Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Rojava Free State]

Tfw the libertarian discussion thread is confrontational and hostile lmao

We libertarians are a contentious bunch.

If a libertarian country had a civil war between the left and right, I think the rest of planet earth would be confused

[Elwher]

We libertarians are a contentious bunch.

If a libertarian country had a civil war between the left and right, I think the rest of planet earth would be confused

It's a shame that Robert Sheckley is not still with us; I can think of no other writer who could have done justice to a right libertarian/left libertarian civil war.

[Vascottozer]

Hi there! My ideology is crazy, but I'm assuming I'm under libertarian conditions, so I'm going to hang around a bit.

[Duskuarhiel]

I was shocked after my political compass test to be actually be a left-leaning libertarian, if there ever was such a thing in these politically dividing times.

[Elwher]

Hi there! My ideology is crazy, but I'm assuming I'm under libertarian conditions, so I'm going to hang around a bit.

Welcome. You do't have to be crazy to hang around, but you probably will be after not too long.

[Kowani]

I was shocked after my political compass test to be actually be a left-leaning libertarian, if there ever was such a thing in these politically dividing times.

There is, although many of them (at least in the Anglosphere) call themselves some form of anarchist. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is a right wing ideology.

[Duskuarhiel]

I was shocked after my political compass test to be actually be a left-leaning libertarian, if there ever was such a thing in these politically dividing times.

There is, although many of them (at least in the Anglosphere) call themselves some form of anarchist. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is a right wing ideology.

I feel it had something to do with my personal views on abortion, which the right so harshly exerts itself on controlling.

[Kowani]

There is, although many of them (at least in the Anglosphere) call themselves some form of anarchist. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is a right wing ideology.

I feel it had something to do with my personal views on abortion, which the right so harshly exerts itself on controlling.

Ah. Yep, that would do it.

[Page]

There is, although many of them (at least in the Anglosphere) call themselves some form of anarchist. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is a right wing ideology.

I feel it had something to do with my personal views on abortion, which the right so harshly exerts itself on controlling.

Google 8values and try that test, it is more in depth than political compass.

[Duskuarhiel]

I feel it had something to do with my personal views on abortion, which the right so harshly exerts itself on controlling.

Google 8values and try that test, it is more in depth than political compass.

I got Liberalism.

[Vascottozer]

Hi there! My ideology is crazy, but I'm assuming I'm under libertarian conditions, so I'm going to hang around a bit.

Welcome. You do't have to be crazy to hang around, but you probably will be after not too long.

I mean, my views are taken from a joke ideology that is a mixture of all 4 extremes of the political compass. I'm going to do the 8-value test and see what happens.

edit: I did the test. It is said that I am more concerned with economic regulation, but I think that comes from my opinion that people should be workers, the economy, the state and the military in one.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Tfw the libertarian discussion thread is confrontational and hostile lmao

milquetoast therapeutic liberalism is an imperial cancer

[Xuloqoia]

Welcome. You do't have to be crazy to hang around, but you probably will be after not too long.

I mean, my views are taken from a joke ideology that is a mixture of all 4 extremes of the political compass. I'm going to do the 8-value test and see what happens.

-snip-

I mean, your anti-centrism is just a sign that you’re a person of culture, seeing as how you watch Jreg.

[Great Minarchistan]

Tfw the libertarian discussion thread is confrontational and hostile lmao

milquetoast therapeutic liberalism is an imperial cancer

why wont you return to discord you fucking weeb

[Vascottozer]

I mean, my views are taken from a joke ideology that is a mixture of all 4 extremes of the political compass. I'm going to do the 8-value test and see what happens.

-snip-

I mean, your anti-centrism is just a sign that you’re a person of culture, seeing as how you watch Jreg.

precisely

[Phoenicaea]

^past few pages (not lasts, before) were good discussion, and contentious still not hostile. amongst factions, anarcho-capitalist doesn t fit to me.

i always write critiques, so i would notice some praise. sometimes i don t throw into discussion because it spends much of time.

[Northern Davincia]

But you don't actually believe that. Because why, then, are you defending capitalism, a system where the property-owning ruling class, per definition, relies extensively on unearned income and rent-seeking?

Beyond whatever supervisory work a capitalist performs and whatever else they do in the production process, the left-overs, the profits accrue to them solely by virtue of ownership, not work. To quote Joan Robinson: "Owning capital is not a productive activity". Owning stock somewhere is not work, it is just passive income accruing to you because, as a legal matter, society has determined that it belongs to you.

It is not unearned. Intellectual work is work, and the capitalist class often works far more hours than the proles below them.

No.

I am illustrating why your reasoning isn't very sound by applying it in an exaggerated context. Admittedly something I love to do, even if people tend to misunderstand. The point is that it doesn't matter if you're given something in return, it doesn't matter if there's incentive; it is still exploitation.

