[Mikolaj]

"You can do anything you want, provided you do not harm others."

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I think both libertarians and socialists might be able to coexist in a society following this maxim. I think socialists (and I have a certain conception of what that term could entail) would be happy with a society whose economic units consisted of non-government federations of organizations that are collectively run by its workers and NOT a separate board of directors who did not produce a surplus. This socialism would also also allow self-employment and partnerships to exist side by side with these collectives/co-ops/communes because there is no hired labor involved. Resources would be made available so both types of economic units (collective and individual) could exist.

I think many self-described Libertarians would also approve of this. They would like the non-government and voluntary aspects of these organizations. They would like the self-employment (also known as ancient class structures).

But would the libertarians insist that people have the right to hire wage labor (which here includes the concept of surplus being appropriated by someone other than the worker)?

[TropicalK]

The vast majority of libertarians would not approve of this.

[Mikolaj]

Why? I guess that also depends on how you define libertarianism?

[Wolfman]

That sounds like something a Left Libertarian or Libertarian Socialist would want. And Libertarians would hate it automatically since it isn't glorious capitalism.

[Daktoria]

The problem is epistemic.

Free market advocates support subjective theory of value.

Planned economy advocates support intrinsic theory of value.

We could say subjectivity is intrinsically valuable and that intrinsic value is subjective, so therefore, a pragmatic compromise could be made, but this is something which requires personal, not political, interaction.

Libertarians are often socially awkward, socialists are often attention whores.

It's very difficult to see common ground coming about from that. It's possible, but only if both sides decide to be honest. Libertarians struggle with being honest with their emotions, socialists struggle with being honest with their intuitions.

From my experience, even in real life, socialists hardly ever budge culturally speaking. You accommodate them a little bit, and they take that as an excuse to expect you to accommodate them even more because you've shown you're able to do it.

Coincidentally, this is why libertarians will ally with conservatives. Conservatives are strong people, so they prevent libertarians from being harangued by socialists in the first place.

Unfortunately, even conservatism has been becoming more populist as of late because the conservative-libertarian alliance strains conservative impressions from history.

Eventually, libertarians are going to have to make a choice on whether or not to snap that relationship like a slingshot and throw conservatives at socialists as hard as possible in order to give them their just desserts.

Socialism wants equality, conservatism wants power. Those two values cannot cohere hand in hand for very long once libertarians leave the stage.

[Wolfman]

Libertarians are often socially awkward, socialists are often attention whores.

Ron and Rand Paul never shut the fuck up. And more people are aware of them then any other Socialist since Orwell.

[Lightman]

Libertarians are often socially awkward, socialists are often attention whores.

The first might be true in some instances (for example, I get the sense that a lot of Internet libertarians are not exactly the most social beings in real life), but I know a few rather outgoing libertarians; actually, I think most of the libertarians I know in real life are (I don't really know a lot, of course, though a decent portion of my family is incidentally so because my cousin is the Hayek vs. Keynes director). I don't think socialists (real socialists, not pretend left-liberals) are particularly outgoing; I think to embrace an ideology (in America, I should add) so far out of the mainstream (and real socialism, Marxist or otherwise, is much further from the mainstream than libertarianism) requires a certain fringe quality to one's personality - perhaps not a lot of it, but still. Admittedly, I only know one or two real life socialists.

[Daktoria]

A lot of my experience came from college in dealing with fellow libertarians and socialists. Socialists come out of the woodwork left and right, but they're constantly beating around the bush in trying to seem sophisticated with whatever they're doing.

Libertarians tend to be more independent, and that can be a two-edged sword. The successful ones indeed are very outgoing, but to be a libertarian and succeed, you really can't expound your beliefs very often because they're not particularly compassionate.

Libertarian compassion comes from personally engaging people. Just describing yourself as a libertarian will make you look like a fool unless you're a jokester.

On the other hand, I haven't seen much criticism of socialists unless they're lazy bums. If you say you're pro equality, against business, pro abortion, pro drug legalization, pro gun regulation, and pro immigrant naturalization, it's rather easy to get looked upon well.

I do live in New York which is one of the most liberal states in the union, but when I lived down south in North Carolina, these positions seemed to go by rather well as long as you were in a city. The rural areas are more religious, but they're far less populated.

Libertarianism comes off as haphazard and strange. Socialism comes off as sophisticated and openminded. The main difference is how America is driven by labor theory of value. If you bring that up and ask who's for it versus who's against it, it becomes very difficult to find people who are sympathetically against it BECAUSE they're worried about looking lazy.

[Lightman]

A lot of my experience came from college in dealing with fellow libertarians and socialists. Socialists come out of the woodwork left and right, but they're constantly beating around the bush in trying to seem sophisticated with whatever they're doing.

Libertarians tend to be more independent, and that can be a two-edged sword. The successful ones indeed are very outgoing, but to be a libertarian and succeed, you really can't expound your beliefs very often because they're not particularly compassionate.

Libertarian compassion comes from personally engaging people. Just describing yourself as a libertarian will make you look like a fool unless you're a jokester.

On the other hand, I haven't seen much criticism of socialists unless they're lazy bums. If you say you're pro equality, against business, pro abortion, pro drug legalization, pro gun regulation, and pro immigrant naturalization, it's rather easy to get looked upon well.

I feel like you're dealing mostly with fake socialist left-liberals, or at the very best social democrats. The positions you list aren't really socialist positions; socialists are not anti-gun, for example.

Libertarianism comes off as haphazard and strange. Socialism comes off as sophisticated and openminded. The main difference is how America is driven by labor theory of value. If you bring that up and ask who's for it versus who's against it, it becomes very difficult to find people who are sympathetically against it BECAUSE they're worried about looking lazy.

This is because most socialist traditions are more sophisticated than any libertarian tradition. Libertarianism is theoretically very simple and its analysis rarely has much to do with real life, whereas socialist theories tend to be empirical and more dynamic. Also, socialists have a long artistic and literary tradition; libertarians have Ayn Rand and some science fiction authors.

[Daktoria]

I feel like you're dealing mostly with fake socialist left-liberals, or at the very best social democrats. The positions you list aren't really socialist positions; socialists are not anti-gun, for example.

I'm really not sure about that. Firearms represent power, so it wouldn't really be equal to have unequal power distribution.

There's also the notion that private firearm ownership isn't compatible with public authority.

This is because most socialist traditions are more sophisticated than any libertarian tradition. Libertarianism is theoretically very simple and its analysis rarely has much to do with real life, whereas socialist theories tend to be empirical and more dynamic. Also, socialists have a long artistic and literary tradition; libertarians have Ayn Rand and some science fiction authors.

Mmmm... if you extend libertarianism to include individual anarchism, there is a substantial tradition along the lines of Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Benjamin Tucker. Then you have classic liberal individualists like Bastiat and Tocqueville, and the Austrian school has an extensive prologue.

Many libertarians extend the tradition back to Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy. You also have the gilded age and Old Right.

I will agree that libertarianism does not appeal to pragmatism, but that's part of the point. Libertarianism doesn't focus on living through others because it acknowledges the internal and mental character of identity. In contrast, socialism does not acknowledge internal and mental character since it believes identity emerges through collectives.

[Lightman]

I'm really not sure about that. Firearms represent power, so it wouldn't really be equal to have unequal power distribution.

There's also the notion that private firearm ownership isn't compatible with public authority.

Ask any Marxist on this forum and they'll come out in favor of an armed society (or at least an armed proletariat); how else could a revolution come about?

Mmmm... if you extend libertarianism to include individual anarchism, there is a substantial tradition along the lines of Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Benjamin Tucker. Then you have classic liberal individualists like Bastiat and Tocqueville, and the Austrian school has an extensive prologue.

I'm not claiming that there isn't a substantial libertarian tradition; I'm saying that there isn't a substantial libertarian artistic tradition, whereas there's a very significant socialist artistic tradition (off the top of my head, Dreiser, Saramago, Joyce, Wilde, Vonnegut, Sartre, Orwell, Brecht, etc.). The intellectual tradition of Classical Liberalism (which is not fully identifiable with modern libertarianism) is huge, of course.

