and thus use the state as a vehicle to improve society. As I see it, your alledged freedom concept will only result in power concentrations and less freedom. (Admittedly, that's a somewhat rhetorical take on it, but it's nevertheless sincere.)

Seriously, we all want to create better societies, no matter our political convictions. If a Socialist wants a stronger state, he has a good reason. If a Libertarian wants a weaker state, he also has a good reason. In this thread, I'm trying to figure out what this Libertarian reason is. I'm still waiting for a concrete and substantial answer, though.

Liberty and freedom of the individual.

That's rhetoric. Only authoritarians and totalitarians want to suppress liberties and freedoms.

Democracy, tolerance, human rights, incomes, life-spans, literacy, child mortality, primary education, women's participation in politics and so on and so forth.

Good for them. They base this on broad statistics of the general populations, I suspect? I am agianst that, I look at the individual. If the individual, in America, wants his government to educate him and remain stupid, that is that individuals choice. I don't like grouping people, really.
I am really for individual choice. If someone wants to be a naked, mushroom farmer in the middle of the Jungle and live in a cave. I think that is nice and dandy and they should have the right to do that.

Get outta here! The general aim of a political system must be to improve society and the living conditions for the as many as possible. If not, you could as well support feudalism.

If this was the primary concern, how come people decide to become policemen? They risk their lives for very low salaries.

Maybe because some people didn't do so well in school, and perhaps couldn't get a better job or go to college. Maybe their father or mother were police-persons. I don't know. It is an individual choice. One can't look at all of the policemen and say they did it because of the money or because they wanted to save lives and protect the law. One doesn't know untill he asks a police man and each police-person's story will be different because they are individuals and they each took a different route to becoming a police officer.

Obviously, you don't know any policemen or policewomen. I think quite a few of them would be seriously offended by your comments. You should be thankful that some people are prepared to risk their lives in order to protect fellow citizens. With the risk of being very rude, you sound like a spoiled brat.

How come that scientists study the creation of our universe? There's not much profit in that business. How come that authors, painters and artists prefer to perform their arts and be poor? Why don't they choose more profitable occupations? There are more important concerns than monetary concerns.

I think I pretty much answered these questions in the policeman thing. By the way, I never said that money was "the primary concern," as you suggested.

Will you admit that there are concerns that are more important than monetary concerns, then?

They said the same thing abou feudalism.

Yes, untill a better system was found. Find me a better system than capitalism.

We're working on it.

A society with a strong state controlled by the people. Then the people can decide how to prioritise, instead of a clique of politicians and businessmen.

I agree there. I am agianst oligarcies. I would like individuals to be in control of their own lives and do what they wish as long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. The way to go about such a system is difficult though. How would such a system be put in place?

The problem is that some people still are quite primitive. As long as crude - not to say mediaeval - materialism reigns, society can't evolve. Let's face it, the meaning of life for some people is to own a car and a house.

Maybe we can both agree that the "social" or "moral" product information should be more extensive?

I agree, but it is the individual who must educate oneself and ultimately make the "moral" decision.

Yes, but is it reasonable to have to do extensive research everytime you buy something?

BTW, his morals may be different from our own.

I think most people would agree that sweat shops are a menace, just to mention an example.

Please avoid fragmented quotation.

What does this mean? What'd I do wrong this time?

The way you quote, I have to go back and check old posts all the time. My spare-time is limited. Either change your posting behaviour or debate with someone else. Sorry if it sounds rude.

Most people can't move just like that. Some people are to poor to move, others have strong ties to the country, be it family, culture, tradition or something else.

I had a family, not much money, and culture, traditional ties to Sweden. I made it. Lots of people have very little and then leave, taking a chance and making a choice. If they do, it's their choice, if they don't it's also their choice.

Do you consider yourself to be a common man? If not, maybe you shouldn't use yourself as an example. There are other people out there.

Very well, then. Why are you so sure that "kind people" would take care of another disabled, potentially talented person?

I am not sure. That's the problem. It is a moral and ethical concern, yes. Though I want individual choice on helping people. Currently a gun is being held to my head to pay my taxes and some of that tax money is going to people I don't know, and that I don't know that I'd like to help. Perhaps I don't care if that person lives or dies. I want it to be my choice. The same goes for other people, they should be able to choose. They can give to charity if they are concerned, they can take in a homeless person if they are worried he will die. Once agian, individual choice.

What if everyone started to reason like you do? If I find you bleeding in the street after a robbery, should I just leave you to die? To be quite frank, I find it to be uncivilised.

Question: Why do you think that diversity would be suppressed in a Socialist society? Just because you can't buy Nike shoes? If you build your identity on products, I'd say your life is quite empty.

That is not why I think that. I think diversity would be suppressed because individual choice would be crushed. I someone wants an "empty life" then that's their choice.

There are other - and more important - individual choices than product choices. As I see it, Libertarians simply don't get their priorities right.

This is childish. Fascism, especially National Socialism, is explicitly Social Darwinistic.

Yes, but they are fundimentally agianst individual choice. Libertarianism at it's foundation is individual choice and liberty. They are polar opposites.

Don't you read what I write? I said that Fascism and Libertarianism share an important component, not that they are identical political systems.

I think this is a simplification as well. Notice that the family, the tribe, the village, the city, the nation and - yet to be fully developed - the global community are all examples of how violent tendencies have been effectively suppressed. If violence was such a natural - or should I say essential - component in human behaviour, these units could neither function nor exist.

It is a simplification. When dealing with such a broad idea such as this, then one must simplify. I think people are violent by nature, yet control themselves in society by morals, ethics, logic, etc. I don't think violence is essential, rather enevitable. People have free will. Not all people are smart, one may then make a stupid decision in killing another person.

I don't think that all people are violent by nature, only some people.

Let's say that you are right, though. Should we encourage such tendencies in society, however natural? I'd say we should encourage people to develop above tendencies.

Agreed. I am agianst violence, anyone that uses violence to infringe on someone's liberty or rights, then I say they should be punished. Violence, is wrong.

Right. My concern - right or wrong - is that Libertarianism would encourage certain types of destructive behaviour.

You'd have to create a more or less complete infrastructure or transport the labour force every day, week or month.

Ok. I will believe what you say here, but who says that a rich person won't want to develope in Norrland, if they have the money and see profit there?

As I see it, it would be to risky and expensive for a single corporation. Given this, the risk of a monopoly is signficant, which certainly must be in conflict with Libertarian praise of competition.

[6079 Smith]

I can play that game too. "If you want to understand Socialism, you have to read all the books about Socialism."

I believe this hearkens back to a point about the Great Depression, a Libertarian laissez-faire system is far more stable, during the days of laissez-faire in America, depressions rarely lasted more than four years and most were gone in two or less. However, after the movement towards socialism in the United States, there was this thing called the Great Depression. If you want to know the cause of the Great Depression, then feel free to read up here, Hoover was by no means laissez-faire. In fact, most of FDR's policies were expansions upun things attempted by Hoover.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720542/posts

I've read the article and I'm only moderately impressed. How to take a researcher seriously that handles the term Socialism so carelessly? If he can't even get the labels right, then why should we trust his theories? (Most Americans seem to think that Socialism = state intervention. That's of course incorrect. As an obvious example, Conservatives and Social Liberals agitate that the state should play a more or less activel role in shaping our societes, and they are hardly Socialists.) More importantly, it's a poor defence speech for capitalism. Even this - probably very biased - author says more or less explicitely that the fluctuations on the stock market was a crucial component in the crash. Without the stock market, it wouldn't have happened.

That's hardly a crystal clear answer. Again: How will less state interference render the economy more stable?

See above, a Libertarian society lets the market naturally handle itself, making constant corrections, however, when the state intervenes it merely creates more problems.

How do you know for certain that the market automatically will make constant corrections? I have yet to see some proof of this.

"Mob", "rob", "gang up" - that's simple propaganda lingo. Give me some significant examples please.

Imminent domain laws

Could you please elaborate. I'm not a native speaker and I'm not fond of American lingo.

This doesn't really make sense. Are you saying that there will be less people living in a Libertarian society? If people live in the same society, they will have to get along one way or another. It's hardly possible to create a society of isolated enclaves.

I really don't care for Noumenon's answer to this one, so I shall properly explain that in a Libertarian society, the individual's rights are protected. The government as an agent for the people would not be allowed to confiscate property at whim (imminent domain). Thus, the mob, operating through the government cannot take what is not theirs.

I find this to be propagandistic. All wealth rely on the infrastructure and the welfare. As I see it, you have to contribute to society if you use its structures.

I find this to be an incredibly egocentric way of reasoning. "Not exactly to your liking"? There are enough resources to feed the all people of the world, but nevertheless approximately 25,000-30,000 people die of starvation each day. What you or I think is insignificant in comparison.

When this was discussed earlier, you brought up the contention that WTO Free Trade negotions had broken down, the reason you cited was American subsidies for agriculture. Now, under a Libertarian president/rule those subsidies would be gone and free trade would be opened up. So your contention holds little ground, Libertarians do not endorse corporationism, but laissez-faire capitalism, I was hoping you would know the difference.

I agree completely. However, I believe that a Libertarian system might pave way for corporatism or crypto-corporatism. In fact, this is my main problem with Libertarianism: there are too many uncertain factors, so the end result might become a nightmare.

Very well, that's a reasonable perspective. However, it doesn't change facts: Sweden is clearly closer to Socialism than the USA; the USA is cleraly closer to laissez-fair capitalism than Sweden. Sweden is equal or superior to the USA within most fields; if you take population proportions into account, Sweden is superior to the USA within almost every single field.

I call bullshit, working off the very numbers provided by this site, the per capita GNI is 34,320 in the United States, while it's 24,620 per capita in Sweeden. In fact, I'd like to see where your contention about the Swedish dental system comes from.

Admittedly, it's difficult to find international comparisons on dental care - or health care, for that matter - on-line. I'll keep on looking, though.

You go on to address that next point, however, to assert Americans spend over 10,000 dollars on healthcare and childcare is ludacris.

Is it? I'm not so sure about that. Look at this report, page 7:

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

As you can see for yourself, the private spending on healthcare in the USA is 7.4 % of GDP, but only 1.4 % in Sweden. If you look at page 10, you will see that the private healthcare spending per capita in the USA is 2,194 USD, but only 293 USD in Sweden. (Interestingly enough, US physicians have considerably higher incomes, but this doesn't really correlate with life expectancy, health indicators and customer satisfaction.)

Additionally, you continue to reference the UN Human Development Report, but I took the time to look at the factors included in that report. They give consideration and higher standing to nations that have affirmitive action, that subsidize "native arts", and that have full national control of education, as a Libertarian I don't see these as good things and subsequently don't accept the validity of the UN"s findings.

Nevertheless, "hard" living standard factors are included in the report. It seems that you have already made up your mind, though. Could you please refer to some report that take an equal or higher amount of "hard" factors into account?

(Needless to say, we probably have somewhat different definitions of capitalism.)

Please remember this. I don't generalise about Libertarians and claim that they all want to abolish the state, do I?

Apparantly, capitalism is not "whatever the United States is doing right now", because the United States is currently somewhere between a socialist and corporatist welfare state, in a capitalist society, 40-50% of an individual's income would not be taxed away as it currently is in the United States. Capitalism is completely free markets, not subsidizing either individuals or corporations.

40-50 %?! We don't even pay that much in Sweden. Heck, such high taxes and such low living standard? No wonder you think your system is corrupt.

I respect your notion that the US system isn't a true capitalist society - although hardly "somewhere between a socialist and corporatist welfare state". I believe a correct description could be "state capitalism". It's hardly the kind of capitalism Libertarians agitate for, but I think it's the closest system for the moment being.

Additionally, you never happen to explain socialism other than it has some goals, but numerous ends to achieve it. While this may be accurate, you never establish why a socialist system would ever be better than a free market system.

Ah, I thought we discussed Libertarianism! Very well, feel free to visit the Socialist longue and study the Socialist manifesto by Adrien. It's not my manifesto, but I've contributed to it and I agree with a majority of the content. Have in mind that we propose a gradual and parliamentary process and we only present the first pragmatical steps away from predatory capitalism; it's not the final system we present.

This argumentation is based on the assumption that the resources of the world are unlimited. It has been estimated that if the whole world should get the same living standard as the Western world, we would need more than one Earth. Unfortunately, no fancy economic theory can change the fact that the resources are limited.

I fail to see how this relates to what Noumenon said, his contention that subsidies need to be done away with is right on the money and properly addresses your point. I agree that "the Western world" might be in for a bit of a jolt when after shifting from the current system to a Libertarian system, but that will produce an overall benefit not only to third world nations, but to the Americas. Removing those subsidies will force farmers to actually use land to its maximum potential and for other to develop and innovate to increase crop yield and overall farm production, these are things that benefit society, competition is good.

At least, it seems we both can agree that the current system isn't fair, no matter our political motives.

You talk about trusting the judgement of the individual. Nevertheless, you don't trust the judgement of the individuals if they co-operate. I think you are a hypocrite.

I would trust an individual over a group, apparantly you've either never been around a group of teenage males, by themselves in general they'll behave, put them in a group and stupid shit will happen.

I assume these teenagers don't vote. (You chose this imbecille example, not me.)

An individual will cannot force someone off thier land for no reason, the government (an agent of the masses) can and often does.

Maybe not, but without a strong state, a corporation can.

You have to make a distinction between small businesses and big businesses. The essential resources and industries Socialists usually want to nationalise don't really affect small businesses.

Dance around the question again, define your socialism so everyone can argue it instead of taking every point made and saying "ha, wrong type of socialism.

Again, please visit the Socialist longue. Should we focus on the issue of this thread now?

What do you know about that?

I know, that the current national debt of Sweden is 1,243 Billlion Kronor, which is 1.243 Quadrillion SEK.

That's correct. Guess who was in charge when this debt was created: the left or the right?

Let me ask, exactly how large is the national debt of the USA right now? You don't exactly have a Socialist in charge. The right talks much about money, but it doesn't seem to know how to handle money.

That's Sweden. It should be noted that the only state interference is the competition laws, which unfortunately are somewhat weaker than the ones you have in the USA.

You can't find a good jacket in Sweeden?

Depends. The aesthetic diversity is obviously greater in Sweden than the USA, but there are still strong tendencies towards conformity. The "thousands of choices" you are talking about are simply variations of common fashion themes.

There are literally thousands of choices in the American system, I can have my pick of jackets, a wonderful thing capitalism is. And don't try and say there is a lack of aesthetic diversity, because that just reveals your ignorance of that situation, but I guess you do that pretty good yourself when you say, "It's something I find quite scary when I meet Americans: you all look alike, like clones."

Which jacket would you like?

None of the ones you propose.

That third one looks rather sporty and European, I suggest you take a look at it, I think all your silly European fashion all looks alike /ignorance

Ha ha, I managed to cut deep with that one, didn't I? That's a fascinating effect of your historical and cultural inferiority complex (mainly towards Europe): US citizens react collectively on criticism.

I see. So, basically, the space industry - among many other industries and research fields - would disappear in a Libertarian society? Is that the capitalist progress you are talking about?

Once again, wrong, man has now achieved sub-orbital space flight, but due to capitalism, search for Spaceship One for more details, if there is demand (as there is for space tech. and research) then the market will naturally react to that and create and refine those fields.

I'm perfectly aware of SpaceShipOne, thank you. I think it's a marvellous accomplishment. However, it doesn't change facts: It wasn't a private corporation that was in charge of the first space flight. This is a potential problem with Libertarianism: it will only promote short-sighted research, based on demand. For instance, I doubt Big Bang research is very profitable from a strictly monetary perspective. Nevertheless, this research might engender valuable spin-off effects, effects we are unaware of today. In many respects, I think a Libertarian system would halt progress.

And that's an interesting theory you have, but personally I'm not putting my money on it.

No, why should you? I suggest you keep on struggling to obtain your precious house, car - and most importantly - jacket. I wish my goals in life were as simple to accomplish as well. It would certainly make life easier. Good luck!