And as for the gun analogy I came up with, you are spared your life (or spared from harm) in return, so you definitely have an "incentive" to obey.

That is not a positive incentive, however. In capitalism, you not only have your life, you have income and basic luxuries, as well as the opportunity to progress to higher income levels.

1) The slaver's incentive is mutually beneficial too. You get a roof over your head, presumably, and you get to have access to food, etc.

2) Honestly, everything I've ever heard about labor conditions prior to the rise of organized labor is pretty similar. Doing factory work in the 1800s wasn't very fun. The only reason labor conditions are that much more tolerable is because of labor movements and those who had foresight enough to stall their emergence through reform. Even so, all the evidence I've ever seen points to social stratification still very much being a fact of life in all societies, including my own, which is one of the most equal (income-wise, at least) on the planet.

1. These things are guaranteed to pets, but there is always greater incentive for a man to be free, as he can recieve the market worth of his labor to do with as he pleases and act on his own free will. The slave gets a very small portion of the benefits, below what he is entitled to, and has much more to lose if his master wishes him dead.
2. Fun was never part of the equation. There will always be jobs people don't like, but they still need to be done.

I'm not interested in utopian escapism, because I care about having a good, just and moral society.

As for the self-employment thing, I'll refer to this past post of mine. It's not fully related, but it addresses the point, I think.

Do communes not offer good, just, and moral societies? You already know our moral axioms are completely different.

I for one think that people who can't work should be able to live on. In the event of post-scarcity of food, I find it a matter of moral utility that everyone gets a right to food.

Post-scarcity is a fantasy at the moment. I would not be opposed to a negative income tax for those who cannot work, but those who do not want to work have no sympathy from me.

"To each according to his contribution" is literally an expression of merit-based reward.

This is only in the context of time and intensity of labor, rather than its societal value.

This is kind of your word against mine, but over the course of my life I've heard both my mother and father complain about incompetent bosses. My father's worked at the same place for 30+ years, and he's by no means an incompetent guy. He even has patents to his name. I believe he loves his work, but he definitely dislikes management. He's not even a leftist, he's a right-winger who doesn't mind referring to black people as "negere", and I don't think I need to explain what that means.

Have these incompetent bosses driven their business into the ground? If so, they will not be bosses for very long.

And those going up against you can hire outside help too. Now what? Your right to said property will still be meaningless. If you must take this approach, where might makes right, then the state must be the natural arbiter of property rights, because it tends to be the mightiest actor of all. The state is the institution that protects your property from would-be thieves, enforces your right to it as well as other things such as crack down on those who do not uphold their legally-binding contracts. It was one of the first, if not the very first, functions of the state and social contract: mutually beneficial security to protect property, to develop laws, etc. You are not an an-cap, which I take to mean you actually do know this, in one way or another, perhaps without realizing it.

I suppose we are in agreement here, in the sense that I am not opposed to the state defending rights.

Free speech does have a positive dimension in the sense that, without it, no one is required to give you the ability to speak. There doesn't have to be any place where it's allowed, if, say, someone buys all the land as their private property and says "nuh-uh, you aren't allowed to do that on my property". As far as I can tell, things like protests require public spaces to be feasible.

It is not enough that no one is required to give you the ability to speak, only in their capacity to take that ability away.

Historically, indentured servitude could be very harsh and result in death before the contract was completed. There's a reason it has been outlawed as a form of slavery.

The bare minimum solution would be to include stipulations that protect the servant from injury or death.

Yet they tend to oppose the measures which actually guarantee it, or action to bring about a society where it is the norm, because it inconveniences property owners.

No, it is because your measures would define humane treatment as free from all inconvenience.

[Vascottozer]

Test taken:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analys ... &soc=-4.97

[Byzconia]

I was shocked after my political compass test to be actually be a left-leaning libertarian, if there ever was such a thing in these politically dividing times.

There is, although many of them (at least in the Anglosphere) call themselves some form of anarchist. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is a right wing ideology.

Only because the US Libertarian Party hijacked the term. Before them, "libertarian" was used interchangeably with "anarchist," in fact the former was the older term before Proudhon began referring to himself with the latter and started a trend. People like Benjamin Tucker very much would've considered themselves "libertarian" not just despite their opposition to capitalism, but because of it.

[The Liberated Territories]

There is, although many of them (at least in the Anglosphere) call themselves some form of anarchist. Libertarianism as it is commonly understood is a right wing ideology.

Only because the US Libertarian Party hijacked the term. Before them, "libertarian" was used interchangeably with "anarchist," in fact the former was the older term before Proudhon began referring to himself with the latter and started a trend. People like Benjamin Tucker very much would've considered themselves "libertarian" not just despite their opposition to capitalism, but because of it.

Well, it was a polite term for anarchist since the label was often banned from most media publications. It wasn't until the 1930s with the rebranding of classical liberalism by Chodorov, Nock, et al did the term really start to take off.

