Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:04 am UTC

drewster1829 wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
drewster wrote:
nowfocus wrote:Socialism and markets are not exclusive.


I was confused, but since we were talking about "full" socialism, I thought that implied government ownership of capital (as opposed to capitalism: private ownership of capital), which would be equivalent to a centrally planned economy...i.e., prices and supply would be determined by the government instead of by the market.
Now someone please correct me if I am wrong. I was always under the impression that: Government ownership == Fascism/feudalism, private ownership == capitalism, and that public ownership == communism/socialism.


What's the difference between public ownership and government ownership? In the United States, we think of anything that's public being government owned.

I always thought that fascism implied extreme nationalism and a dictatorship, with government controlled business (which would fall under your definition, too), while feudalism is the lord/serf arrangement of non-property owning serfs working for property owning lords (who were not necessarily members of the government...I think).

Government ownership is what it sounds like. Public ownership would be more along the lines of handing control over to the various worker unions, charity groups, ACLU, churches and the like. There are more than likely other forms of public control, this is just the first thing that came to mind. Don't forget, Marx thought that the communist government's main role should be to make it self needlessly redundant, then systematically dismantle itself.

I guess I sort of meant "elements from the fascist school of economics". Feudalism read. FTA:
One of those obligations was to provide the lord with "counsel," so that if the lord faced a major decision, such as whether or not to go to war, he would summon all his vassals and hold a council... snip ...The King was a lord who loaned fiefs to aristocrats, who were his vassals. The aristocrats, through subinfeudation, were lords to their own vassals, Knights who were in turn lords of the manor to the peasants who worked on the land. Ultimately, the Emperor was a lord who loaned fiefs to Kings, who were his vassals. This traditionally formed the basis of a 'universal monarchy' as an imperial alliance and a world order.
This leads me to believe that lords are in fact, the government.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
drewster1829
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby drewster1829 » Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:33 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Government ownership is what it sounds like. Public ownership would be more along the lines of handing control over to the various worker unions, charity groups, ACLU, churches and the like. There are more than likely other forms of public control, this is just the first thing that came to mind. Don't forget, Marx thought that the communist government's main role should be to make it self needlessly redundant, then systematically dismantle itself.


Makes sense...so, when we're talking about pure socialism, are we talking about public ownership like you describe above? It seems to me that this requires the Marxist communist idea of no government, which I'm not sure how well that would work unless human nature magically changed. :)

Or when you say pure socialism, do you mean public ownership (as you defined above) but with a government still to provide welfare services and protection of basic rights and other stuff?

nitePhyyre wrote:I guess I sort of meant "elements from the fascist school of economics". Feudalism read. FTA:
One of those obligations was to provide the lord with "counsel," so that if the lord faced a major decision, such as whether or not to go to war, he would summon all his vassals and hold a council... snip ...The King was a lord who loaned fiefs to aristocrats, who were his vassals. The aristocrats, through subinfeudation, were lords to their own vassals, Knights who were in turn lords of the manor to the peasants who worked on the land. Ultimately, the Emperor was a lord who loaned fiefs to Kings, who were his vassals. This traditionally formed the basis of a 'universal monarchy' as an imperial alliance and a world order.
This leads me to believe that lords are in fact, the government.


Ahh, okay, my bad...so essentially feudalism is where only members of the government (lords) own land. I didn't know that. 8)
"Distrust your judgment the moment you can discern the shadow of a personal motive in it."
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

qbg
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:37 pm UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby qbg » Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:04 am UTC

drewster1829 wrote:
nowfocus wrote:Socialism and markets are not exclusive.

I was confused, but since we were talking about "full" socialism, I thought that implied government ownership of capital (as opposed to capitalism: private ownership of capital), which would be equivalent to a centrally planned economy...i.e., prices and supply would be determined by the government instead of by the market.

Is mutalism not full socialism, and if so, why?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby Dark567 » Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:17 pm UTC

qbg wrote:Is mutalism not full socialism, and if so, why?