[Captain Charisma]

I've read the article and I'm only moderately impressed. How to take a researcher seriously that handles the term Socialism so carelessly? If he can't even get the labels right, then why should we trust his theories? (Most Americans seem to think that Socialism = state intervention. That's of course incorrect. As an obvious example, Conservatives and Social Liberals agitate that the state should play a more or less activel role in shaping our societes, and they are hardly Socialists.) More importantly, it's a poor defence speech for capitalism. Even this - probably very biased - author says more or less explicitely that the fluctuations on the stock market was a crucial component in the crash. Without the stock market, it wouldn't have happened.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Government interventionism is a moderate form of socialism, through this intervention the state dictates that the state controls that specific means of production. I would argue that the modern American NeoCon (corporatists) and Social Libs are both socialist to a decent degree as they both support government regulation of industry. A free market will fluctuate a controlled market will crash. The crash was a product of America being off the gold standard is outlined in the article.

How do you know for certain that the market automatically will make constant corrections? I have yet to see some proof of this.

As I mentioned previously in a free market system, yes, depressions still happen, but they are short term issues that naturally occur and naturally work themselves out. With a market regulated or controlled by the government it produces crashes like the Great Depression.

Could you please elaborate. I'm not a native speaker and I'm not fond of American lingo.

The ability of the state to purchase land from any individual they chose, as long as the state decides it pays market value and uses it for a public purpose which has been used for roads and parks and also for a public purpose "like handing it over to someone else to make a shopping center."

I find this to be propagandistic. All wealth rely on the infrastructure and the welfare. As I see it, you have to contribute to society if you use its structures.

Wealth existed before modern infastructure and welfare, modern wealth exists despite welfare, not because of it.

I agree completely. However, I believe that a Libertarian system might pave way for corporatism or crypto-corporatism. In fact, this is my main problem with Libertarianism: there are too many uncertain factors, so the end result might become a nightmare.

In a true Libertarian system, with respect actually provided to the Constitution that wouldn't happen, but historical example backs you up to a degree, as Ameria did slowly descend from laissez-faire to corporatism in the 19th century. I would contend that the Civil War had alot to do with that shift though and only with such a radical happening would such things happen again.

Admittedly, it's difficult to find international comparisons on dental care - or health care, for that matter - on-line. I'll keep on looking, though.

If we're including health care, trust me I can find plenty of examples where America's semi-free system is better than basically any government system, but keep looking for those stats on dental care and such, I'm interested.

Is it? I'm not so sure about that. Look at this report, page 7:

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

As you can see for yourself, the private spending on healthcare in the USA is 7.4 % of GDP, but only 1.4 % in Sweden. If you look at page 10, you will see that the private healthcare spending per capita in the USA is 2,194 USD, but only 293 USD in Sweden. (Interestingly enough, US physicians have considerably higher incomes, but this doesn't really correlate with life expectancy, health indicators and customer satisfaction.)

As I pointed out, the difference in per capita GNI is nearly 10,000 dollars, the 2,200 dollars spent anually falls well under that the difference in GNI. Arguments regarding health care also don't hold much validity, Japanese women in Japan live longer than any other gender/racial group, while Japanese women in America live longer in America than any other gender/racial group. Coincidentally, America has a much large African-American population and Hispanic population than most other Western nations. Also, most common customer complaints are in regards to the bureacracy of the health care system and the impersonal nature of the system, aspects brought by the government intervention into health care.

Nevertheless, "hard" living standard factors are included in the report. It seems that you have already made up your mind, though. Could you please refer to some report that take an equal or higher amount of "hard" factors into account?

Hard living factors are included true, and I will look over one or two sites that may have such reports, but I don't think I'll find one. Simply put, the inclusion of those soft factors really does mar the quality of the report in my eyes.

40-50 %?! We don't even pay that much in Sweden. Heck, such high taxes and such low living standard? No wonder you think your system is corrupt.

I respect your notion that the US system isn't a true capitalist society - although hardly "somewhere between a socialist and corporatist welfare state". I believe a correct description could be "state capitalism". It's hardly the kind of capitalism Libertarians agitate for, but I think it's the closest system for the moment being.

Yeah, it's rather bad, though that includes all payroll taxes, FICA, SS, Medicare and both State and Local taxes. And if Sweden doesn't tax that much and is usually considered a democratic socialist nation, then the US with its tendency to spend more upon corporations is deserving of the title I bestowed upon it.

I assume these teenagers don't vote. (You chose this imbecille example, not me.)

Actually, they do, my roomate is one of them, often these teens are 18 or 19. In fact, most of the people living in my dorm are among them. They're not really that bright and more concerned with getting drunk than the current economic state of the nation, but I'd say 50% (about as much as the rest of the nation) will be voting come November 2.

Maybe not, but without a strong state, a corporation can.

Libertarians do support the existance of a state, we aren't anarchists ya know and protecting people from Force or Fraud (what you're describing) is bascially the two legit. functions of the state, so that's really not much of a concern.

That's correct. Guess who was in charge when this debt was created: the left or the right?

Let me ask, exactly how large is the national debt of the USA right now? You don't exactly have a Socialist in charge. The right talks much about money, but it doesn't seem to know how to handle money.

The down, I don't like to think of politics in a linear fashion, it's to restricting, I prefer the 2D Nolan Chart.
http://www.theadvocates.org/images/Orig ... nChart.jpg
And you are right, the NeoCons can't balance a budget to save their lives, we don't support them.

Depends. The aesthetic diversity is obviously greater in Sweden than the USA, but there are still strong tendencies towards conformity. The "thousands of choices" you are talking about are simply variations of common fashion themes.

I suggest you inform all of the pseudo-goths who shop at Hot Topic that they're buying the same designs as those in the Gap. Sorry, I'm taking my opinion, the native American resident in terms of product diversoty here.

Ha ha, I managed to cut deep with that one, didn't I? That's a fascinating effect of your historical and cultural inferiority complex (mainly towards Europe): US citizens react collectively on criticism.

I felt the best way to respond with ignorance was to repsond with my own, showing the stupidity of the argument, thanks for coming though.

I'm perfectly aware of SpaceShipOne, thank you. I think it's a marvellous accomplishment. However, it doesn't change facts: It wasn't a private corporation that was in charge of the first space flight. This is a potential problem with Libertarianism: it will only promote short-sighted research, based on demand. For instance, I doubt Big Bang research is very profitable from a strictly monetary perspective. Nevertheless, this research might engender valuable spin-off effects, effects we are unaware of today. In many respects, I think a Libertarian system would halt progress.

I disagree, but I don't we're going to debate this much more than that, just a basic ideoligcal difference.

No, why should you? I suggest you keep on struggling to obtain your precious house, car - and most importantly - jacket. I wish my goals in life were as simple to accomplish as well. It would certainly make life easier. Good luck!

Well, I already have both a jacket and a coat, and my rent is paid through December and I have the money to pay through May after that, so I'm fine in that aspect as well. And I don't have a car and don't really need one, so I'm actually doing great already. Thanks for the well wishing though.

[Lejonet från Norden]

My point is that we might be to primitive today to understand how such a system would work. The people of the future will probably know better. To be quite frank, I'm 100 % sure that capitalism will join feudalism in the Museum of Primitive Systems. It might take one or two centuries, though.

Perhaps you are right, but I will never be 100% sure of anything, really. That is pretty fucking sure. I don't like to try to tell the future, it puts me out on a ledge, I like the past, much safer.

Well, I disagree. There are drugs and there are drugs. Legalise pot and it will probably reduce criminality in the USA. Legalise GHB and you will most probably get more violent crime.

I am not sure about that. Just got through talking about assuredness. I think you will get less organized crime, but one might see that they get more petty crime, such as brawling, etc.

Please don't be geocentric. The use of narcotics is generally speaking lower in other industrialised countries. For instance, you can hardly get possession of marijuana as easily in Norway as in the USA.

Really? It is pretty easy to get Mary Jay in the USA. You are talking to a libertarian, supporter of legalizing pot. I've done my share of "you know what."

Well, it might be a bad analogy, but I hope you see my point. Alcohol is not prohibited because there are strong historical and cultural traditions; it can't be undone really. We can still keep narcotics illegal, though.

We can make narcotics legal but still educate people on the dangers of them so that they have the knowledge and the choice to do it. It will create funds for the government and reduce some tax burdens. Look in the US at the anti-drinking and anti-smoking campaigns, they are really educating the public on the hazards of doing those legal drugs, that kill so many each year. I see no reason why all narcotics can't be treated as thus.

Well, 16-22?

Actually, 28 and married.

Force? Was literacy "forced" on people in the industrial countries? It's a gradual process and we have to be patient.

They are forcing literacy on children now. I agree, it's gradual.

I agree. However, the capitalist system requires a certain degree of unemployment to function properly; otherwise, the wage labour market would collapse.

There will always be the unemployed, one's shifting from one job to another, those going to school temperarily, and those who choose to be.

Obviously, we have completely different perspectives. I trust individuals to co-operate through democratic processes and thus use the state as a vehicle to improve society. As I see it, your alledged freedom concept will only result in power concentrations and less freedom. (Admittedly, that's a somewhat rhetorical take on it, but it's nevertheless sincere.)

I see the state as a vehicle to, but not to improve society. That is up to the individual. I trust the individual, that is why I want all to have the same rights as everyone else, and what the government to be limited as much as possible. The founders on America saw the potentional for tyranny in any type of government, thus some like Jefferson, saw the government as a "neccesary evil." I agree with that. It is there to defend the citizens, keep public order and inforce laws, etc. It isn't there to force "improvements" on the people. If the people want to "improve" they will, if not, then they won't.

That's rhetoric. Only authoritarians and totalitarians want to suppress liberties and freedoms.

Not as I see it. I see that socialist, and 'social democrats' don't say they want to surpress freedoms, but through the government action they want it will surpress freedoms and liberties. It may be 'rhetoric' but it's true. Libertarianism, is for liberty and freedom for the individual. Plain and simple.

Get outta here! The general aim of a political system must be to improve society and the living conditions for the as many as possible. If not, you could as well support feudalism.

The general aim of a political system must be to insure that the people's rights aren't infringed, they have liberty and that the people are secure and safe. The government has no obligation to improve society one bit. It is individuals which improve society.

Obviously, you don't know any policemen or policewomen. I think quite a few of them would be seriously offended by your comments. You should be thankful that some people are prepared to risk their lives in order to protect fellow citizens. With the risk of being very rude, you sound like a spoiled brat.

Why, because I say the truth? That many come by to their profession through different circumstances? Are you telling me all police persons are that because they want to protect and serve? You either didn't understand my answer or you are being ignorant. All I did was say it is impossible to know untill you ask every individual cop, because they all come to their career for different reasons, because they have a different history.

Will you admit that there are concerns that are more important than monetary concerns, then?

Of course, never did I state that monetary concern was the primary concern for people. I think my primary corncern is protection of my family, friends and our rights. Monetary concern is just a means to reach that goal, i.e. get money to help provide for family.

The problem is that some people still are quite primitive. As long as crude - not to say mediaeval - materialism reigns, society can't evolve. Let's face it, the meaning of life for some people is to own a car and a house.

Would you deny people these individual choices?

Yes, but is it reasonable to have to do extensive research everytime you buy something?

I'd say not for the common person.

Do you consider yourself to be a common man? If not, maybe you shouldn't use yourself as an example. There are other people out there.

I am quite common, yes.

What if everyone started to reason like you do? If I find you bleeding in the street after a robbery, should I just leave you to die? To be quite frank, I find it to be uncivilised.

Some would, others would not. But would you FORCE someone to help me when I am bleeding, even though they didn't want to. My answer would be no. They can be as uncivilized and selfish as they wish.

There are other - and more important - individual choices than product choices. As I see it, Libertarians simply don't get their priorities right.

You think that all libertarians care about is product choices? If so, then you have missed the mark entirely.

Don't you read what I write? I said that Fascism and Libertarianism share an important component, not that they are identical political systems.

I don't think it is neccesarily and an important componant to libertarianism. I am just one libertarian. My opinion may vary from other libertarians.

I don't think that all people are violent by nature, only some people.

We either define 'violent' differently or we just genuinely disagree.

Right. My concern - right or wrong - is that Libertarianism would encourage certain types of destructive behaviour.

It wouldn't encourage anything. You can't blame the system for someones idiotic choices.

As I see it, it would be to risky and expensive for a single corporation. Given this, the risk of a monopoly is signficant, which certainly must be in conflict with Libertarian praise of competition.

Corporations do joint ventures all the time, who says it would be a single corporation?

[6079 Smith]

That's hardly a crystal clear answer. Again: How will less state interference render the economy more stable?

State interference is what causes banks to print more money. Stop that, and the sequence I described won't happen.

Hmm. Are you referring to the 1929 crisis now? Your money printing example sounds very old-fashioned.

On a sidenote: Will there be central banks in Libertarian societies? Who will administrate the currency system?

"Mob", "rob", "gang up" - that's simple propaganda lingo. Give me some significant examples please.

Almost any example of a democratic decision will work. Since I am more familiar with American politics, lets say prohibition in America from 1920-1933. Not a purely democratic decision in that no direct vote was taken, but close enough. In the name of the "good of society," alcohol was prohibited. As we all know, the result was greatly increased crime and lost civil liberties. Was this really for the good of society? Absolutely not; it made society worse. So why were the people so collectively stupid? The mob mentality (and they are still making this same mistake with the drug war). On an individual/small group basis, people know better than to assault their neighbors freedoms and forcibly prevent them from getting the things they desire. If I attempted to prevent my neighbors from obtaining alcohol, only bad could result. Even if I were somewhat successful, my neighbors would end up hating me and would likely retaliate with violence. Aggression breeds aggression, and the interest of society is not served by that. We know very early on that using aggression on our friends and neighbors is not the way to solve our problems. Why then do we use aggression when we can vote on it? Well, we probably won't see the victims and we don't feel any personal responsibility for the democratic decision. The bad results are diffused throughout society rather than directed solely at us. This is why extremely large groups cannot be trusted to make decisions.

As you point out yourself, this is not a good example; the decision was not based on a referendum or even popular opinion. Could you please find some other example? Again, I would prefer a non-American example, as I consider the USA to be one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the Western world.

This doesn't really make sense. Are you saying that there will be less people living in a Libertarian society?

No, I'm saying there will be very few situations where 100 million people get together to make a decision. A libertarian society may be democratic, but the range of democratic decisions to be made will be very limited. A society based on the individual has no need for groups that large to be making decisions. They will get together and work cooperatively, but not in groups that large.

Very well. It's not exactly crystal clear, but I think I know what you mean. This co-operation you are talking about, will this take place exclusively within economic organisations or structures? I mean, why should people co-operate without a purely monetary incentive in such a competitive society?

I find this to be an incredibly egocentric way of reasoning. "Not exactly to your liking"? There are enough resources to feed the all people of the world, but nevertheless approximately 25,000-30,000 people die of starvation each day. What you or I think is insignificant in comparison.

And the majority of those starving people are not living in society where supply and demand is given free reign. So I don't see how you can blame supply and demand for those deaths.

So, if supply and demand was given free reign in the countries in question, starvation would simply disappear? I really doubt that.

The point that I'm trying to get through is that it's uncivilised not to help people in serious distress. The reason this people don't get the help they need is - obviously? - that it's not profitable. In a society where profit is the main motivation, I fear this problem will become even more severe.

Capitalism may not be the perfect way of providing for people's needs, but its far better than socialism.

Why?

Pure economic socialism has been a failure everywhere it was implemented.

As shown elsewhere, such a system has never existed - at least as far as I know.

If you are arguing the benefits of the capitalist welfare state versus the laissez faire capitalist state, that is a more difficult comparison. There is no laissez faire state to contrast with the numerous welfare states of the world.

That is true.

The US and Sweden are both welfare states, its just a matter of degree. While it is true that the US is closer to laissez faire than Sweden, it is nowhere close at all.

Agreed, but it's at least an indicator. Neither Socialist nor Libertarian societies have existed, so we don't have any other practical examples to refer to. If a system closer to Socialism works better than a system closer to laissez-faire, however far, we can't just ignore it.

Using the US as an example for how laissez faire would work is like using Sweden as an example for how communism would work.