Here's the Google Ngram for the word "libertarian:"

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... an%3B%2Cc0

[Byzconia]

Only because the US Libertarian Party hijacked the term. Before them, "libertarian" was used interchangeably with "anarchist," in fact the former was the older term before Proudhon began referring to himself with the latter and started a trend. People like Benjamin Tucker very much would've considered themselves "libertarian" not just despite their opposition to capitalism, but because of it.

Well, it was a polite term for anarchist since the label was often banned from most media publications. It wasn't until the 1930s with the rebranding of classical liberalism by Chodorov, Nock, et al did the term really start to take off.

Here's the Google Ngram for the word "libertarian:"

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... an%3B%2Cc0

Interesting, though I still utterly hate the "rebranding." Classical liberals don't oppose the state (let alone authority) in any meaningful way, so it's not even accurate.

[The Liberated Territories]

Well, it was a polite term for anarchist since the label was often banned from most media publications. It wasn't until the 1930s with the rebranding of classical liberalism by Chodorov, Nock, et al did the term really start to take off.

Here's the Google Ngram for the word "libertarian:"

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... an%3B%2Cc0

Interesting, though I still utterly hate the "rebranding." Classical liberals don't oppose the state (let alone authority) in any meaningful way, so it's not even accurate.

Some did. Herbert Spencer, most notably, proposed a "right to ignore the state" and his student Auberon Herbert took that idea to its logical conclusion, seeking to replace most government functions with a network of voluntary institutions. Interestingly, both opposed the label "anarchist" for their radical beliefs. They were liberals.

In an announcement of Herbert's death, Benjamin Tucker said, "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!"

[Byzconia]

Interesting, though I still utterly hate the "rebranding." Classical liberals don't oppose the state (let alone authority) in any meaningful way, so it's not even accurate.

Some did. Herbert Spencer, most notably, proposed a "right to ignore the state" and his student Auberon Herbert took that idea to its logical conclusion, seeking to replace most government functions with a network of voluntary institutions. Interestingly, both opposed the label "anarchist" for their radical beliefs. They were liberals.

In an announcement of Herbert's death, Benjamin Tucker said, "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!"

Given that he was an "anarchist in everything but name," that just means he was an anarchist. In other words, not a liberal. The fact that he preferred "liberal" as his label is irrelevant.

This goes into my issues with how most people use labels: they use them wrong. If your beliefs align more with "anarchist" than "liberal," then you're an anarchist (and vice versa), that's how labels are supposed to work--they're descriptive, not prescriptive. People assign too much importance to one label or the other instead of just using them as the descriptors that they are. /mini-rant over

[Darussalam]

Well, it was a polite term for anarchist since the label was often banned from most media publications. It wasn't until the 1930s with the rebranding of classical liberalism by Chodorov, Nock, et al did the term really start to take off.

Here's the Google Ngram for the word "libertarian:"

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... an%3B%2Cc0

Interesting, though I still utterly hate the "rebranding." Classical liberals don't oppose the state (let alone authority) in any meaningful way, so it's not even accurate.

The term liberal was hijacked by FDR's New Deal progressives, makes sense that they later fled towards "libertarian" umbrella. And calling Austrians "libertarians" isn't that far-fetched - Tucker and Spooner were market libertarians in a sense, unlike socialists who later appropriated this term merely for the virtue of being leftist. Even Rothbard in his early years identified more with leftist counterculture than the "state capitalists" and once formulated syndicalist-esque expropriation scheme for industries and academies affiliated/supported by the state into the hands of workers and students who legitimately "homesteaded" them on Lockean basis.

The meta-point is that quibbles on who owns which term is basically just shorthand for other grievances/criticisms on public faces of these terms, which should be addressed instead.

[Byzconia]

Interesting, though I still utterly hate the "rebranding." Classical liberals don't oppose the state (let alone authority) in any meaningful way, so it's not even accurate.

The term liberal was hijacked by FDR's New Deal progressives, makes sense that they later fled towards "libertarian" umbrella. And calling Austrians "libertarians" isn't that far-fetched - Tucker and Spooner were market libertarians in a sense, unlike socialists who later appropriated this term merely for the virtue of being leftist. Even Rothbard in his early years identified more with leftist counterculture than the "state capitalists" and once formulated syndicalist-esque expropriation scheme for industries and academies affiliated/supported by the state into the hands of workers and students who legitimately "homesteaded" them on Lockean basis.

The meta-point is that quibbles on who owns which term is basically just shorthand for other grievances/criticisms on public faces of these terms, which should be addressed instead.

Except Tucker readily referred to himself as a socialist and openly argued in favor of socialism, so to say "socialists later appropriated the term" is just plain wrong. Before its takeover by the laissez-faire capitalists in the 30s-60s, it had been associated with socialism for more than a century. Liberals appropriated it, not the other way around.