I would argue it is in fact not. Mutualism still protects private property. Also Mutualism advocates that each person be reward for the productivity of their labor by market forces. Under this system a programmer that is 100 more times productive then another programmer would be paid 100 times more, usually socialism doesn't allow that.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
drewster1829
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby drewster1829 » Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:21 pm UTC

You know, I think that we might be comparing apples to oranges...definitions seem to be thrown around, but according to Wikipedia, socialism is "not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism." Also, "Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Libertarianism, on the other hand, "is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state." Some libertarians support free market capitalism, while others are opposed to private property.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, while socialism is an economic system.

So, maybe this thread should be capitalism versus socialism...what do you guys think?
"Distrust your judgment the moment you can discern the shadow of a personal motive in it."
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

qbg
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:37 pm UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby qbg » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:16 pm UTC

drewster1829 wrote:You know, I think that we might be comparing apples to oranges...definitions seem to be thrown around, but according to Wikipedia, socialism is "not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism." Also, "Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Libertarianism, on the other hand, "is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state." Some libertarians support free market capitalism, while others are opposed to private property.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, while socialism is an economic system.

So, maybe this thread should be capitalism versus socialism...what do you guys think?

That would just entail expanding our horizons from libertarian capitalism versus state socialism...

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby Le1bn1z » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

drewster1829 wrote:
You know, I think that we might be comparing apples to oranges...definitions seem to be thrown around, but according to Wikipedia, socialism is "not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism." Also, "Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation."

Libertarianism, on the other hand, "is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state." Some libertarians support free market capitalism, while others are opposed to private property.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, while socialism is an economic system.

So, maybe this thread should be capitalism versus socialism...what do you guys think?


Well, that's the thing. Libertarianism and socialism are both self-defeating specifically because their social and economic philosophies work at cross purposes.

Libertarianism is the philosophy of self sufficiency, and nothing else. Socially, that means everyone goes their own way, and takes care of themselves and theirs. In the real world, however, free capital and inevitable tragedies and pratt-falls combined with any form of social security mean many, if not most, attempts at independant living will fail, leading to either death or dependency. Even the most rabid libertarians on this board, like andrewchuck, for example, admit that economic Libertarianism ALWAYS ends up with the collapse of universal self-dependence and the rise of aristocracy.

Socialism DOES have an attached political philosophy, as it seeks to describe a system of ownership and production. As everything is produced and owned collectively, theoretically, everyone is a democratic equal with a say in the economic plan. However, because there is no individual sufficiency, there can be no individual rights. The majority can overrule the minority, thus creating possibility for exploitation and control. In other words, those who control key positions in the oversight of the economy dictate the entirety of everyone's lives. Socialism ALWAYS ends up with the collapse of equal rights and the rise of aristocracy.

That's what people need to understand. Whenever you hear a politician speak of Libertarianism or Socialism, they're only using those words as ciphers for a new kind of aristocratic control.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
drewster1829
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby drewster1829 » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:13 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Well, that's the thing. Libertarianism and socialism are both self-defeating specifically because their social and economic philosophies work at cross purposes.

Libertarianism is the philosophy of self sufficiency, and nothing else. Socially, that means everyone goes their own way, and takes care of themselves and theirs. In the real world, however, free capital and inevitable tragedies and pratt-falls combined with any form of social security mean many, if not most, attempts at independant living will fail, leading to either death or dependency. Even the most rabid libertarians on this board, like andrewchuck, for example, admit that economic Libertarianism ALWAYS ends up with the collapse of universal self-dependence and the rise of aristocracy.

Socialism DOES have an attached political philosophy, as it seeks to describe a system of ownership and production. As everything is produced and owned collectively, theoretically, everyone is a democratic equal with a say in the economic plan. However, because there is no individual sufficiency, there can be no individual rights. The majority can overrule the minority, thus creating possibility for exploitation and control. In other words, those who control key positions in the oversight of the economy dictate the entirety of everyone's lives. Socialism ALWAYS ends up with the collapse of equal rights and the rise of aristocracy.

That's what people need to understand. Whenever you hear a politician speak of Libertarianism or Socialism, they're only using those words as ciphers for a new kind of aristocratic control.