That's certainly an odd example.

As for why I believe laissez faire is better than a welfare state, that is a belief formed through many small observations and other beliefs about how the world works. I can't just point out one thing and say "this is why laissez faire is better than welfare statism."

If everyone reasoned like you do, they could as well shut down this forum.

Africa may not be capitalist, but the countries that exploit Africa are.

Ok lets see here, African nations aren't even capitalist, much less laissez faire. That much you admit.

Notice the wording "may not". Possibly, it could be argued that some African countries that lack state control actually are laissez-faire.

Western countries that "exploit" them are not even close to laissez faire. That exploitation, where it exists, is most likely a result of non-free trade policies.

There are other explanations as well. For instance, local entrepreneurs can't compete with multi-national corporations.

And your trying to argue that the failure of Africa are due to free trade and laissez faire? That really does not make sense at all.

I argue that in an even more ruthlessly competitive and greedy system than we have today, the problems would grow even worse.

*sigh* Evidently, I jumped to conclusions when I thought that you knew the differences between Socialism, Communism and Totalitarianism. You know, it's very tiresome to have to teach basic politics to someone that frequents a political forum. Okay, for the umpteenth time:

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this crap about correct labeling. There is a huge ocean between us, and we speak different languages. Our different use of labels doesn't make one of us educated and the other not, it simply makes us different. A label is just a word. Get over it.

That's ignorant. If we are talking about completely different things, the discussion becomes pointless.

I view socialism as a system opposed to capitalism.

Yes, Socialism is opposed to capitalism, but it's certainly not the raison d'être of Socialism.

Different people will give you different definitions of those things. The one I have chosen to go with is "capitalism: private control of means of production," "socialism: collective control of means of production." Excuse me if that doesn't agree with your definition. I suggest we drop it.

Very well. Then I chose this definition for Libertarianism: "The way Donald Duck and Adolf Hitler would run a society."

Hopefully, you can see for yourself that your approach isn't very constructive.

Contrary to the Socialist policy to try to form mass movements, the Bolsheviks formed a small elite party. Socialism does by definition utilise parliamentary methods. The Bolsheviks did not use parliamentary methods - they destroyed the parliamentary system through a coup d'état. The Bolsheviks did not support Socialist movements - the Mensheviks, the Russian Socialists, were removed from power and Socialist parties were prohibited. They didn't not strengthen the rights of the workers - they supressed worker councils and unions and enabled less workers' rights than in a Capitalist society even. They didn't redistribute the wealth properly - they invested it in party elite palaces, mastodontic monuments, and military armament.

As you hopefully can see for yourself, you don't really know what you are talking about.

No, it is quite clear that you do not know what you are talking about. I described the USSR as having a form of economic socialism, and what you just argued was that politically, it was not socialist.

Exactly what didn't you understand in this sencentce: "They didn't redistribute the wealth properly - they invested it in party elite palaces, mastodontic monuments, and military armament." I fail to see how this is "economic socialism".

Very well, that's a reasonable perspective. However, it doesn't change facts: Sweden is clearly closer to Socialism than the USA; the USA is cleraly closer to laissez-fair capitalism than Sweden. Sweden is equal or superior to the USA within most fields; if you take population proportions into account, Sweden is superior to the USA within almost every single field.

Both the US and Sweden are so far from laissez faire that it is ridiculous to use them to comdemn laissez faire.

See above.

Unfortunately for you, I'm Swedish, so you can't get away with your propaganda this time. Yes, it's true that the the average gross income is somewhat lower in Sweden than in the USA. However, that's from a strictly monetary perspective. Remember that Swedes have to spend considerably less money on e.g. healtcare and childcare and - above all - expensive insurances. This might surprise you, but the average living standard is higher in Sweden than in the USA and the average technology level is considerably higher in Sweden than in the USA. Also, see the UN's Human Development Report 2004.

Maybe you shouldn't talk about things you don't know about?

I'm not about to defend the US here, as that is a trap libertarians often fall into. The US is not libertarian, and there is no reason for us to defend it. I'll pass up this Sweden vs. US debate, thanks.

Very well, I respect that. However, you have to admit that many an imbecille Libertarian has used the Scandinvian systems as completely incorrect propaganda examples.

Evidently, you mean Social Liberals. Be that as it may. If you can't see the difference between a Socialist and a (Social) Liberal, then maybe you shouldn't frequent a political forum.

Ah, an ad hominem attack on you is so tempting. But I'll resist the temptation.

Don't let me stop you. You can't win such a war.

I agree. Needless to say, I'm fiercely opposed to Bolshevism. What's your bloody point?

Tell me how you can be a socialist and a capitalist at the same time, and maybe then I won't assume that socialism means collective ownership of the means of production (for which my arguments against the Soviet Union's economic system apply).

*sigh* You can't simply define capitalism as the right to private property, because private property has existed far longer than capitalism; the same goes for trade.

Capitalism is, as I see it, a system for maximising profit. Capitalism allows employers to exploit employees by keeping large gaps between the value the employee produces and the wage the employee earns, however unfair. Capitalism allows employers to control the way an employe lives, sleeps, dresses, behaves and sometimes even thinks. Capitalism allows people to become powerful and wealty without working hard, e.g. by trading stock and inheriting money. Capitalism let the people with most money rule, not the people with most brains. Capitalism priorities monetary concerns before social concerns, however much people are suffering. As a Socialist, I want to get rid of these degenerations. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to trade, entrepreneurship or private property. It means that I'm opposed to this unjust system and that I want to explore different means to combat it.

This argumentation is based on the assumption that the resources of the world are unlimited. It has been estimated that if the whole world should get the same living standard as the Western world, we would need more than one Earth. Unfortunately, no fancy economic theory can change the fact that the resources are limited.

I didn't say free trade would make them equal to the US, only better off. Being better off doesn't require unlimited resources.

But shouldn't the strongest competitor win in a Libertarian system? Does it have to be the USA?

You talk about trusting the judgement of the individual. Nevertheless, you don't trust the judgement of the individuals if they co-operate. I think you are a hypocrite.

Nope, I made it quite clear that I trust the juudgement of individuals working alone or in small groups, just not gigantic mobs. Sorry, no hypocrisy there.

So, at least you admit that you don't trust the individual in a certain situation, i.e. when co-operating in large groups.

You have to make a distinction between small businesses and big businesses. The essential resources and industries Socialists usually want to nationalise don't really affect small businesses.

Banning entreprenuership for only the most important things does not make you pro-entrepreneur. You are neither pro- not anti-, but somewhere in between.

Fair enough. Giving unlimited powers to corporations hardly makes you pro-entrepreneur either.

What do you know about that?

About what? The high costs? I know that Swedes pay some of the highest taxes in the world.

Judging from other posts, the taxes are higher in the USA. It should also be noted that many taxes are higher in other European countries.

A few questions: do you advocate going much further than Sweden with socialistic programs?

Certainly.

And if so, how do you plan on paying for that? At some point, you encounter diminishing returns. You cannot have 90% taxation without getting much less revenue.

So, you are saying that all resources will disappear in a Socialist society?

This doesn't make sense - please elaborate. You aren't trying to hide lacking argumentation skills behind economic lingo, are you?

Look, its simple. Monopolize one industry, and you have a certain number of variables: how many shoes to produce, what kind, etc. If you have two industries, you have to factor in much more opportunity cost variables.
Is that machine part better used to produce shoes or automobiles? This increases the number of variables many fold, and it just keeps increasing the more industries you monopolize. This isn't BS economic lingo, its common sense. And the failures of the USSR's economic system coincide perfectly with this common sense.

I'm afraid that you will have to explain this paragraph in plain English. I'm not a native speaker and I don't master economic lingo. Political English is difficult enough.

You are talking about brands, I'm talking about aesthetics. It's something I find quite scary when I meet Americans: you all look alike, like clones. You mistake product diversity for real diversity.

Are you telling me that among 2000 brands, you can't find anything aesthetically pleasing? The fact is, if you can't find something that suits you, you just have to look harder. We live in a global economy, and hardly anyomne is so isolated that they literally cannot find anything they are looking for.

I persist: This alleged diversity is simply a variation of common fashion concepts. This applies to most products.

And it is simply not true that all Americans look alike. It may true among different subsections, like fratboys, punks, goths, businessmen, soccer moms, etc; but all together, we are not lookalike clones.

Needless to say, my criticism is subjective. However, I honestly think that you look alike. The high degree of materialism has destroyed the soul of your people.

Personally, I feel no need to have different clothing. I just wear jeans and a t-shirt most of the time. Individuality is expressed in personality, not in clothing.

What has this to do with conformity and capitalism? Besides, it's always you Libertarians that keep talking about product choice.

That's one component in Socialism

But if capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, then how can socialism keep that and still be socialism?

I don't like this simplistic definition of capitalism; see above.

I see. So, basically, the space industry - among many other industries and research fields - would disappear in a Libertarian society? Is that the capitalist progress you are talking about?

Technology has not advanced to the point where space travel is worth it right now. NASA has been fucking around the last 20 years at enormous cost, and very little actual benefit to real people here on earth. When science is ready, we will explore and colonize other planets and average people will gain from it. Let science advance in the private sphere, and eventually the space industry will become a private thing not requiring a government.

That's the problem: "It's not worth it right now." We don't know for certain that it won't benefit mankind in the near or distant future. I find the short-sightedness of capitalism to be dangerous. This is just one example of this, and not a very significant example at that.

[Noumenon]

State interference is what causes banks to print more money. Stop that, and the sequence I described won't happen.

Hmm. Are you referring to the 1929 crisis now? Your money printing example sounds very old-fashioned.

Well the theory I described is old-fashioned, it is the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Von Mises came up with it in 1912. However, being old-fashioned doesn't make it wrong.

On a sidenote: Will there be central banks in Libertarian societies? Who will administrate the currency system?

There will be no central banks, since those are in effect monopolies granted by the government. No one will administrate the currency system; it will be left up to individuals. Likely, what would happen is that gold and silver coin would replace government money. Banks could issue receipts for such precious metals, and they would be legally required to be able to back them up 100% (no fractional reserve banking).

As you point out yourself, this is not a good example; the decision was not based on a referendum or even popular opinion. Could you please find some other example? Again, I would prefer a non-American example, as I consider the USA to be one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the Western world.

I am not familiar enough with non-American politics to think of one. Perhaps you could give me an example of what you think is a very democratic decision, and I could tell you how it is evidence of the mob mentality.

Very well. It's not exactly crystal clear, but I think I know what you mean. This co-operation you are talking about, will this take place exclusively within economic organisations or structures? I mean, why should people co-operate without a purely monetary incentive in such a competitive society?

Cooperation naturally occurs at some level. People will cooperate within a business in order to get work done. People will form voluntary groups and cooperate to achieve their goals. What makes you think everyone will suddenly refuse to cooperate with another person in a libertarian society? Of course cooperation will occur.

I'm starting to rethink this mob mentality thing. Maybe it isn't just people getting in large groups that causes them to commit aggression that they otherwise wouldn't have. I think that rather, it is the legitimacy given to that aggression. In a democracy, the majority is given the "right" to coerce others. The whole idea of democracy gives legitimacy to aggression. It is that legitimacy which causes people to make wrong and immoral decisions, not just the fact that they are acting as a large group.

So, if supply and demand was given free reign in the countries in question, starvation would simply disappear? I really doubt that.

How did starvation disappear in Western countries? The US was basically a third world country in 1789. One hundred years of semi-laissez faire advanced us to the richest country in the world. In Sweden, you had semi-laissez faire from 1870-1930, and you advanced from one of the most backward and poor European countries to one of the richest.

Am I supposed to believe socialism/redistributionism is supposed to make starvation disappear in those countries? Foreign aid is a universal failure. Despite decades of developmental assistance, most recepient countries are now poorer than they were before. Redistributing the wealth that is already in those countries won't do much good when they have very little wealth to begin with.

And no, capitalist "exploitation" is not to blame for third world poverty. Countries like Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and Ethiopia are all some of the poorest countries on earth, and they are virtually untouched by US multinational corporations.

The point that I'm trying to get through is that it's uncivilised not to help people in serious distress. The reason this people don't get the help they need is - obviously? - that it's not profitable. In a society where profit is the main motivation, I fear this problem will become even more severe.

If people want to be uncivilized, thats their right. Forcing people to fit your definition of "civilized" is immoral. Rather than forcing people to be civilized, you should peacefully promote your idea of civility and help for the poor.

Notice the wording "may not". Possibly, it could be argued that some African countries that lack state control actually are laissez-faire.

Which ones?

Agreed, but it's at least an indicator. Neither Socialist nor Libertarian societies have existed, so we don't have any other practical examples to refer to. If a system closer to Socialism works better than a system closer to laissez-faire, however far, we can't just ignore it.

If that is the case, all you have shown is that a system closer to socialism works better than a system that is less close. You cannot conclude from that that socialism works better than laissez faire.

That's ignorant. If we are talking about completely different things, the discussion becomes pointless.

I made the assumption that you were a socialist who advocates government control of the means of production. As Enrique pointed out, that is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition of socialism. Perhaps to avoid confusion, you could identify yourself as a social democrat?

Exactly what didn't you understand in this sencentce: "They didn't redistribute the wealth properly - they invested it in party elite palaces, mastodontic monuments, and military armament." I fail to see how this is "economic socialism".

Perhaps it was not perfect economic socialism, but the USSR still had economic socialism. What else do you call it? What you are trying to argue is that the USSR was not socialist because it didn't operate ideally according to your concept of socialism. Well, the US doesn't operate ideally according to my concept of free market capitalism, does that make it not capitalist?

*sigh* You can't simply define capitalism as the right to private property, because private property has existed far longer than capitalism; the same goes for trade.

Capitalism is, as I see it, a system for maximising profit. Capitalism allows employers to exploit employees by keeping large gaps between the value the employee produces and the wage the employee earns, however unfair. Capitalism allows employers to control the way an employe lives, sleeps, dresses, behaves and sometimes even thinks. Capitalism allows people to become powerful and wealty without working hard, e.g. by trading stock and inheriting money. Capitalism let the people with most money rule, not the people with most brains. Capitalism priorities monetary concerns before social concerns, however much people are suffering. As a Socialist, I want to get rid of these degenerations. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to trade, entrepreneurship or private property. It means that I'm opposed to this unjust system and that I want to explore different means to combat it.

"Capitalism" is not explicitly defined, like say, "rock" or "tree." Because there are so many definitions of it, I say just pick one. There is no "true" definition. According to dictionary.com, capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. If you go with definition, it may lead to the conclusion that capitalism has existed, at least in limited forms, before its generally accepted beginning between the 15th and 19th centuries. That doesn't make it wrong though.

But shouldn't the strongest competitor win in a Libertarian system? Does it have to be the USA?

You might want to look into the concept of comparative advantage.

So, at least you admit that you don't trust the individual in a certain situation, i.e. when co-operating in large groups.

Well, as I said above, I'm beginning to rethink this mob-mentality idea. I think I do trust the individual even in large groups. When I don't trust him is when he is in a large group that is somehow given legitimacy to commit aggression, such as a democracy.

Fair enough. Giving unlimited powers to corporations hardly makes you pro-entrepreneur either.

What makes you think libertarianism would give unlimited powers to corporations? They wouldn't be able to coerce anyone.

Judging from other posts, the taxes are higher in the USA. It should also be noted that many taxes are higher in other European countries.

Table 3
Tax Burden as Percentage of GNP, 1988
Country Percentage
Sweden 55.3
Denmark 52.1
Netherlands 48.2
Norway 46.9
Belgium 45.1
France 44.4
Finland 37.9
West Germany 37.4
United Kingdom 37.3
Italy 37.1
Switzerland 32.5
Japan 31.3
United States 29.8

So, you are saying that all resources will disappear in a Socialist society?

No, I'm saying that production will fall if you tax too much, and so tax revenues will be smaller.

I'm afraid that you will have to explain this paragraph in plain English. I'm not a native speaker and I don't master economic lingo. Political English is difficult enough.

I'm not sure if I can make it much simpler, but I'll try.

Say the government tries to monopolize the shoe industry. There are a certain number of variables that they have to consider, like how many shoes to produce and what kind. If government monopoizes two industries, the number of variables multiplies. This is because you have tto consider where things can be most efficient. Is the leather more efficiently used to make shoes or make jackets? This is why the number of variables, and the complexity involved, grows exponentially with the more industries you monopolize.

Needless to say, my criticism is subjective. However, I honestly think that you look alike. The high degree of materialism has destroyed the soul of your people.

It has also made us some of the richest people in the world. If materialism saves people from poverty, what do you have against it?

[phillipofmacedon]

Well, I have considered how to answer your comments, however my reading of what you wrote leaves me wondering whether i was clear.

I'd like to back up and establish something: do you think Libertarianism acknowledges and addresses debts from our ancestors and obligations toward our descendants?

Since humans are not precocial and must learn almost everything, the way we pass on accummulated knowledge is critical.

Since humans didn't invent the land and its resources and considering that humans have a brief life span compared with the lifespan of their planet or culture wouldnt that tend to indicate that we are all transient residents instead of sovereign owners?

[6079 Smith]

I've read the article and I'm only moderately impressed. How to take a researcher seriously that handles the term Socialism so carelessly? If he can't even get the labels right, then why should we trust his theories? (Most Americans seem to think that Socialism = state intervention. That's of course incorrect. As an obvious example, Conservatives and Social Liberals agitate that the state should play a more or less activel role in shaping our societes, and they are hardly Socialists.) More importantly, it's a poor defence speech for capitalism. Even this - probably very biased - author says more or less explicitely that the fluctuations on the stock market was a crucial component in the crash. Without the stock market, it wouldn't have happened.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Government interventionism is a moderate form of socialism, through this intervention the state dictates that the state controls that specific means of production. I would argue that the modern American NeoCon (corporatists) and Social Libs are both socialist to a decent degree as they both support government regulation of industry.

I would argue that by using political labels in such a generalising manner, they will eventually lose their meanings. You can't simply claim that Liberals are a kind of Socialists and I can't claim that Liberals are a kind of Conservatives. Can't you see yourself that this behaviour of yours is quite pointless? Also, how do you expect Conservatives and Social Liberals to take you seriously?

I know you are an American, but you should really do an effort and try to learn more about politics. There is a world outside the USA, you know. Don't go North Korean on us.

A free market will fluctuate a controlled market will crash. The crash was a product of America being off the gold standard is outlined in the article.

You still haven't explained why a free market would be more stable.

How do you know for certain that the market automatically will make constant corrections? I have yet to see some proof of this.

As I mentioned previously in a free market system, yes, depressions still happen, but they are short term issues that naturally occur and naturally work themselves out. With a market regulated or controlled by the government it produces crashes like the Great Depression.

You still haven't explained why the market automatically would correct itself.

Could you please elaborate. I'm not a native speaker and I'm not fond of American lingo.

The ability of the state to purchase land from any individual they chose, as long as the state decides it pays market value and uses it for a public purpose which has been used for roads and parks and also for a public purpose "like handing it over to someone else to make a shopping centre."

Is that the practice over there? There must be something fundamentally wrong with your system.

I find this to be propagandistic. All wealth rely on the infrastructure and the welfare. As I see it, you have to contribute to society if you use its structures.

Wealth existed before modern infastructure and welfare, modern wealth exists despite welfare, not because of it.

As mentioned before, I disagree. I'm 100 % sure that the capitalist system won't survive without the welfare system. That's why I think it's so ironical that the defenders of capitalism always want to remove the welfare system.

I agree completely. However, I believe that a Libertarian system might pave way for corporatism or crypto-corporatism. In fact, this is my main problem with Libertarianism: there are too many uncertain factors, so the end result might become a nightmare.

In a true Libertarian system, with respect actually provided to the Constitution that wouldn't happen, but historical example backs you up to a degree, as Ameria did slowly descend from laissez-faire to corporatism in the 19th century. I would contend that the Civil War had alot to do with that shift though and only with such a radical happening would such things happen again.

Maybe. The situation is quite different today, though. I believe Anarchism would have worked quite well in the USA of the (early) 19th century too.

Admittedly, it's difficult to find international comparisons on dental care - or health care, for that matter - on-line. I'll keep on looking, though.

If we're including health care, trust me I can find plenty of examples where America's semi-free system is better than basically any government system, but keep looking for those stats on dental care and such, I'm interested.

If these comparisons are unbiased and non-American, I'd be very interested in reading them.

Is it? I'm not so sure about that. Look at this report, page 7:

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

As you can see for yourself, the private spending on healthcare in the USA is 7.4 % of GDP, but only 1.4 % in Sweden. If you look at page 10, you will see that the private healthcare spending per capita in the USA is 2,194 USD, but only 293 USD in Sweden. (Interestingly enough, US physicians have considerably higher incomes, but this doesn't really correlate with life expectancy, health indicators and customer satisfaction.)

As I pointed out, the difference in per capita GNI is nearly 10,000 dollars, the 2,200 dollars spent anually falls well under that the difference in GNI.

Well, add dental care, childcare, pension savings, college savings etc. and we might reach 10,000. To me, this game with figures is quite pointless, though. My wage is slightly above the median wage in Sweden, and I have more money left each month than I can spend. Add better living standards (e.g. for housing, electricity and plumming), less criminality, better education systems and so on, and I can't see why I should like to switch to the American system and earn some more money each year.

Arguments regarding health care also don't hold much validity, Japanese women in Japan live longer than any other gender/racial group, while Japanese women in America live longer in America than any other gender/racial group. Coincidentally, America has a much large African-American population and Hispanic population than most other Western nations.

I think most scientists would agree that the genetical differences between "races" aren't that big. Also, to take an example, the genetical differences between Scandinavian populations are basically non-exist, but there are nevertheless healt differences.

(Out of curiosity, why are you Libertarians always so obsessed with the concept "race"?)

Also, most common customer complaints are in regards to the bureacracy of the health care system and the impersonal nature of the system, aspects brought by the government intervention into health care.

Source it, please.

Nevertheless, "hard" living standard factors are included in the report. It seems that you have already made up your mind, though. Could you please refer to some report that take an equal or higher amount of "hard" factors into account?

Hard living factors are included true, and I will look over one or two sites that may have such reports, but I don't think I'll find one. Simply put, the inclusion of those soft factors really does mar the quality of the report in my eyes.

Well, I respect your point-of-view. However, you have to remember that not everyone is a plain materialist and that everyone doesn't want to be a plain materialist either. You have to take other factors into account as well.

40-50 %?! We don't even pay that much in Sweden. Heck, such high taxes and such low living standard? No wonder you think your system is corrupt.

I respect your notion that the US system isn't a true capitalist society - although hardly "somewhere between a socialist and corporatist welfare state". I believe a correct description could be "state capitalism". It's hardly the kind of capitalism Libertarians agitate for, but I think it's the closest system for the moment being.

Yeah, it's rather bad, though that includes all payroll taxes, FICA, SS, Medicare and both State and Local taxes. And if Sweden doesn't tax that much and is usually considered a democratic socialist nation, then the US with its tendency to spend more upon corporations is deserving of the title I bestowed upon it.

Again, your use of the term Socialism is quite primitive. After all, this is a political forum, and an international political forum for that matter. I suggest we heighten the intellectual level instead of lowering it.

I assume these teenagers don't vote. (You chose this imbecille example, not me.)

Actually, they do, my roomate is one of them, often these teens are 18 or 19. In fact, most of the people living in my dorm are among them. They're not really that bright and more concerned with getting drunk than the current economic state of the nation, but I'd say 50% (about as much as the rest of the nation) will be voting come November 2.

Very well, then: some teenagers vote. This is a psychologically fascinating feature of Libertarians: When debating with them, you start with some interesting political issue and always end up in a merry-go-round concerning some more or less irrelevant example. I think this is one of the main reason why people have troubles taking Libertarians seriously, both on-line and off-line. Try to stay focused.

Maybe not, but without a strong state, a corporation can.

Libertarians do support the existance of a state, we aren't anarchists ya know and protecting people from Force or Fraud (what you're describing) is bascially the two legit. functions of the state, so that's really not much of a concern.

Well, Anarcho-Capitalists are Libertarians, aren't they? Anyway, that's beside the point. My point is that the state is the only counter-weight to corporations. Without a more or less strong state, you have to rely on "consumer power". Needless to say, corporations can co-operate against consumers and consumers often have problems in legal processes against corporations, just to mention a couple of essential examples.

That's correct. Guess who was in charge when this debt was created: the left or the right?

Let me ask, exactly how large is the national debt of the USA right now? You don't exactly have a Socialist in charge. The right talks much about money, but it doesn't seem to know how to handle money.

The down, I don't like to think of politics in a linear fashion, it's to restricting, I prefer the 2D Nolan Chart.

http://www.theadvocates.org/images/Orig ... nChart.jpg[/quote]

The linear model is somewhat limited, but certainly better than the Nolan Chart. Needless to say, the Nolan Chart is heavily biased: Libertarianism is opposed to Fascism, so Libertarianism must "of course" be the optimal system. Furthermore, the model assumes that "freedom" is some well defined variable, when freedom in fact may take a multitude of expressions. In my opinion, the Nolan Chart is one of the worst political models out there. I can see why a Libertarian might like it, but not anyone else.

And you are right, the NeoCons can't balance a budget to save their lives, we don't support them.

Right. I can say the same when it comes to Social Democrats. Visit the Socialist longue and you will see what I mean.

Depends. The aesthetic diversity is obviously greater in Sweden than the USA, but there are still strong tendencies towards conformity. The "thousands of choices" you are talking about are simply variations of common fashion themes.

I suggest you inform all of the pseudo-goths who shop at Hot Topic that they're buying the same designs as those in the Gap. Sorry, I'm taking my opinion, the native American resident in terms of product diversoty here.

Ah, the good old youth sub-cultures and domestic stores. You Libertarians aren't exactly masters of abstraction.

Ha ha, I managed to cut deep with that one, didn't I? That's a fascinating effect of your historical and cultural inferiority complex (mainly towards Europe): US citizens react collectively on criticism.

I felt the best way to respond with ignorance was to repsond with my own, showing the stupidity of the argument, thanks for coming though.

No, I'm sure I managed to cut deep. You compensate your individual self-esteem with the national self-esteem.

I'm perfectly aware of SpaceShipOne, thank you. I think it's a marvellous accomplishment. However, it doesn't change facts: It wasn't a private corporation that was in charge of the first space flight. This is a potential problem with Libertarianism: it will only promote short-sighted research, based on demand. For instance, I doubt Big Bang research is very profitable from a strictly monetary perspective. Nevertheless, this research might engender valuable spin-off effects, effects we are unaware of today. In many respects, I think a Libertarian system would halt progress.

I disagree, but I don't we're going to debate this much more than that, just a basic ideoligcal difference.

I think it's an essential difference. If your system halts progress, it's potentially dangerous.

No, why should you? I suggest you keep on struggling to obtain your precious house, car - and most importantly - jacket. I wish my goals in life were as simple to accomplish as well. It would certainly make life easier. Good luck!

Well, I already have both a jacket and a coat, and my rent is paid through December and I have the money to pay through May after that, so I'm fine in that aspect as well. And I don't have a car and don't really need one, so I'm actually doing great already. Thanks for the well wishing though.

You're welcome.

[6079 Smith]

My point is that we might be to primitive today to understand how such a system would work. The people of the future will probably know better. To be quite frank, I'm 100 % sure that capitalism will join feudalism in the Museum of Primitive Systems. It might take one or two centuries, though.

Perhaps you are right, but I will never be 100% sure of anything, really. That is pretty fucking sure. I don't like to try to tell the future, it puts me out on a ledge, I like the past, much safer.

Then how can you be 100 % sure that you can't be 100 % sure?

Well, I disagree. There are drugs and there are drugs. Legalise pot and it will probably reduce criminality in the USA. Legalise GHB and you will most probably get more violent crime.

I am not sure about that. Just got through talking about assuredness. I think you will get less organized crime, but one might see that they get more petty crime, such as brawling, etc.

Hm, this debate on narcotics has finally gone circular. Evidently, we won't get any further.

Please don't be geocentric. The use of narcotics is generally speaking lower in other industrialised countries. For instance, you can hardly get possession of marijuana as easily in Norway as in the USA.

Really? It is pretty easy to get Mary Jay in the USA. You are talking to a libertarian, supporter of legalizing pot. I've done my share of "you know what."

Me too. I'd prefer a good, old pint any time.

Well, it might be a bad analogy, but I hope you see my point. Alcohol is not prohibited because there are strong historical and cultural traditions; it can't be undone really. We can still keep narcotics illegal, though.

We can make narcotics legal but still educate people on the dangers of them so that they have the knowledge and the choice to do it. It will create funds for the government and reduce some tax burdens. Look in the US at the anti-drinking and anti-smoking campaigns, they are really educating the public on the hazards of doing those legal drugs, that kill so many each year. I see no reason why all narcotics can't be treated as thus.

This doesn't really sound Libertarian, you know... Should the government get tax money for campaigns that tell people how to behave...?

Well, 16-22?

Actually, 28 and married.

I see. I guess I must have jumped to conclusion.

I agree. However, the capitalist system requires a certain degree of unemployment to function properly; otherwise, the wage labour market would collapse.

There will always be the unemployed, one's shifting from one job to another, those going to school temperarily, and those who choose to be.

Not necessarily. The state can more easily create temprorary jobs.

Obviously, we have completely different perspectives. I trust individuals to co-operate through democratic processes and thus use the state as a vehicle to improve society. As I see it, your alledged freedom concept will only result in power concentrations and less freedom. (Admittedly, that's a somewhat rhetorical take on it, but it's nevertheless sincere.)

I see the state as a vehicle to, but not to improve society. That is up to the individual. I trust the individual, that is why I want all to have the same rights as everyone else, and what the government to be limited as much as possible. The founders on America saw the potentional for tyranny in any type of government, thus some like Jefferson, saw the government as a "neccesary evil." I agree with that. It is there to defend the citizens, keep public order and inforce laws, etc. It isn't there to force "improvements" on the people. If the people want to "improve" they will, if not, then they won't.

But that's my whole point! If the people want to "improve" society, I want to give them the opportunity to do so in a democratic process. In a sound democratic society, the government is only a functional extension of the people and the people are individuals who choose to co-operate within the societal framework.

That's rhetoric. Only authoritarians and totalitarians want to suppress liberties and freedoms.

Not as I see it. I see that socialist, and 'social democrats' don't say they want to surpress freedoms, but through the government action they want it will surpress freedoms and liberties. It may be 'rhetoric' but it's true. Libertarianism, is for liberty and freedom for the individual. Plain and simple.

Or maybe your definition of freedom is somewhat limited?

Get outta here! The general aim of a political system must be to improve society and the living conditions for the as many as possible. If not, you could as well support feudalism.

The general aim of a political system must be to insure that the people's rights aren't infringed, they have liberty and that the people are secure and safe. The government has no obligation to improve society one bit. It is individuals which improve society.

See above.

Obviously, you don't know any policemen or policewomen. I think quite a few of them would be seriously offended by your comments. You should be thankful that some people are prepared to risk their lives in order to protect fellow citizens. With the risk of being very rude, you sound like a spoiled brat.

Why, because I say the truth? That many come by to their profession through different circumstances? Are you telling me all police persons are that because they want to protect and serve? You either didn't understand my answer or you are being ignorant. All I did was say it is impossible to know untill you ask every individual cop, because they all come to their career for different reasons, because they have a different history.

Actually, I know quite a few policemen and policewomen. Every single one that I know has chosen this career for idealistic reasons. Needless to say, there are differences between the USA and Sweden, but I doubt they are that big.

Will you admit that there are concerns that are more important than monetary concerns, then?

Of course, never did I state that monetary concern was the primary concern for people. I think my primary corncern is protection of my family, friends and our rights. Monetary concern is just a means to reach that goal, i.e. get money to help provide for family.

Good. Then you will also admit that there are many different means to achieve this.