I would agree that some of the individualist anarchists of the 19th century could be identified with libertarianism, though not all of them. Thoreau, for example, while opposed to government, was also opposed to the expansion of industry into natural areas.

My real point is the simplicity of libertarian theory. While adhering strongly to any ideology lends a certain predictability to your positions, but the position of even libertarian intellectuals are almost never surprising. It's a very formulaic ideology. The Austrian School is probably the most simple of any modern economic theory; its rejection of math makes it much more comprehensible to the layman.

Many libertarians extend the tradition back to Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy. You also have the gilded age and Old Right.

This is rather suspect, as many of the beliefs of Jefferson and Jackson aren't really compatible with modern libertarianism, though I suppose you definitely have some sort of antecedent in Jefferson.

I will agree that libertarianism does not appeal to pragmatism, but that's part of the point. Libertarianism doesn't focus on living through others because it acknowledges the internal and mental character of identity. In contrast, socialism does not acknowledge internal and mental character since it believes identity emerges through collectives.

Depends which sort of socialism we're talking about.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Ask any Marxist on this forum and they'll come out in favor of an armed society (or at least an armed proletariat); how else could a revolution come about?

Through the ballot-box, presumably. See Lenin's split with the Social-Democrats, and later Eurocommunism. Most Marxists that call for an armed revolution are deranged asocial losers with no influence or organic connection to any movement whatsoever - they are LARPing, in other words.

[Kman]

I doubt it, socialists as a rule despise the concept of private property, libertarians exhalt it.

Practically some parts of socialism can be implemented in a libertarian state though, 20 workers can get together and decide that they will pool together their funds in 20 equal sums and use this total sum to purchase a company and start producing in a company as equals and make business decisions via democratic voting. Under such a situation the workers will have control over the means of production, they will still be subject to market forces and prices however, they cant just start producing anything they want, so in that way it is not real socialism.

Obviously virtually no parts of libertarianism can exist within a socialist society.

[myrmeleo]

This socialism would also also allow self-employment and partnerships to exist side by side with these collectives/co-ops/communes because there is no hired labor involved. Resources would be made available so both types of economic units (collective and individual) could exist.

I don't think many libertarians would agree with this plan, actually. Insofar as the government is "making resources available" there are significant restrictions on market forces (and decisions are instead made by a bureaucracy.

The problem is epistemic. Free market advocates support subjective theory of value. Planned economy advocates support intrinsic theory of value.

I think you're overcomplicating the issue. Libertarians would simply have a problem with the resource allocation in Mikolaj's example.

Obviously virtually no parts of libertarianism can exist within a socialist society.

I've yet to see much that contradicts this idea. You can have co-operatives in a deregulated economy, but you really can't fit free enterprise into a planned one.

[Lightman]

Through the ballot-box, presumably. See Lenin's split with the Social-Democrats, and later Eurocommunism. Most Marxists that call for an armed revolution are deranged asocial losers with no influence or organic connection to any movement whatsoever.

Modern social democrats have basically nothing to do with Marxism. I would agree that the social democrats remained Marxists immediately after the 1920 split - the American Socialist Party was both social democratic and Marxist. However, the 1920s American Socialist Party was not anywhere close to advocating societal disarmament.

[lucky]

I am a libertarian and the plan does not sound appealing to me in the least. I like being paid for my labor, I like investing in other companies, and I also like boards of directors. I don't see the appeal of banning all this. The plan is quite anti-libertarian.

[Daktoria]

I think you're overcomplicating the issue. Libertarians would simply have a problem with the resource allocation in Mikolaj's example.

I think you're a hypocrite. On one hand, as a libertarian, you're saying I'm complicating things.

On the other, you're saying libertarians would think in a simple-minded fashion (nevermind how that's insulting in itself).

Yes, the issue is quite obviously epistemic.

_____________________

Ask any Marxist on this forum and they'll come out in favor of an armed society (or at least an armed proletariat); how else could a revolution come about?

This begs the question how firearms would be controlled (not regulated, more like owned and operated, identified with), produced, and distributed though.

Without identifying and appreciating individuality, none of this could take place.

I'm not claiming that there isn't a substantial libertarian tradition;

You're really being dishonest here. You were referring to both intellectual and artistic tradition.

Even regarding art though, libertarianism doesn't seek to establish tradition or become renowned. As a matter of political strategy, you could say libertarianism shoots itself in the foot here.

However, libertarianism isn't an ideology based upon winning the game.

My real point is the simplicity of libertarian theory. While adhering strongly to any ideology lends a certain predictability to your positions, but the position of even libertarian intellectuals are almost never surprising. It's a very formulaic ideology. The Austrian School is probably the most simple of any modern economic theory; its rejection of math makes it much more comprehensible to the layman.

Two points:

One, libertarianism does have extensive epistemological considerations. The problem is when people criticize libertarianism, they say it's not practical, so if anything, it's libertarianism's opponents who are unsophisticated. Is libertarianism predictable? Yes, but that's part and parcel with libertarianism's goal. The goal is to be openminded and transparent so people can understand, not to be snobbish so people become impressed.

However, many libertarians do not delve into epistemology because the libertarian personality cannot afford it. Libertarianism is an ideology built upon accommodating sensitive people. As a sensitive person though, it becomes difficult to explore epistemology at a young age because you live in a very noisy world where you aren't allowed to focus.

This is where the basis of private property rights comes from btw. Libertarians want to know we'll be respected rather than pushed around by the mob. It's a personal realization, not just a political one.

This is rather suspect, as many of the beliefs of Jefferson and Jackson aren't really compatible with modern libertarianism, though I suppose you definitely have some sort of antecedent in Jefferson.

Many do, many don't. Landownership, free banking, and contained government are certainly libertarian ideas.

[Wolfman]

On the other, you're saying libertarians would think in a simple-minded fashion

I cann't really think of a better way to describe an ideology that basically only works by completely rejecting History, Economics, Social Psychology, basic logic, and Ethics.

[Sceptic]

I think you're a hypocrite. On one hand, as a libertarian, you're saying I'm complicating things.

On the other, you're saying libertarians would think in a simple-minded fashion (nevermind how that's insulting in itself).

To chip in on behalf of the OP, I believe its perfectly legitimate to point out overcomplication/unnecessary tangents where it is due and point out a simplification in Austrian methodology simultaneously (its not exactly fallacious here to discuss Austrian methodology since I believe that large segments of the Libertarian movement are based on Austrian economics - although Neoclassical economics is preferred by some - e.g. David Friedman, Bryan Caplan, etc.). Austrian economics is very simplistic just because it rejects a lot of maths and statistical modelling as part of the methodology (using mainly a priori reasoning as deduced from axioms as the core), for example.

But the overcomplication of the issue at hand was a different kettle of fish, in so far as you were arguing that certain aspects of socialist economic arrangement wouldn't be compatible with Libertarian when the only real restraints would be environmental (such as a lack of markets, and resource allocation/capital flight into co-operative enterprises and collective/self-managed community arrangements) - to repeat from memory (excuse me if I am not 100% accurate here). The only part of socialism that is in fact incompatible with Libertarian ideology is when force is used as a bolster.

[myrmeleo]

I believe its perfectly legitimate to point out overcomplication/unnecessary tangents where it is due and point out a simplification in Austrian methodology simultaneously

I am glad that my response was not as opaque as is suggested. Thanks.

I think you're a hypocrite. On one hand, as a libertarian, you're saying I'm complicating things. On the other, you're saying libertarians would think in a simple-minded fashion (nevermind how that's insulting in itself).

Yours is an incorrect paraphrase of my post. By inserting "as a libertarian" into your first line, you make it seem as if I am contradicting myself saying that you're overcomplicating the issue and that libertarians would have a simple objection to this. However, the issue is that you, personally, are overcomplicating the issue -- not as a quintessential member of the class of people known as "libertarians" but rather as an individual poster. In my post, the idea expressed by noting that libertarians would have a "simple objection" is set up to contrast your more difficult and complicated objection. The first result I get attempting to define "simply" in Google is:

Code: Select allsim·ply

adverb /ˈsimplē/ 

    In a straightforward or plain manner
        - speaking simply and from the heart

This is further verified in Sceptic's analysis of the discussion. The libertarian objection to the OP is, at its core, a simple one. Your objections are baseless.