This. I've always thought about this paradox...both systems lead to control of the majority by a select few, even though they both start out at the opposite end. Maybe that's why a mixed system works best...by keeping elected politicians at odds with each other to please the constituency who take two sides to an issue from two different points of view, it results in checks and balances that prevent the collapse to control by an aristocracy...at least for awhile. Is that what has prevented the American Republic from turning into a dictatorship in the way that happened in Nazi Germany?
"Distrust your judgment the moment you can discern the shadow of a personal motive in it."
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby Zamfir » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:30 am UTC

drewster1829 wrote:Is that what has prevented the American Republic from turning into a dictatorship in the way that happened in Nazi Germany?
The trouble with institutions as explanation is that you have to ask why people feel they have to follow the rules. When Hitler came to power, he didn't have a majority, but he did have his party militia standing next to the door of the parliament, and the parliament did vote in his favour. If Al Gore's Greenjackets had been marching through Washington in 2000, a 40% of the vote might have been enough for him too to win the election.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:13 pm UTC

drewster writes

This. I've always thought about this paradox...both systems lead to control of the majority by a select few, even though they both start out at the opposite end. Maybe that's why a mixed system works best...by keeping elected politicians at odds with each other to please the constituency who take two sides to an issue from two different points of view, it results in checks and balances that prevent the collapse to control by an aristocracy...at least for awhile. Is that what has prevented the American Republic from turning into a dictatorship in the way that happened in Nazi Germany?


Well, let's not count our chickens before they're hatched. America's democracy grows increasingly fragile every year. It remains vulnerable to either a Roman Republic or French Revolution style collapse [being increasingly welcome to both violent populism, uncontrollable deficit spending and an intractable conservative inflexibility.]

Americans are obsessed with their institutional balances, most of which are useless and counterproductive. American institutions tend towards "Byzantinism," a tangle of interfering and overwroght political institutions that are cumbersome, inefficient and expensive, and tend towards the ironic twisting of democracy against itself.

An American voter might have to keept their eye on up to eleven elected officials (President, Senator, Congressman, Governor, State Senator, State Legislator, Judge, Sheriff, Town councellor, Mayor, School board rep.) All of these positions require untold treasure to control, leading to a system of politics wholly dependant of the wealth of the aristocracy. The way the overlap makes it difficult for citizens to follow, and thus control. All of the expense and complexity doesn't make American any freer. Certainly, they are too overwroght and numerous for the average voter with four hours spare time a day to properly supervise.

In fact, America is the only developed nation without universal healthcare and whithout the right of habeas corpus for its citizens (though this is a new development.) It also has the most politicised and easily controlled or evaded (by means of money) justice system in the first world. For most of its history on major issues, America has been 30 years behind its peer states (slavery, civil rights, gay rights, education, healthcare...)

REAL balance lies beyond the institutions of state. As Canada, NZ and Britain can attest, one unicameral house controlling the legislature and executive is sufficient to maintain a healthy democracy. The balance lies in the trifecta of English speaking democracy:

1.) Individual Liberty. Rights attach to the individual beyond his or her membership in the group. Each individual has negative rights against harm and positive rights to protection from violence, misfortune and desperation. When the individual is safe, he or she is not pressed into violence. This arragnement is called the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

2.) Progressivism. The state and laws adapt as needed to meet changing circumstances. The animating principle is called EQUITY, wherein the objective is to maintain fair, balanced and productive relations amongst citizens. The law adapts to the needs of the citizens (as opposed to Republicanism, where the constitution is sacrosanct, and people must change their expectations to adapt to the dead letter of the law.) All major parties in the UK and Canada (Conservatives, Liberal, Labour-ish and even the Seperatists) are Progressives of the Edumnd Burke school, they believe in steady adaptation and progress in response to particular challenges, rather than revolutionary overhauls.

3.) Responsible Government. Rather than attempt to ideologically turn everything into an exercise in majority control, government is kept at arms length from the people. People make general laws, the civil service carries them out. The government is RESPONSIBLE to the people through elections, but the majority does not have the power to force the civil service to violate the rights of minorities.