The problem is that some people still are quite primitive. As long as crude - not to say mediaeval - materialism reigns, society can't evolve. Let's face it, the meaning of life for some people is to own a car and a house.

Would you deny people these individual choices?

It's quite difficult to deny people the right to be shallow, isn't it?

Do you consider yourself to be a common man? If not, maybe you shouldn't use yourself as an example. There are other people out there.

I am quite common, yes.

Very well. I do persist that it's not that easy for everyone. For instance, people come from anti-intellectual homes are often not able to master languages. Then it's not that easy to simply move.

What if everyone started to reason like you do? If I find you bleeding in the street after a robbery, should I just leave you to die? To be quite frank, I find it to be uncivilised.

Some would, others would not. But would you FORCE someone to help me when I am bleeding, even though they didn't want to. My answer would be no. They can be as uncivilized and selfish as they wish.

Bye, bye, civilisation. Will you raise your children this way too? Or will you force them behave in a civilised manner?

There are other - and more important - individual choices than product choices. As I see it, Libertarians simply don't get their priorities right.

You think that all libertarians care about is product choices? If so, then you have missed the mark entirely.

Libertarians do have a tendency to focus on monetary issues and product diversity. That's not my fault, is it?

Don't you read what I write? I said that Fascism and Libertarianism share an important component, not that they are identical political systems.

I don't think it is neccesarily and an important componant to libertarianism. I am just one libertarian. My opinion may vary from other libertarians.

You are far from the only Libertarian that has preached Social Darwinism.

I don't think that all people are violent by nature, only some people.

We either define 'violent' differently or we just genuinely disagree.

Probably.

Right. My concern - right or wrong - is that Libertarianism would encourage certain types of destructive behaviour.

It wouldn't encourage anything. You can't blame the system for someones idiotic choices.

If you don't lock your door, you don't encourage anything either...?

As I see it, it would be to risky and expensive for a single corporation. Given this, the risk of a monopoly is signficant, which certainly must be in conflict with Libertarian praise of competition.

Corporations do joint ventures all the time, who says it would be a single corporation?

That would still be a kind of monopoly. What are the chances that several joint ventures of this magnitude would compete within this context?

[6079 Smith]

State interference is what causes banks to print more money. Stop that, and the sequence I described won't happen.

Hmm. Are you referring to the 1929 crisis now? Your money printing example sounds very old-fashioned.

Well the theory I described is old-fashioned, it is the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Von Mises came up with it in 1912. However, being old-fashioned doesn't make it wrong.

Surely, this method of printing money to solve problems must be rare or possibly non-exist today? In any case, I don't think you can build a solid case on this single example.

On a sidenote: Will there be central banks in Libertarian societies? Who will administrate the currency system?

There will be no central banks, since those are in effect monopolies granted by the government. No one will administrate the currency system; it will be left up to individuals. Likely, what would happen is that gold and silver coin would replace government money. Banks could issue receipts for such precious metals, and they would be legally required to be able to back them up 100% (no fractional reserve banking).

Hm, that's an interesting concept; I'd say truly Libertarian. I have one question, though: How will the supply and demand of gold affect this system?

As you point out yourself, this is not a good example; the decision was not based on a referendum or even popular opinion. Could you please find some other example? Again, I would prefer a non-American example, as I consider the USA to be one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the Western world.

I am not familiar enough with non-American politics to think of one.

You should really make an effort and study the world outside the USA; don't go North Korean. There are many interesting political ideas and methods circulating out there. If you lack knowledge of other political systems, than how can you be sure Libertarianism is the best system?

Perhaps you could give me an example of what you think is a very democratic decision, and I could tell you how it is evidence of the mob mentality.

Nope. You'll simply have to do your homework.

Very well. It's not exactly crystal clear, but I think I know what you mean. This co-operation you are talking about, will this take place exclusively within economic organisations or structures? I mean, why should people co-operate without a purely monetary incentive in such a competitive society?

Cooperation naturally occurs at some level. People will cooperate within a business in order to get work done. People will form voluntary groups and cooperate to achieve their goals. What makes you think everyone will suddenly refuse to cooperate with another person in a libertarian society? Of course cooperation will occur.

Admittedly, this discussion is quite abstract. Nevertheless, I'll persist. As I see it, people have to co-operate on a non-monetary basis within several contexts in order for society to function properly. If society focuses to much on profit and competition, other forms of co-operation might become endangered. That's how I see it.

I'm starting to rethink this mob mentality thing. Maybe it isn't just people getting in large groups that causes them to commit aggression that they otherwise wouldn't have. I think that rather, it is the legitimacy given to that aggression. In a democracy, the majority is given the "right" to coerce others. The whole idea of democracy gives legitimacy to aggression. It is that legitimacy which causes people to make wrong and immoral decisions, not just the fact that they are acting as a large group.

I think most people would agree that they want democracy because it prevents violence and oppression. As far as I can tell, there are no exceptions from this rule: the more democracy, the less aggression.

So, if supply and demand was given free reign in the countries in question, starvation would simply disappear? I really doubt that.

How did starvation disappear in Western countries? The US was basically a third world country in 1789. One hundred years of semi-laissez faire advanced us to the richest country in the world.

It sounds good, but that's not how it works. This is a fact: 20 % of the world population uses 80 % of the world resources. As I see it, this equation can't be solved within a capitalist system.

In Sweden, you had semi-laissez faire from 1870-1930, and you advanced from one of the most backward and poor European countries to one of the richest.

Notice that we reached our current level of wealth after the introduction of the welfare system.

Am I supposed to believe socialism/redistributionism is supposed to make starvation disappear in those countries? Foreign aid is a universal failure. Despite decades of developmental assistance, most recepient countries are now poorer than they were before. Redistributing the wealth that is already in those countries won't do much good when they have very little wealth to begin with.

In my interpretation of Socialism - and I believe most Socialists would agree with me to one degree or another - a Socialist society prioritises social concerns before monetary concerns. Thus, an African country with a Socialist system would focus on creating an infrastructure instead of letting Western countries exploiting the resources of the country. That would certainly make a difference.

BTW, why are we discussing Socialism? I'm trying to find out how a Libertarian society would work, but you constantly try to change the subject. If you can't defend the weaknesses of Libertarianism, just say so.

And no, capitalist "exploitation" is not to blame for third world poverty. Countries like Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and Ethiopia are all some of the poorest countries on earth, and they are virtually untouched by US multinational corporations.

Since you are American, you should be aware of how certain US interests have worsened the situation in Ethiopia. (Admittedly, I see the US government as a tool of the US corporations. Fair or not, that's how the current system works.)

The point that I'm trying to get through is that it's uncivilised not to help people in serious distress. The reason this people don't get the help they need is - obviously? - that it's not profitable. In a society where profit is the main motivation, I fear this problem will become even more severe.

If people want to be uncivilized, thats their right. Forcing people to fit your definition of "civilized" is immoral. Rather than forcing people to be civilized, you should peacefully promote your idea of civility and help for the poor.

The problem is that people will get hurt. Sure, the law will get the offenders, but the victims will still be victims. Notice that the judicial system also forces people to behave in a civilised manner. Of course, now you will give me the standard Libertarian answer: "Libertarians aren't against the laws." The problem is, where to draw the line? A judicial system isn't and shouldn't be static.

Notice the wording "may not". Possibly, it could be argued that some African countries that lack state control actually are laissez-faire.

Which ones?

Someone mentioned Somalia in this very forum.

Agreed, but it's at least an indicator. Neither Socialist nor Libertarian societies have existed, so we don't have any other practical examples to refer to. If a system closer to Socialism works better than a system closer to laissez-faire, however far, we can't just ignore it.

If that is the case, all you have shown is that a system closer to socialism works better than a system that is less close. You cannot conclude from that that socialism works better than laissez faire.

I still think this case can serve as circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, that's not real evidence.

That's ignorant. If we are talking about completely different things, the discussion becomes pointless.

I made the assumption that you were a socialist who advocates government control of the means of production. As Enrique pointed out, that is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition of socialism.

Nevertheless, many Socialists won't agree with this definition. If you disagree with a definition of Libertarianism in a dictionary, I'd better listen to you than the dictionary, don't you think?

Again, why do we focus on Socialism in a thread about Libertarianism?

Perhaps to avoid confusion, you could identify yourself as a social democrat?

I'd prefer Democratic Socialist, i.e. a more radical or true Social Democrat. Notice that Social Democrats don't really govern as they preach today.

Exactly what didn't you understand in this sencentce: "They didn't redistribute the wealth properly - they invested it in party elite palaces, mastodontic monuments, and military armament." I fail to see how this is "economic socialism".

Perhaps it was not perfect economic socialism, but the USSR still had economic socialism. What else do you call it?

Totalitarian or Bolshevik.

What you are trying to argue is that the USSR was not socialist because it didn't operate ideally according to your concept of socialism. Well, the US doesn't operate ideally according to my concept of free market capitalism, does that make it not capitalist?

I want the exact opposite of the USSR. Do you want the exact opposite of the USA?

*sigh* You can't simply define capitalism as the right to private property, because private property has existed far longer than capitalism; the same goes for trade.

Capitalism is, as I see it, a system for maximising profit. Capitalism allows employers to exploit employees by keeping large gaps between the value the employee produces and the wage the employee earns, however unfair. Capitalism allows employers to control the way an employe lives, sleeps, dresses, behaves and sometimes even thinks. Capitalism allows people to become powerful and wealty without working hard, e.g. by trading stock and inheriting money. Capitalism let the people with most money rule, not the people with most brains. Capitalism priorities monetary concerns before social concerns, however much people are suffering. As a Socialist, I want to get rid of these degenerations. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to trade, entrepreneurship or private property. It means that I'm opposed to this unjust system and that I want to explore different means to combat it.

"Capitalism" is not explicitly defined, like say, "rock" or "tree." Because there are so many definitions of it, I say just pick one. There is no "true" definition. According to dictionary.com, capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. If you go with definition, it may lead to the conclusion that capitalism has existed, at least in limited forms, before its generally accepted beginning between the 15th and 19th centuries. That doesn't make it wrong though.

I agree that the lack of good definitions of capitalism - be it Libertarian or Socialist definitions - is a big problem. It would be interesting to try to find the smallest common denominator sometime.

But shouldn't the strongest competitor win in a Libertarian system? Does it have to be the USA?

You might want to look into the concept of comparative advantage.

I've always thought that this theory is a sever simplification. (This may surprise you, but I've actually studied economics at the university.) The fundamental weakness of the theory is an obvious fact: money is a good.

So, at least you admit that you don't trust the individual in a certain situation, i.e. when co-operating in large groups.

Well, as I said above, I'm beginning to rethink this mob-mentality idea. I think I do trust the individual even in large groups. When I don't trust him is when he is in a large group that is somehow given legitimacy to commit aggression, such as a democracy.

See above.

Fair enough. Giving unlimited powers to corporations hardly makes you pro-entrepreneur either.

What makes you think libertarianism would give unlimited powers to corporations? They wouldn't be able to coerce anyone.

Because I think that would be the inevitable result of Libertarian policies. The only realistic counter-weight to a large corporation is a strong state. The so-called consumer power mechanism can be manipulated or even dismantled.

Judging from other posts, the taxes are higher in the USA. It should also be noted that many taxes are higher in other European countries.

Table 3
Tax Burden as Percentage of GNP, 1988
Country Percentage
Sweden 55.3
Denmark 52.1
Netherlands 48.2
Norway 46.9
Belgium 45.1
France 44.4
Finland 37.9
West Germany 37.4
United Kingdom 37.3
Italy 37.1
Switzerland 32.5
Japan 31.3
United States 29.8

Where did you get these stats? What taxes are included? It's actually my payday today and my income tax is exactly 29.71 %; my wage is somewhat higher than the Swedish median wage. This is the only tax that I have to pay.

So, you are saying that all resources will disappear in a Socialist society?

No, I'm saying that production will fall if you tax too much, and so tax revenues will be smaller.

I don't think so. Sweden has high taxes and high production. I believe that if you removed the capitalistic mechanisms, the system would work even better.

I'm afraid that you will have to explain this paragraph in plain English. I'm not a native speaker and I don't master economic lingo. Political English is difficult enough.

I'm not sure if I can make it much simpler, but I'll try.

Say the government tries to monopolize the shoe industry. There are a certain number of variables that they have to consider, like how many shoes to produce and what kind. If government monopoizes two industries, the number of variables multiplies. This is because you have tto consider where things can be most efficient. Is the leather more efficiently used to make shoes or make jackets? This is why the number of variables, and the complexity involved, grows exponentially with the more industries you monopolize.

Thanks for the effort; I appreciate it. I don't agree with what you are saying, though. Most Socialists would focus on monopolising major and essential resources and industries. In Sweden, this could include metals and mining, just to mention an example. These resources and industries are already dependent on quite few manufacturers with quite specialised production means. The problem you describe wouldn't really exist.

(As for shoes, I'd probably buy custom-made shoes by my local shoemaker entrepreneur instead of expensive and aesthetically plain sport shoes manufactured by some multi-national corporation. )

Needless to say, my criticism is subjective. However, I honestly think that you look alike. The high degree of materialism has destroyed the soul of your people.

It has also made us some of the richest people in the world. If materialism saves people from poverty, what do you have against it?

The focus on materialism has a tendency to suppress critical thinking, individualism, arts etc. Notice that many, if not all, totalitarian societies have been extremely materialistic.

[Captain Charisma]

I would argue that by using political labels in such a generalising manner, they will eventually lose their meanings. You can't simply claim that Liberals are a kind of Socialists and I can't claim that Liberals are a kind of Conservatives. Can't you see yourself that this behaviour of yours is quite pointless? Also, how do you expect Conservatives and Social Liberals to take you seriously?

I know you are an American, but you should really do an effort and try to learn more about politics. There is a world outside the USA, you know. Don't go North Korean on us.

I would argue that general labels are just fine, as long as specific labels are provided in addition to specify. There are Libertarians, but there are, Anarcho-Capitalists, Objectivists, moderates disrgunted with the two major parties, as well as a Principle Libertarian. I can define Libertarian and it will encompass all of those, but when discussing specifics those need to be defined. As I have defined NeoCons and the modern Democrats into socialism, it's your burden to define them out, but you prefer to not actually address the points on the board.

I know you're an elitist European, but you should make an effort and try and learn more about politics. Try disproving my points instead of claiming I lack knowledge.

You still haven't explained why a free market would be more stable.

You still haven't explained why the market automatically would correct itself.

Number two answers number one, a market that corrects itself is clearly more stable than one that doesn't correct itself and spins into a permanent or long lasting depression.

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4736

That explains why a market controlled to artificially create prosperity will inevitbly crash and be much worse off (weeds and wheat) as oppossed to not having those controls (just wheat).

Maybe. The situation is quite different today, though. I believe Anarchism would have worked quite well in the USA of the (early) 19th century too.

Intersting, because evidence suggests otherwise, under the Articles of Confederation, a much looser and weaker version of the Consitution, America nearly collpased, because of the lack of a central government, then after the Constitution was enacted did the nation get off to the right state.

If these comparisons are unbiased and non-American, I'd be very interested in reading them.

You got it, the Fraser intsitute did a study about the quality of Canadian health care in comparison to other systems. The report concluded, "The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada's monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have: user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals that compete for patient demand."

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/re ... =pb&id=394

Well, add dental care, childcare, pension savings, college savings etc. and we might reach 10,000. To me, this game with figures is quite pointless, though. My wage is slightly above the median wage in Sweden, and I have more money left each month than I can spend. Add better living standards (e.g. for housing, electricity and plumming), less criminality, better education systems and so on, and I can't see why I should like to switch to the American system and earn some more money each year.

It would likely be close in terms of cost you're right, but at that point it's a coin flip over whose welfare state is better, not really conducie to an argument about Libertarianism.

I think most scientists would agree that the genetical differences between "races" aren't that big. Also, to take an example, the genetical differences between Scandinavian populations are basically non-exist, but there are nevertheless healt differences.

(Out of curiosity, why are you Libertarians always so obsessed with the concept "race"?)

Which is why, the average White American male will live a full four years longer than the average Black male, and the White male will live a a solid five years less than the average Asian male. Those numbers are clearly significant. And I don't know where you find this obsession with race, I was merely pointing out the obvious differences in race that have to be factored in for a solid analysis.

Source it, please.

News-Medical.Net
New York State Health Report

At least one-forth of all consumer complaints to Spitzer's Health Care Bureau arose from health plan or provider mistakes in claims preparation, processing and payment, and almost two-thirds of those mistakes are attributable to health plans. These types of complaints have remained the most common health care complaint since at least 2001.

Well, I respect your point-of-view. However, you have to remember that not everyone is a plain materialist and that everyone doesn't want to be a plain materialist either. You have to take other factors into account as well.

That's fine, but I don't think affirmative action is a good criteria to judge on even when considering non-materialist factors.

Again, your use of the term Socialism is quite primitive. After all, this is a political forum, and an international political forum for that matter. I suggest we heighten the intellectual level instead of lowering it.

And I suggest you quit nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking, my definition of socialism fits right in with the general accepted definition of socialism, while it may not be your socialism of choice, it still remains socialism.

Very well, then: some teenagers vote. This is a psychologically fascinating feature of Libertarians: When debating with them, you start with some interesting political issue and always end up in a merry-go-round concerning some more or less irrelevant example. I think this is one of the main reason why people have troubles taking Libertarians seriously, both on-line and off-line. Try to stay focused.

This is a fascinating feature of the socialist, they try to act above the conversation and thus not having to addess the arguments made. You chose to challenge my example, I responded with why my argument was a solid example, how is this not focused?

Well, Anarcho-Capitalists are Libertarians, aren't they? Anyway, that's beside the point. My point is that the state is the only counter-weight to corporations. Without a more or less strong state, you have to rely on "consumer power". Needless to say, corporations can co-operate against consumers and consumers often have problems in legal processes against corporations, just to mention a couple of essential examples.

You're right they are, but I am not one of them and will not argue against the existance of a state, others may, but that's neither here not there. As for your point, a state may be small, but still be strong in punishing those that violate others' rights. As for other examples, consumer power is strong enough to handle problems. And what you're getting at about collusion, the only problematic monoploy is one that the state grants. If companies are colluding to keep prices artificially high, they are comitting fraud and thus the state would be justified in stepping in.

The linear model is somewhat limited, but certainly better than the Nolan Chart. Needless to say, the Nolan Chart is heavily biased: Libertarianism is opposed to Fascism, so Libertarianism must "of course" be the optimal system. Furthermore, the model assumes that "freedom" is some well defined variable, when freedom in fact may take a multitude of expressions. In my opinion, the Nolan Chart is one of the worst political models out there. I can see why a Libertarian might like it, but not anyone else.

The newer charts replace fascism with authortarianism if that makes you feel any better. The left/right system is rather inefficient in describing political thought, because it does leave off libertariansm and really leaves off totalitarian forms of government, because they don't really fit to well at either ends, because both ends, try and protect one kind of liberty while limiting another. So 2 dimensions are the best way to describe thought political thought, otherwise, where do the Libertarians fit?

Ah, the good old youth sub-cultures and domestic stores. You Libertarians aren't exactly masters of abstraction.

Huzzah for ad hominem. Yeah, I'm a resident of the nation and while there are many popular trends, there is far from any consistancy over a huge majority of people, but enjoy the view of America that Hollywood beams over to Sweden.

No, I'm sure I managed to cut deep. You compensate your individual self-esteem with the national self-esteem.

I'm glad you're so sure that you e-wounded me, carry on with your pride in scoring such a dramatic victory over an evil capitalist like myself.

I think it's an essential difference. If your system halts progress, it's potentially dangerous.

So, your argument is that "progress" supercedes a superior economic system, because I don't see progress as much of a benefit if no one can afford to have the progression. And like I stated before, libertarianism would not damage progress, the reason that the government put people in space first is because they made sure they were the ones to do it. Private corporations have offered to put spaceships in the air for over thirty times less than it costs NASA, but NASA is still granted the exclusive task of wasting taxpayers money; ineffeciency is such great progress.

[Noumenon]

Surely, this method of printing money to solve problems must be rare or possibly non-exist today?

No, the practice of inflating the money supply is quite common today. In the US, the money supply has tripled from $2.7 trillion in 1984 to about $9 trillion in 2004. Your government has increased the money supply at a rate even greater than the US.

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____90763.asp

Why, you wonder? Well, it is possibly the biggest scam governments have ever pulled. Inflation originally meant "inflating the money supply." It was obvious then that inflating the money supply = rising prices = bad for everyone. Now, the establishment has managed to changed the definition of inflation to just "rising prices." This causes considerable confusion as to what causes those rising prices, and attention is directed away from the fact that government is printing money like mad while we all suffer. So yes, it is a huge conspiracy. The government must continually expand the money supply or risk bankruptcy, due to gigantic deficit spending. In the absence of such an increase, our debt would continue to accumulate to the point where our government simply wouldn't be able to borrow enought to pay it off. The government causes inflation because of deficit spending, and it uses every means at its disposal to hide that fact. This inflation has two effects: your money is worth less, and you get hit with recessions every now and then. Even if you don't believe the Austrian theory of business cycles, you should at least recognize that the inflationary policies of governments around the world must stop due to inflation's other bad effects.

Hm, that's an interesting concept; I'd say truly Libertarian. I have one question, though: How will the supply and demand of gold affect this system?

It might cause some inflation or deflation, but the supply of gold increases at a far lower level than the money supply currently does. Because of that, general rises in prices will be almost non-existant, and the market will be much more stable.

You should really make an effort and study the world outside the USA; don't go North Korean. There are many interesting political ideas and methods circulating out there. If you lack knowledge of other political systems, than how can you be sure Libertarianism is the best system?

I know that most of these political systems you speak of are variations of socialism, welfarism, and regulation, which cannot possibly be superior to laissez faire.

Perhaps you could give me an example of what you think is a very democratic decision, and I could tell you how it is evidence of the mob mentality.

Nope. You'll simply have to do your homework.

Forget it anyway, I changed my mind about the mob mentality.

Admittedly, this discussion is quite abstract. Nevertheless, I'll persist. As I see it, people have to co-operate on a non-monetary basis within several contexts in order for society to function properly. If society focuses to much on profit and competition, other forms of co-operation might become endangered. That's how I see it.

That doesn't make sense. Competition in the economic sphere can't stop cooperation in the social sphere. The way I look at it, cooperation in the social sphere mainly consists of families, volunteer groups, and other social institutions. There is no reason why competition between individuals and firms trying to make a profit would stop cooperation in those social institutions. I also fail to see why cooperation in itself is a good thing. If people choose cooperation over competition in the social sphere, it is because they derive more pleasure from it or get better results. In the economic sphere, they choose competition because it is just more efficient. Libertarianism isn't promoting one or the other; it is just letting people choose whether they want to compete or cooperate.

I think most people would agree that they want democracy because it prevents violence and oppression. As far as I can tell, there are no exceptions from this rule: the more democracy, the less aggression.

Democracy, for the most part, is aggression. Like in an example I used before, if the majority decides it wants a new park, what does it do? Vote for tax-money to pay for it. Taxes must be collected at gunpoint, otherwise people wouldn't pay them. Just try not paying your taxes and resisting arrest, and see how long it takes for the police to shoot you. Even a democratic decision as simple as voting to create a park involves coercing people at gunpoint. It is the same with nearly every other democratic decision. So no, democracy doesn't prevent aggression. It allows for and legitimizes it.

It sounds good, but that's not how it works. This is a fact: 20 % of the world population uses 80 % of the world resources. As I see it, this equation can't be solved within a capitalist system.

Why not? If the US and Sweden can progress through semi-laissez faire, why not third world countries?

Notice that we reached our current level of wealth after the introduction of the welfare system.

Table 4
Swedish per Capita GNP Relative to That of Other European Nations
1870 1900 1913 1929 1938 1950 1973
Relative to average 0.68 1.0 1.27 1.57 1.63 2.28 1.64
Relative to top-ranked country 0.39 0.51 0.7 0.71 0.85 1.25 0.97
Position 16 9 9 8 5 1 2

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1020&full=1

As you can see, you progressed rapidly during your semi-laissez faire period, then started to fall behind after 20 years of welfare from 1930-50.

In my interpretation of Socialism - and I believe most Socialists would agree with me to one degree or another - a Socialist society prioritises social concerns before monetary concerns. Thus, an African country with a Socialist system would focus on creating an infrastructure instead of letting Western countries exploiting the resources of the country. That would certainly make a difference.

How would they create such an infrastructure with the little wealth they have? Sweden can afford being a welfare state because it had already become wealthy through sixty years of semi-laissez faire. African nations haven't had that opportunity.

BTW, why are we discussing Socialism? I'm trying to find out how a Libertarian society would work, but you constantly try to change the subject. If you can't defend the weaknesses of Libertarianism, just say so.

Libertarianism isn't utopian, so I can't say it will solve all problems and make everything great. Sometimes all that is necessary is to show that it is better than the alternative.

Since you are American, you should be aware of how certain US interests have worsened the situation in Ethiopia. (Admittedly, I see the US government as a tool of the US corporations. Fair or not, that's how the current system works.)

I can't possibly be aware of every instance in which US foreign policy makes things worse in some other country (those instances would be too great to count). Are you talking about the Somalia war? In any case, you are aware that Ethiopia was Marxist from 1974-1991, right? That certainly didn't help their situation any.

If people want to be uncivilized, thats their right. Forcing people to fit your definition of "civilized" is immoral. Rather than forcing people to be civilized, you should peacefully promote your idea of civility and help for the poor.

The problem is that people will get hurt. Sure, the law will get the offenders, but the victims will still be victims. Notice that the judicial system also forces people to behave in a civilised manner. Of course, now you will give me the standard Libertarian answer: "Libertarians aren't against the laws." The problem is, where to draw the line? A judicial system isn't and shouldn't be static.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. That a lack of civility causes people to get hurt? I don't think so. Theres a difference between being uncivilized and harming others through aggression. The latter should be illegal, the former shouldn't be.

Someone mentioned Somalia in this very forum.

Most of Somalia is anarchist though, which creates its own problems.

Nevertheless, many Socialists won't agree with this definition. If you disagree with a definition of Libertarianism in a dictionary, I'd better listen to you than the dictionary, don't you think?

Probably. But libertarianism is a fairly unified movement; ask a bunch of libertarians what libertarianism is and you will receive about the same answer. Sure, there will be differences in whether the state should be non-existant or just extremely small, but the ideology is the same. But ask 10 socialists what socialism is, and you will get 10 different answers. How am I supposed to know which one is right?

Perhaps it was not perfect economic socialism, but the USSR still had economic socialism. What else do you call it?


Totalitarian or Bolshevik.

That would describe its political system, not its economic system.

I want the exact opposite of the USSR. Do you want the exact opposite of the USA?

What political scale are you using? I see political ideologies in a similar way to the Nolan chart, though that chart is obviously inadequate. The exact opposite of the USSR according to my view of the world is anarcho-capitalism, or extreme libertarianism. Socialism would be very near the USSR on the economic scale, but it would possibly be better on civil liberties. The US would be more or less in the middle.

I've always thought that this theory is a sever simplification. (This may surprise you, but I've actually studied economics at the university.) The fundamental weakness of the theory is an obvious fact: money is a good.

How many years did you study economics? I admit I am only aware of the basics of the comparative advantage theory.

Because I think that would be the inevitable result of Libertarian policies. The only realistic counter-weight to a large corporation is a strong state. The so-called consumer power mechanism can be manipulated or even dismantled.

A libertarian state would be strong enough to prevent corporations from having unlimited power. No corporation would be able to violate rights.

Where did you get these stats? What taxes are included? It's actually my payday today and my income tax is exactly 29.71 %; my wage is somewhat higher than the Swedish median wage. This is the only tax that I have to pay.

Cato Institute. This would include the taxes paid by rich people, so there may be no inconsistency between you paying 30% and the tax burden being 55%. In my view though, a tax rate of 5% is too much. Paying a "low" rate of 30% is not ideal for me.

I don't think so. Sweden has high taxes and high production. I believe that if you removed the capitalistic mechanisms, the system would work even better.

But Sweden's economic growth rate has gotten slower and slower since the welfare state was introduced. It seems to me that you are still riding on the success of semi-laissez faire from 1870-1930.

Thanks for the effort; I appreciate it. I don't agree with what you are saying, though. Most Socialists would focus on monopolising major and essential resources and industries. In Sweden, this could include metals and mining, just to mention an example. These resources and industries are already dependent on quite few manufacturers with quite specialised production means. The problem you describe wouldn't really exist.

Its only a problem with the monopolization of a great number of industries.

(As for shoes, I'd probably buy custom-made shoes by my local shoemaker entrepreneur instead of expensive and aesthetically plain sport shoes manufactured by some multi-national corporation. )

Wouldn't custom made shoes be more expensive?

The focus on materialism has a tendency to suppress critical thinking, individualism, arts etc. Notice that many, if not all, totalitarian societies have been extremely materialistic.

What about all the totalitarian Marxist regimes, including the USSR? They tried to stamp out materialism.

[6079 Smith]

I would argue that by using political labels in such a generalising manner, they will eventually lose their meanings. You can't simply claim that Liberals are a kind of Socialists and I can't claim that Liberals are a kind of Conservatives. Can't you see yourself that this behaviour of yours is quite pointless? Also, how do you expect Conservatives and Social Liberals to take you seriously?

I know you are an American, but you should really do an effort and try to learn more about politics. There is a world outside the USA, you know. Don't go North Korean on us.

I would argue that general labels are just fine, as long as specific labels are provided in addition to specify. There are Libertarians, but there are, Anarcho-Capitalists, Objectivists, moderates disrgunted with the two major parties, as well as a Principle Libertarian. I can define Libertarian and it will encompass all of those, but when discussing specifics those need to be defined. As I have defined NeoCons and the modern Democrats into socialism, it's your burden to define them out, but you prefer to not actually address the points on the board.

Although I've debated with many Libertarians, this is the first time I begin to understand why the communication has a tendency to become dysfunctional. Libertarians think that state control is a goal for Socialists, whereas Socialists simply see state control as a possible - albeit quite common - means. Generally speaking, the goal of a Socialist is to combat injustice and exploitation and improve the conditions and powers of the working people. Hence, I see your use of the term Socialism as primitive, because you focus on an aspect you consider to be major, but I consider to be minor. In a similar manner I consider Social Darwinism to be a major aspect of Libertarianism and thus crypto-Fascist, whereas you - probably - consider Social Darwinism to be a minor aspect. Do you see what I mean?

I know you're an elitist European, but you should make an effort and try and learn more about politics. Try disproving my points instead of claiming I lack knowledge.

I'm prepared to bet I know at least five times more about politics than you do.

You still haven't explained why a free market would be more stable.

You still haven't explained why the market automatically would correct itself.

Number two answers number one, a market that corrects itself is clearly more stable than one that doesn't correct itself and spins into a permanent or long lasting depression.

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4736

That explains why a market controlled to artificially create prosperity will inevitbly crash and be much worse off (weeds and wheat) as oppossed to not having those controls (just wheat).

You still haven't explained number two, and following your logic, not number one either. Are we talking about some built-in magic?

Maybe. The situation is quite different today, though. I believe Anarchism would have worked quite well in the USA of the (early) 19th century too.

Intersting, because evidence suggests otherwise, under the Articles of Confederation, a much looser and weaker version of the Consitution, America nearly collpased, because of the lack of a central government, then after the Constitution was enacted did the nation get off to the right state.

I guess I stand corrected. I do persist that the situation was different back then, though. I'm sure you agree.

If these comparisons are unbiased and non-American, I'd be very interested in reading them.

You got it, the Fraser intsitute did a study about the quality of Canadian health care in comparison to other systems. The report concluded, "The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada's monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have: user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals that compete for patient demand."

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/re ... =pb&id=394

That Frasier Institute is hardly an unbiased source. Don't they teach you to examine sources critically in American schools?

Well, add dental care, childcare, pension savings, college savings etc. and we might reach 10,000. To me, this game with figures is quite pointless, though. My wage is slightly above the median wage in Sweden, and I have more money left each month than I can spend. Add better living standards (e.g. for housing, electricity and plumming), less criminality, better education systems and so on, and I can't see why I should like to switch to the American system and earn some more money each year.

It would likely be close in terms of cost you're right, but at that point it's a coin flip over whose welfare state is better, not really conducie to an argument about Libertarianism.

You brought up the figures, buddy.

I think most scientists would agree that the genetical differences between "races" aren't that big. Also, to take an example, the genetical differences between Scandinavian populations are basically non-exist, but there are nevertheless healt differences.

(Out of curiosity, why are you Libertarians always so obsessed with the concept "race"?)

Which is why, the average White American male will live a full four years longer than the average Black male, and the White male will live a a solid five years less than the average Asian male. Those numbers are clearly significant.

Surely, you must be aware that there are social and cultural differences between these ethnic groups as well.

What do you have to say about the Scandinavian example I presented? Or do you simply choose to ignore it?

And I don't know where you find this obsession with race, I was merely pointing out the obvious differences in race that have to be factored in for a solid analysis.

You Libertarians use the term and concept more often than most debaters. Notice that you base your argumentation on "racial" differences.

Source it, please.

News-Medical.Net
New York State Health Report

At least one-forth of all consumer complaints to Spitzer's Health Care Bureau arose from health plan or provider mistakes in claims preparation, processing and payment, and almost two-thirds of those mistakes are attributable to health plans. These types of complaints have remained the most common health care complaint since at least 2001.

Seems to be a good source. Well, I guess your assumption is correct. Funny that you have all these problems, but we don't.

Well, I respect your point-of-view. However, you have to remember that not everyone is a plain materialist and that everyone doesn't want to be a plain materialist either. You have to take other factors into account as well.

That's fine, but I don't think affirmative action is a good criteria to judge on even when considering non-materialist factors.

I agree. It doesn't change facts, though. (As a parenthesis: Notice that we don't have your problems with so-called affirmative action over here.)

Again, your use of the term Socialism is quite primitive. After all, this is a political forum, and an international political forum for that matter. I suggest we heighten the intellectual level instead of lowering it.

And I suggest you quit nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking, my definition of socialism fits right in with the general accepted definition of socialism, while it may not be your socialism of choice, it still remains socialism.

The reason I "nit-pick" is this: Over here, Liberals and Socialists are political enemies; our political goals are opposed and our political means are different; we seldom find political compromises. In other words, you are trying to say that black is white, Ingsoc-style.

Very well, then: some teenagers vote. This is a psychologically fascinating feature of Libertarians: When debating with them, you start with some interesting political issue and always end up in a merry-go-round concerning some more or less irrelevant example. I think this is one of the main reason why people have troubles taking Libertarians seriously, both on-line and off-line. Try to stay focused.

This is a fascinating feature of the socialist, they try to act above the conversation and thus not having to addess the arguments made. You chose to challenge my example, I responded with why my argument was a solid example, how is this not focused?

Now you are being childish. I ask you to find examples of mob rule in democratic processes and you start to talk about teenage boys. Can't you simply admit that your example could have been better?

Well, Anarcho-Capitalists are Libertarians, aren't they? Anyway, that's beside the point. My point is that the state is the only counter-weight to corporations. Without a more or less strong state, you have to rely on "consumer power". Needless to say, corporations can co-operate against consumers and consumers often have problems in legal processes against corporations, just to mention a couple of essential examples.

You're right they are, but I am not one of them and will not argue against the existance of a state, others may, but that's neither here not there. As for your point, a state may be small, but still be strong in punishing those that violate others' rights. As for other examples, consumer power is strong enough to handle problems. And what you're getting at about collusion, the only problematic monoploy is one that the state grants. If companies are colluding to keep prices artificially high, they are comitting fraud and thus the state would be justified in stepping in.

I don't concur. A couple of examples. Without typical state functions such as a taxation apparatus, economic crimes would become much more difficult to detect for the state. Without substantial fundings and powers, the state becomes more vulnerable in regards of corporate manipulations. As I see it, it would become much easier for corporations to commit crimes in a Libertarian society. Notice that corporate heads easily can escape the country before they have been detected; the jobs and the money will still be gone, though.

The linear model is somewhat limited, but certainly better than the Nolan Chart. Needless to say, the Nolan Chart is heavily biased: Libertarianism is opposed to Fascism, so Libertarianism must "of course" be the optimal system. Furthermore, the model assumes that "freedom" is some well defined variable, when freedom in fact may take a multitude of expressions. In my opinion, the Nolan Chart is one of the worst political models out there. I can see why a Libertarian might like it, but not anyone else.

The newer charts replace fascism with authortarianism if that makes you feel any better.

Okay, try to see it my way: What if the word "Libertarian" was replaced with the word "Socialist" in your beloved Nolan Chart? Would you accept such a political chart?

The left/right system is rather inefficient in describing political thought, because it does leave off libertariansm and really leaves off totalitarian forms of government, because they don't really fit to well at either ends, because both ends, try and protect one kind of liberty while limiting another. So 2 dimensions are the best way to describe thought political thought, otherwise, where do the Libertarians fit?

I agree that the traditional chart has weaknesses; I've said so already. You point out that Libertarianism and Totalitarianism don't fit the chart, and we could add greens, fundamentalists and technocrats as well. In other words, I agree that 2D charts are better, but I have yet to find a chart without biased variables.

Ah, the good old youth sub-cultures and domestic stores. You Libertarians aren't exactly masters of abstraction.

Huzzah for ad hominem. Yeah, I'm a resident of the nation and while there are many popular trends, there is far from any consistancy over a huge majority of people, but enjoy the view of America that Hollywood beams over to Sweden.

We have more sub-cultures over here than you have over there. I know this for a fact as I know many Americans and have American relatives. My point is that sub-cultural expressions are qutie shallow and temporary. In other words, I don't find them to be good examples in a debate concerning conformity.

No, I'm sure I managed to cut deep. You compensate your individual self-esteem with the national self-esteem.

I'm glad you're so sure that you e-wounded me, carry on with your pride in scoring such a dramatic victory over an evil capitalist like myself.

If only you knew how insane people I've debated with in my days. This is not a dramatic victory - it's an amusing distraction.

I think it's an essential difference. If your system halts progress, it's potentially dangerous.

So, your argument is that "progress" supercedes a superior economic system, because I don't see progress as much of a benefit if no one can afford to have the progression. And like I stated before, libertarianism would not damage progress, the reason that the government put people in space first is because they made sure they were the ones to do it. Private corporations have offered to put spaceships in the air for over thirty times less than it costs NASA, but NASA is still granted the exclusive task of wasting taxpayers money; ineffeciency is such great progress.

Again, you focus on a single example. It doesn't change facts, though: The first space-flight wasn't private; Big Bang research isn't profitable; certain kinds of education isn't profitable; certain kinds of infrastructure isn't profitable; certain kinds of research - perhaps most notably medical research - require co-operation, not competition. I find the last example to be especially interesting. In a competitive market, corporations can't - and shouldn't, basically - trust each other; the inevitable result is less co-operation and less progress within the medical field. That's how I see it.

[Noumenon]

Although I've debated with many Libertarians, this is the first time I begin to understand why the communication has a tendency to become dysfunctional. Libertarians think that state control is a goal for Socialists, whereas Socialists simply see state control as a possible - albeit quite common - means.

If not state control, then what? Democratic control? Either way, control is a central part of socialism. It would be interesting to find a socialist who didn't advocate controlling people, but rather advocated an all-voluntary system. While libertarians would strongly disagree with such a system, we would tolerate it. That, I think, is a major difference between libertarians and socialists. Libertarians would tolerate a socialist community as long as it is all-voluntary, but socialists would not tolerate a libertarian community. Our major problem with socialism is that nearly all socialists advocate immoral means to achieve what they want.

[6079 Smith]

Surely, this method of printing money to solve problems must be rare or possibly non-exist today?

No, the practice of inflating the money supply is quite common today. In the US, the money supply has tripled from $2.7 trillion in 1984 to about $9 trillion in 2004. Your government has increased the money supply at a rate even greater than the US.

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____90763.asp

Why, you wonder? Well, it is possibly the biggest scam governments have ever pulled. Inflation originally meant "inflating the money supply." It was obvious then that inflating the money supply = rising prices = bad for everyone. Now, the establishment has managed to changed the definition of inflation to just "rising prices." This causes considerable confusion as to what causes those rising prices, and attention is directed away from the fact that government is printing money like mad while we all suffer. So yes, it is a huge conspiracy. The government must continually expand the money supply or risk bankruptcy, due to gigantic deficit spending. In the absence of such an increase, our debt would continue to accumulate to the point where our government simply wouldn't be able to borrow enought to pay it off. The government causes inflation because of deficit spending, and it uses every means at its disposal to hide that fact. This inflation has two effects: your money is worth less, and you get hit with recessions every now and then. Even if you don't believe the Austrian theory of business cycles, you should at least recognize that the inflationary policies of governments around the world must stop due to inflation's other bad effects.

I see. If we take the Swedish example you presented, how do you know that the money supply actually don't correlate with the real GDP? Have you cross-referenced the figures?

(It should be noted that as a Socialist, I'm in favour of the theory that money supply should correspond with social, ecological, human and other factors, not just the real GDP. Ultimately, I want a completely different monetary system, but that's an issue for the Socialists of tomorrow; by then, I'll be dead, or at least quite old.)

Hm, that's an interesting concept; I'd say truly Libertarian. I have one question, though: How will the supply and demand of gold affect this system?

It might cause some inflation or deflation, but the supply of gold increases at a far lower level than the money supply currently does. Because of that, general rises in prices will be almost non-existant, and the market will be much more stable.

I'm somewhat sceptical. What if a new gold source is discovered? If I'm not mistaken, the supply of some precious stones and metals are artificially suppressed in order to avoid a market collapse. Without a state apparatus, it would be impossible to take such measures, wouldn't it?

You should really make an effort and study the world outside the USA; don't go North Korean. There are many interesting political ideas and methods circulating out there. If you lack knowledge of other political systems, than how can you be sure Libertarianism is the best system?

I know that most of these political systems you speak of are variations of socialism, welfarism, and regulation, which cannot possibly be superior to laissez faire.

If you haven't noticed already, we don't suffer from poverty and anarchy in Europe. If nothing else, why not educate yourself about international politics just for the sake of knowledge? Knowledge is strength.

Nope. You'll simply have to do your homework.

Forget it anyway, I changed my mind about the mob mentality.

OK. After all, that's why we are here: to test, modify, reject and advance our political ideas.

Admittedly, this discussion is quite abstract. Nevertheless, I'll persist. As I see it, people have to co-operate on a non-monetary basis within several contexts in order for society to function properly. If society focuses to much on profit and competition, other forms of co-operation might become endangered. That's how I see it.

That doesn't make sense. Competition in the economic sphere can't stop cooperation in the social sphere. The way I look at it, cooperation in the social sphere mainly consists of families, volunteer groups, and other social institutions. There is no reason why competition between individuals and firms trying to make a profit would stop cooperation in those social institutions. I also fail to see why cooperation in itself is a good thing. If people choose cooperation over competition in the social sphere, it is because they derive more pleasure from it or get better results. In the economic sphere, they choose competition because it is just more efficient. Libertarianism isn't promoting one or the other; it is just letting people choose whether they want to compete or cooperate.

Let me put it this way: My country used to be famous for its abundance of non-profit associations, communities and clubs; politics, sports, scouting, folklore, religion, what have you. In recent years, when the welfare system has been partially dismantled, when consumptionism have won dominion and the competitive mentality has become more fierce, all those associations, communities and clubs have began to fade away and dissolve at a rapid pace. So, I have empirical observations to back up my concerns.

I think most people would agree that they want democracy because it prevents violence and oppression. As far as I can tell, there are no exceptions from this rule: the more democracy, the less aggression.

Democracy, for the most part, is aggression. Like in an example I used before, if the majority decides it wants a new park, what does it do? Vote for tax-money to pay for it. Taxes must be collected at gunpoint, otherwise people wouldn't pay them. Just try not paying your taxes and resisting arrest, and see how long it takes for the police to shoot you. Even a democratic decision as simple as voting to create a park involves coercing people at gunpoint. It is the same with nearly every other democratic decision. So no, democracy doesn't prevent aggression. It allows for and legitimizes it.

If I'm not mistaken, that's the third you say the same thing. The debate has gone circular, no doubt.

BTW, a couple of observations: Over here, the police can't shoot you if you don't pay the taxes; in the worst-case scenario, you'll have to go to prison for a couple of years. Over here, the state can't simply expropriate land and turn it into a park; it would immediately be exposed in mass media as an act of oppression. So, in other words, your system seems to be quite weird.

It sounds good, but that's not how it works. This is a fact: 20 % of the world population uses 80 % of the world resources. As I see it, this equation can't be solved within a capitalist system.

Why not? If the US and Sweden can progress through semi-laissez faire, why not third world countries?

To me, it sounds like you are playing chess, but pretend that there are more than 32 pieces.

Notice that we reached our current level of wealth after the introduction of the welfare system.

Table 4
Swedish per Capita GNP Relative to That of Other European Nations
1870 1900 1913 1929 1938 1950 1973
Relative to average 0.68 1.0 1.27 1.57 1.63 2.28 1.64
Relative to top-ranked country 0.39 0.51 0.7 0.71 0.85 1.25 0.97
Position 16 9 9 8 5 1 2

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1020&full=1

As you can see, you progressed rapidly during your semi-laissez faire period, then started to fall behind after 20 years of welfare from 1930-50.

If I understand these statistics correctly, Sweden reached its highest ranking positions in 1950 and 1973. The welfare system was never stronger than during this period. Has it never struck you that if you decrease the wealth gaps, the general population will have more buying power and the companies can produce more goods and services?

In my interpretation of Socialism - and I believe most Socialists would agree with me to one degree or another - a Socialist society prioritises social concerns before monetary concerns. Thus, an African country with a Socialist system would focus on creating an infrastructure instead of letting Western countries exploiting the resources of the country. That would certainly make a difference.

How would they create such an infrastructure with the little wealth they have? Sweden can afford being a welfare state because it had already become wealthy through sixty years of semi-laissez faire. African nations haven't had that opportunity.

You forget that many Central African countries are abundant with resources. For instance, Congo is actually very rich - or could have been.

BTW, why are we discussing Socialism? I'm trying to find out how a Libertarian society would work, but you constantly try to change the subject. If you can't defend the weaknesses of Libertarianism, just say so.

Libertarianism isn't utopian, so I can't say it will solve all problems and make everything great. Sometimes all that is necessary is to show that it is better than the alternative.

You want to show that a system that has yet to be implemented is better than another system that has yet to be implemented. It doesn't really make sense. I guess I'm not any better, though.

Since you are American, you should be aware of how certain US interests have worsened the situation in Ethiopia. (Admittedly, I see the US government as a tool of the US corporations. Fair or not, that's how the current system works.)

I can't possibly be aware of every instance in which US foreign policy makes things worse in some other country (those instances would be too great to count).

I shouldn't have to tell YOU what YOUR country is doing. Do your homework.

Are you talking about the Somalia war?

No.

In any case, you are aware that Ethiopia was Marxist from 1974-1991, right? That certainly didn't help their situation any.

You gotta be shitting me. That "socialist" system was clearly oppressive, corrupt, militaristic and supported by the USSR. Besides, it wasn't even founded by the people, but by a military junta.

The problem is that people will get hurt. Sure, the law will get the offenders, but the victims will still be victims. Notice that the judicial system also forces people to behave in a civilised manner. Of course, now you will give me the standard Libertarian answer: "Libertarians aren't against the laws." The problem is, where to draw the line? A judicial system isn't and shouldn't be static.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. That a lack of civility causes people to get hurt? I don't think so. Theres a difference between being uncivilized and harming others through aggression. The latter should be illegal, the former shouldn't be.

I'm saying that in a destructive society, the citizens are likely to behave destructively. If you promote egoism, egoism will rule.

Someone mentioned Somalia in this very forum.

Most of Somalia is anarchist though, which creates its own problems.

It doesn't necessarily contradict the notion that it's laissez-fair, though. However, it's just an example and it's not my example, so I'm prepared to drop it.

Nevertheless, many Socialists won't agree with this definition. If you disagree with a definition of Libertarianism in a dictionary, I'd better listen to you than the dictionary, don't you think?

Probably. But libertarianism is a fairly unified movement; ask a bunch of libertarians what libertarianism is and you will receive about the same answer. Sure, there will be differences in whether the state should be non-existant or just extremely small, but the ideology is the same. But ask 10 socialists what socialism is, and you will get 10 different answers. How am I supposed to know which one is right?

Let me put it this way: If you ask a Socialist, "What is Socialism?", the first thing 9 out of 10 Socialists think of is not the ownership of the means of production or the battle against capitalism. No, 9 out of 10 Socialists will say that it's about improving democracy, strengthening the rights of the working people, striving for functional equality and similar issues. An over-whelming majority of all Socialists will agree with this.

Now, the definitions in dictionaries are severe simplifications which don't really give a fair picture of what Socialists believe in. The publishing sector is Liberal out of tradition and this is reflected in dictionaries as well. To be quite frank, that's not our problem. If you want to know what a Socialist want to accomplish, you will simply have to ask him or her.

Totalitarian or Bolshevik.

That would describe its political system, not its economic system.

That's a very odd distinction you make. Totalitarians want to control every sector, including the economic sector.

I want the exact opposite of the USSR. Do you want the exact opposite of the USA?

What political scale are you using? I see political ideologies in a similar way to the Nolan chart, though that chart is obviously inadequate. The exact opposite of the USSR according to my view of the world is anarcho-capitalism, or extreme libertarianism. Socialism would be very near the USSR on the economic scale, but it would possibly be better on civil liberties. The US would be more or less in the middle.

As I've declared elsewhere, I consider the Nolan Chart to be bullocks. Let's ignore the charts for a while and use common sense:

The USSR was non-democratic - I want a democratic society.
The USSR was ruled by a small elite - I want a society ruled by the people.
The USSR had large wealth gaps - I want a society with small wealth gaps.
The USSR oppressed the working people - I want to protect the rights of the working people.
The USSR was confomistic - I want a diversified society.

Are you beginning to see what I mean now?

I've always thought that this theory is a sever simplification. (This may surprise you, but I've actually studied economics at the university.) The fundamental weakness of the theory is an obvious fact: money is a good.

How many years did you study economics? I admit I am only aware of the basics of the comparative advantage theory.

I only studied economics very briefly. It was just one component in a fancy marketing management program.

Because I think that would be the inevitable result of Libertarian policies. The only realistic counter-weight to a large corporation is a strong state. The so-called consumer power mechanism can be manipulated or even dismantled.

A libertarian state would be strong enough to prevent corporations from having unlimited power. No corporation would be able to violate rights.

You'll have to present some examples or arguments to support your statements if you want me to listen to you.

Where did you get these stats? What taxes are included? It's actually my payday today and my income tax is exactly 29.71 %; my wage is somewhat higher than the Swedish median wage. This is the only tax that I have to pay.

Cato Institute. This would include the taxes paid by rich people, so there may be no inconsistency between you paying 30% and the tax burden being 55%. In my view though, a tax rate of 5% is too much. Paying a "low" rate of 30% is not ideal for me.

As a Socialist, I can't say I care much about rich people; I focus on the working people. As for tax rates, I'm not interested in some fixed figures - I'm interested in what the state can accomplish with the taxes. I don't care if the tax rate is 5 % or 90 % as long as it's a just society were people enjoy to live.

I don't think so. Sweden has high taxes and high production. I believe that if you removed the capitalistic mechanisms, the system would work even better.

But Sweden's economic growth rate has gotten slower and slower since the welfare state was introduced.

Actually, I've studied this figures quite thoroughly; I've seen unbiased and non-propagandistic figures. The Swedish growth has been better than most European countries. But so what if the growth would have been slower? We have less poverty problems than your country anyway. The Swedish people isn't exatly suffering.

It seems to me that you are still riding on the success of semi-laissez faire from 1870-1930.

For the last time: Sweden acquired its current wealth level after the introduction of the welfare system. Check any unbiased source.

Thanks for the effort; I appreciate it. I don't agree with what you are saying, though. Most Socialists would focus on monopolising major and essential resources and industries. In Sweden, this could include metals and mining, just to mention an example. These resources and industries are already dependent on quite few manufacturers with quite specialised production means. The problem you describe wouldn't really exist.

Its only a problem with the monopolization of a great number of industries.

Right. This may differ among Socialists, but very few Socialists would like to monopolise industries that produce consumer goods. There would be no point, really.

(As for shoes, I'd probably buy custom-made shoes by my local shoemaker entrepreneur instead of expensive and aesthetically plain sport shoes manufactured by some multi-national corporation. )

Wouldn't custom made shoes be more expensive?

Not necessarily. For one thing, there would be no costs for multi-national marketing campaigns and there would be no brand hyping.

The focus on materialism has a tendency to suppress critical thinking, individualism, arts etc. Notice that many, if not all, totalitarian societies have been extremely materialistic.

What about all the totalitarian Marxist regimes, including the USSR? They tried to stamp out materialism.

Not at all. Materialism leavened all through the Soviety society. Art, religion, science and intellectualism were effectively regulated and suppresed. Physical strength was idolised, and athletics and body culture was encouraged.

BTW, the expression "Totalitarian Marxist" is an oxymoron. Marx had some odd ideas, but he never agitated for a totalitarian system.

[6079 Smith]

Although I've debated with many Libertarians, this is the first time I begin to understand why the communication has a tendency to become dysfunctional. Libertarians think that state control is a goal for Socialists, whereas Socialists simply see state control as a possible - albeit quite common - means.

If not state control, then what? Democratic control? Either way, control is a central part of socialism.

In a similar manner, I could claim that Libertarianism is about employer control. Don't you understand that we want to give the people the right to influence their own lives? No small elite of wealthy oligarchs should decide how they should live.

It would be interesting to find a socialist who didn't advocate controlling people, but rather advocated an all-voluntary system. While libertarians would strongly disagree with such a system, we would tolerate it.

There are actually so-called Libertarian-Socialists; I haven't met any in this forum, though. To be quite frank, I'm not exactly sure what their agenda is. They are, ironically, as vague as conventional Libertarians are in their argumentaion.

That, I think, is a major difference between libertarians and socialists. Libertarians would tolerate a socialist community as long as it is all-voluntary, but socialists would not tolerate a libertarian community. Our major problem with socialism is that nearly all socialists advocate immoral means to achieve what they want.

On a similar note, I think that almost all Socialists would accept a Libertarian society that was fair, unexploitive and non-Social Darwinist. But then again, it wouldn't be a Libertarian society then.

[Noumenon]

I see. If we take the Swedish example you presented, how do you know that the money supply actually don't correlate with the real GDP? Have you cross-referenced the figures?

Why should the money supply correlate with real GDP? Ideally, the money supply would just be kept constant.

I found it difficult to find a chart with actual figures for Sweden's money supply. That chart showing its growth was the only thing I found.

It should be noted that as a Socialist, I'm in favour of the theory that money supply should correspond with social, ecological, human and other factors, not just the real GDP.

Why should it correlate with anything? A constant money supply means no general rise in prices, and the value of people's money is kept the same.

I'm somewhat sceptical. What if a new gold source is discovered? If I'm not mistaken, the supply of some precious stones and metals are artificially suppressed in order to avoid a market collapse. Without a state apparatus, it would be impossible to take such measures, wouldn't it?

Yes, the money supply would be increased if a new source was discovered. But so what? The total amount of gold would be increased by some small amount, having a very small effect. Contrast this to the government inflating the money supply by 100, 200, 500, and 1000%. There is no comparison whatsoever. A gold standard results in steadier money supply by far.

I don't know how much of an effect the government has by supressing the supply of gold. I am willing to bet though that even if it didn't do that, the money supply still wouldn't increase at the rate it is now. For that to happen, gold would have to start raining from the sky.

If you haven't noticed already, we don't suffer from poverty and anarchy in Europe. If nothing else, why not educate yourself about international politics just for the sake of knowledge? Knowledge is strength.

That is true, but libertarianism will also greatly reduce poverty. The semi-laissez faire in the US from 1860-1900 resulted in a 31% increase in the real wages of unskilled workers, and an astounding 74% increase in the real wages of skilled workers. Can modern Sweden boast that kind of progress? Well according to this site, real wages in Sweden increased 4.1%, 1.6%, 0.7%, and 2.0% in the periods 1961-1970, 1971-1980, 1981-1990, and 1991-2000, respectively. The real wage growth in Sweden pales in comparison to semi laissez faire America.

http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2000/0 ... 7402S.html

(Table 2)

The great increase in real wages in late 19th century America happened because laissez faire results in great capital accumulation. Capital accumulation raises the marginal productivity of laborers, which in turn raises their real wages. And not only were the masses' real wages increasing greatly, general prices were falling. They could buy even more with their wages.

If the choice is between a society which 60, 70, or 80% taxation that greatly reduces poverty and a society with little or no taxation that greatly reduces poverty, I'll choose the latter.

Let me put it this way: My country used to be famous for its abundance of non-profit associations, communities and clubs; politics, sports, scouting, folklore, religion, what have you. In recent years, when the welfare system has been partially dismantled, when consumptionism have won dominion and the competitive mentality has become more fierce, all those associations, communities and clubs have began to fade away and dissolve at a rapid pace. So, I have empirical observations to back up my concerns.

You have still not explained why cooperation is inherently good. As long as people are free to cooperate or not, I am satisfied. What matters is their happiness. They may cooperate to achieve that happiness, or they may not. If they choose to cooperate less because it makes them more happy, why do you have a problem with that?

Democracy, for the most part, is aggression. Like in an example I used before, if the majority decides it wants a new park, what does it do? Vote for tax-money to pay for it. Taxes must be collected at gunpoint, otherwise people wouldn't pay them. Just try not paying your taxes and resisting arrest, and see how long it takes for the police to shoot you. Even a democratic decision as simple as voting to create a park involves coercing people at gunpoint. It is the same with nearly every other democratic decision. So no, democracy doesn't prevent aggression. It allows for and legitimizes it.


If I'm not mistaken, that's the third you say the same thing. The debate has gone circular, no doubt.

If I'm not mistaken, you haven't offered a serious rebuttal to my argument that democracy is aggression.

BTW, a couple of observations: Over here, the police can't shoot you if you don't pay the taxes; in the worst-case scenario, you'll have to go to prison for a couple of years. Over here, the state can't simply expropriate land and turn it into a park; it would immediately be exposed in mass media as an act of oppression. So, in other words, your system seems to be quite weird.

Hauling someone to prison is an act of aggression when that someone has committed no aggression himself. Not paying taxes is a peaceful, not aggressive, act. Sort of like civil disobediance. Having the government physically assault that person and forcibly deprive him of liberty is morally reprehensible.

Even if its not a park we're talking about, democracy is still aggression. Almost every democratic decision is paid for with taxes, which are backed by aggression.

If I understand these statistics correctly, Sweden reached its highest ranking positions in 1950 and 1973. The welfare system was never stronger than during this period.

Yes, you can look at the statistics that way. The way I see it though, Sweden peaked in 1950 and went downhill from there.

Has it never struck you that if you decrease the wealth gaps, the general population will have more buying power and the companies can produce more goods and services?

By taking from the capitalists to improve the consumption of the masses, you are advocating capital decumulation. That harms the masses by decreasing their productivity, and thus decreasing their real wages.

You forget that many Central African countries are abundant with resources. For instance, Congo is actually very rich - or could have been.

Natural resources are not the determinant of how rich a country can be. Just take a look at Japan. But that aside, what about the African countries not rich in natural resources? How are you going to redistribute wealth that isn't there?

I'm saying that in a destructive society, the citizens are likely to behave destructively. If you promote egoism, egoism will rule

But egoism doesn't mean destruction. In fact, it means the opposite. A society with strong individual rights is one that is strongly opposed to destruction of property and person.

Let me put it this way: If you ask a Socialist, "What is Socialism?", the first thing 9 out of 10 Socialists think of is not the ownership of the means of production or the battle against capitalism. No, 9 out of 10 Socialists will say that it's about improving democracy, strengthening the rights of the working people, striving for functional equality and similar issues. An over-whelming majority of all Socialists will agree with this.

Now, the definitions in dictionaries are severe simplifications which don't really give a fair picture of what Socialists believe in. The publishing sector is Liberal out of tradition and this is reflected in dictionaries as well. To be quite frank, that's not our problem. If you want to know what a Socialist want to accomplish, you will simply have to ask him or her.

Ok, I can go along with this.

That's a very odd distinction you make. Totalitarians want to control every sector, including the economic sector.

Are you trying to say the Soviets wanted complete totalitarian control of the economy, while you just want strong control? It seems to me that the difference is just a matter of degree.

The USSR was non-democratic - I want a democratic society.
The USSR was ruled by a small elite - I want a society ruled by the people.
The USSR had large wealth gaps - I want a society with small wealth gaps.
The USSR oppressed the working people - I want to protect the rights of the working people.
The USSR was confomistic - I want a diversified society.

Whether you think its bullocks or not, the fact is that I and most libertarians see things in terms of freedom. The Nolan chart is inadequate in that it only represents 4 general ideologies, but as a basic concept it is consistent with how libertarians see the world.

Democracy and oligarchy can both be oppressive, so that only increases your liberty rating a little. Inequality is irrelevant in the libertarian perspective. Libertarians don't agree with your concept of workers rights, so that is irrelevant in our perspective. Whether people want to be conformist or diverse is also irrelevant. So in terms of economic freedom, libertarians will still put you right next to the USSR. On the social scale though, you could improve your rating by being more of a civil libertarian.

You'll have to present some examples or arguments to support your statements if you want me to listen to you.

I can't know for certain that states will have that power in a libertarian society, since one has never existed. But I think they will, since people will act in their self interest. If corporations become a problem in that regard, people will donate more to the state, giving it more power to stop those corporations.

As a Socialist, I can't say I care much about rich people; I focus on the working people. As for tax rates, I'm not interested in some fixed figures - I'm interested in what the state can accomplish with the taxes. I don't care if the tax rate is 5 % or 90 % as long as it's a just society were people enjoy to live.

How can people enjoy life if the tax rate is 90%? I sure wouldn't. Working would be horrible; you would know that nearly everything you work for would just be confiscated and given to someone else. You would be almost completely dependent on the government for everything, much like children are dependent on their parents. Wouldn't you desire independence and freedom from the government?

Actually, I've studied this figures quite thoroughly; I've seen unbiased and non-propagandistic figures. The Swedish growth has been better than most European countries. But so what if the growth would have been slower? We have less poverty problems than your country anyway. The Swedish people isn't exatly suffering.

No they aren't, but I still think you would be better off with laissez faire. I would try to compare Swedish GDP growth with the US in the 18th century, but it is very hard to find data on the latter.

Not necessarily. For one thing, there would be no costs for multi-national marketing campaigns and there would be no brand hyping.

I would like to see proof that you can get a custom-made shoe for less than a brand-name shoe of the same quality. The conventional wisdom is that mass-produced things are cheaper.

In a similar manner, I could claim that Libertarianism is about employer control. Don't you understand that we want to give the people the right to influence their own lives? No small elite of wealthy oligarchs should decide how they should live.

Libertarianism is not about employer control. An employer and employee make a voluntary agreement; neither forces the other to do anything. Libertarianism would simply allow these mutually beneficial and voluntary agreements to occur. A system based on employer control would be more like fascism or USSR totalitarianism (in which the government is the employer).

On a similar note, I think that almost all Socialists would accept a Libertarian society that was fair, unexploitive and non-Social Darwinist. But then again, it wouldn't be a Libertarian society then.

Well we just have a fundamental clash of morality systems. Voluntary, free action is the highest libertarian ideal. Unfairness and exploitation is just overly emotional and vague nonsense. Socialists see equality and fairness as the highest ideals, while freedom is much less important.