These principles, not any insitutional balances of Senates and States, are the real bulkwarks against the dangers of Libertarian fascism and Socialist communism. It is the "middle way" of politics; anathema to the ideologues of the ivory tower universities in America and France, but the lifeforce of Commonwealth judicial and democratic thought. It's always been a much weaker intellectual force in America, France and Germany, which for obvious reasons glorify total revolutions over hard-won progress.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby nowfocus » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:21 pm UTC

Well, one thing about America being behind in social issues is that its bigger, about 10 times bigger than Canada and Australia and about 5 times bigger than Britain. Bigger things are harder to move.

Its funny, I looked into using Kibbutz's as an example of a democratic socialism that worked pretty well...then I read the history and basically exactly what you said would happen happened.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

The US has habeas corpus...

As to the rest of your post; I think you take a far too pessimistic attitude toward the entirety of the US government. The check balance system and such are all very good; the main problem lies in the fact that we have divided into two parties with almost all of the country blindly following one. If we weren't divided along party lines that are based on two sides wanting to fight(seriously both parties platforms are very hypocritical) then the entire system would work out beautifully.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

Postby Le1bn1z » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:The US has habeas corpus...

As to the rest of your post; I think you take a far too pessimistic attitude toward the entirety of the US government. The check balance system and such are all very good; the main problem lies in the fact that we have divided into two parties with almost all of the country blindly following one. If we weren't divided along party lines that are based on two sides wanting to fight(seriously both parties platforms are very hypocritical) then the entire system would work out beautifully.


Well, they did have habeas corpus, until the Patriot Act and the institution of Guantanamo Bay gave the President and officers of security routine discretionary override of habeas corpus. The right is now really an empty shell; holding up for most people, but only because of the indifference of the Government to their situation. Anyone they really want no longer qualifies.

As for your argument that "the only problem is that the country is divided along party lines;" show me one that isn't! Every elective or even semi-elective government has just about always been divided among party lines. It's hardly like this is anything new!

Even Rome had a succession of "parties;" aristocratic Republicans and popularii; Republican Catonians and Caesarians; Caesarians and Antonians.
The middle ages saw the rise of the Guelph and Ghibbeline party factions across Italy and much of Germany. Soon, these became political affiliations that had nothing to do, really, with the Papal and Imperial affiliations upon which they were founded.
Venice set up its constitution to deal with the perpetual recurrence of two-party rivalry.
The British Parliament had sparring parties going back to the 17th century!

When the Americans set up the constitution, everybody knew that partisan political parties were fixtures of any elective system. The Framers, however, were convinced that if they ignored parties, they would go away and that, anyways, Americans were super special and would be the first country ever without consolodated parties.

This idealized contempt for known structural realities of political and civic life is what has haunted the libertarian and socialist ideologues of the Western World for centuries.

Libertarians, like andrewchuck, KNOW that their policies would be disasterous for the vast majority of people. But, because it looks so pretty on paper, they think we should go ahead with it anyway.
Militant Socialists, like the modern Communist Paries, KNOW that their policies have created brutal dictatorships disasterous for the vast majority of the population, but they think we should go ahead with it anyway, because it looks so pretty on paper.

American "Framers' Intent" Constitutional Republicans KNOW that their policies are often beacons of brutal stupidity and cruelty, but think they should go ahead with them anyway, because the Framers were such swell guys (for a bunch of slave-raping oligarchs) and the constitution just sounds so pretty.

Hence Dredd Scott and the ridiculous constitutional defenses of Slavery (British courts ruled slavery unconstitutional unless specifically ordered by King and Parliament in 1772, one of the things which precipitated the revolution. Shhhh.... its a secret.)
The Gun Lobby nuts think its fine for American to have absurdly high homicide rates, because gun ownership is soooo cool, and the right SOUNDS so pretty to Libertarian ears. Ditto the anti-health reform dudes, ditto the anti-gay marriage folks, ditto the anti-civil rights activists... the list goes on.

America is at its best when it has a leader who can return to first principles and demand that the law and constitution conform to their purpose.
America is at its worst when its citizens and leaders blindly cleave to the dead letters of the law and cold bars of some glorious ideology, further and further detaching them from the hard reality of the day.

Sadly, I think we know where most contemporary Americans stand. That's why this board exists. Libertianism vs. Socialism; the two great totalitarian ideologies Americans love to talk about. Anything less than a total system just isn't worth talking about.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests