I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 12:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  When I said "a lot" I made a mistake.

Wow, I like you a lot already. Few people on this forum have the balls to utter those words, no matter how clear the evidence is. Smile

(16-11-2013 12:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  but libertarianism, as you said, is to take away the coercion. Communism does not fall under that, does it? The state has all the power, the state owns everythibng, the state decides what everyone gets and doesn't get.

If you start from the beginning it makes a lot more sense. Libertarians (back then known as 'liberals' and today 'classic liberals') want everyone to be able to exercise free will, free from coercion and threats of violence. But some libertarians argued that private ownership of property (ie matter, in the obvious atomic sense), requires a state, and coercion, to enforce those property rights, and that unless property rights were eliminated, coercion could not be eliminated. In other words, if I say "I own this fruit tree, it's on my land, here's the deed, and nobody can touch it", but then somebody else comes along and is hungry and wants to take the fruit, then, if the tree and the fruit are really my property, I will have the right to defend them--using physical force to repel the person who wants to take my fruit, or, paying someone else to defend my property for me (like paying the police to do it for me). They argued that the only way to eliminate coercion was to eliminate private ownership of property (matter) so that everybody took and used what he needed, and nobody was allowed to use force to defend the property. This was communism. A stateless society, with nobody (state or otherwise) initiating force against anyone else.

The problem was how to get there. The Soviets said 'give us the temporary power to use force, and we will confiscate all property, starting with property used in the means of production (socialism), and then all property (communism), and give it back to the people, and then we'll step aside and relinquish the power.' So, when Chomsky says Soviet Communism was "fake socialism", what he means is that they rejected the whole goal of socialism/communism in the first place--namely to eliminate coercion--and they became a horribly coercive and violent place.

So, communism as it was originally envisioned, was libertarianism--a way to achieve the ultimate liberty. For that reason, I don't bash communism/socialism, because guys like Chomsky ARE right. As long as there is private ownership of property, there needs to be a state to enforce those property rights, and force/coercion must be used to prevent people from exercising free will, if their will is to take property that doesn't belong to them. There is also a philosophical justification. What is property? It's matter--just a bunch of atoms. Did I create those atoms? No, earth is a finite set of atoms that, except for the occasional nuclear reaction, are neither created nor destroyed. All the atoms are just recycled, we are all, in the literal atomic sense, "reincarnated" from atoms that previously belonged in other people, trees, dirt, etc. So, how can I claim that I "own" these atoms, when I didn't create them? Thus libertarians divided into propertarian vs. non-propertarian.

The reason I don't subscribe to 'non-propertarian libertarianism', like Chomsky, is that I simply see no viable way to achieve that utopic goal, and every mechanism I envision, I imagine will lead to tyranny. If you do not own the atoms in your body, but they are collectively owned, what if you're a beautiful woman, and 51% of the town wants to have sex you? You don't own your body, so who are you to deny the men their right to exercise of free will?
(16-11-2013 12:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  The means of production are collective, but everyone has a house, furniture, maybe a car and of course their supplies. I just don't believe in private property when it comes to means of production etc.

Well this is socialism. But afaik every 'classic socialist' acknowledged socialism is not a viable end-goal, but rather a stepping stone to communism because it's impossible to logically separate what is the “means of production”. While a factory may clearly be 'means of production' what if I'm an artist? The “means of production” are my hands and my brain, and you said I can't own them. So that means that I have to paint whatever the community tells me to paint. What if a woman sells her hair to make a wig? The means of production is her hair and hair follicles. Does she “own” those atoms while they're attached to her head? As soon as she cuts the hair, she can no longer own those atoms, and they belong to the community? How did she lose ownership? You mention that you're fine with someone owning a car privately. Well what if I offer my neighbor a ride? Is it still mine? What if I charge my neighbor $5 for a ride? Is it still mine? What if I charge a company $100 to use my car to deliver goods? Is it still mine, even though at this point it clearly is the means of production? When did it 'cross the line' and go from being mine to being collectively owned?

See, for me, non-propertarian libertarianism (anarcho-socialism, libertarian socialism/communism/etc.) is a nice idea. I love the idea that nobody has guns and nobody use force, and I agree that vision is the ultimate goal of everyone who values liberty. I just don't see any practical way to get there. However, I accept that I could overlooking something and there might be a solution. So I want guys like Chomsky, the Venus Project, even I and I, to have free reign and experiment with different systems and see if they can find a way to reach that utopian goal.

But, for now, nobody's been able to pull it off. Propertarian libertarianism, like Hong Kong, Switzerland, etc., has been tried and, so far, has shown the highest success rate at providing long, healthy, happy, prosperous lives. Maybe the socialists/communists will find an even better system, and so, as a libertarian, I'm totally opposed to the US's anti-communist crusades, like McCarthyism, opposed to an embargo on Cuba (we should be friendly with them, trade with them, and wish them well). Remember, Ron Paul was a huge cheerleader for Reagan in late 70's. BUT, once Reagan got into office and started the cold war build-up and set out to destroy the Soviet Union, Ron Paul formally left the Republican party and denounced Reagan and his war mongering. That was, imo, the appropriate libertarian response. I don't see the communists/socialists as enemies at all (I see them more as victims). The enemies to me are the liberals and conservatives who are so full of themselves, so certain that their way is right, that they fight to the death to get in the seat of government power, so they can wield that club and force everyone to do things their way and haul off at gunpoint anyone who resists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
@NL Atheist, I made a mistake in my prior post claiming nobody has found a way to make socialism work. Obviously there are employee-owned and run companies, as well as coops, Kibbutz, Raffheisen, etc., that have been very successful. That IS socialism, and it works well, and I fully support it and wish we had more of it. What I meant to say is I've never seen a way to make socialism work at the state level, and every time it's been tried, it ends up being oppressive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:24 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 02:28 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 02:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @NL Atheist, I made a mistake in my prior post claiming nobody has found a way to make socialism work. Obviously there are employee-owned and run companies, as well as coops, Kibbutz, Raffheisen, etc., that have been very successful. That IS socialism, and it works well, and I fully support it and wish we had more of it. What I meant to say is I've never seen a way to make socialism work at the state level, and every time it's been tried, it ends up being oppressive.

Aye, there's the rub. Can it scale up? Or is it like Ananias and Sapphira in Acts Chapters 4&5 destined to be subject to the weakest greedy link? In the USA we do have States that are far more socialist than others. Girly, for example, lives in the People's Republic of Maryland and we are far more socialist than the deep southern States.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 02:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...
What I meant to say is I've never seen a way to make socialism work at the state level, and every time it's been tried, it ends up being oppressive.

Not so oppressive over here in this state-run free market. Laughat
"Singapore pursued a state-led model of economic development under the People's Action Party, which initially adopted a Leninist approach to politics and a broad socialist model of economic development.[78] The PAP was initially a member of the Socialist International. Singapore's economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises and government-linked companies through Temasek Holdings, which generate 60% of Singapore's GDP"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_e...ist_states

"Singapore has a highly developed trade-oriented market economy.[9][10] Singapore's economy has been ranked as the most open in the world,[11] least corrupt,[12] most pro-business,[13] with low tax rates (14.2% of GDP)[14] and one of the highest per-capita gross domestic products in the world. Singapore's sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, holds majority stakes in several of the nation's largest companies, such as Singapore Airlines, SingTel, ST Engineering and MediaCorp."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

Unless you are a drug dealer or are found in possession of a gun... and then... yer GONE!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
16-11-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
I have to duck in and duck out as I have too much to do and I have already spent too long reading this thread.

Girly lose the Churchill quote I am old and extremely liberal in the sense that frankksj uses the term and I have a brain and retain a heart. The most awful of that old dead man's quotes.

frankksj, I think from the above and other posts of yours (some of which have pissed me off greatly) you miss a very important point. Money and property are power. To suggest that a libertarian future did not require self limitations on wealth and property or more properly (to my mind) shared wealth and property will not be libertarian, it will retain the coercion of the power in that money and property. Your example of charity is a perfect example of that. Charity should not be required, and in itself defines a power relationship between the givers and receivers that gives the power to the givers.

NL Atheist, I think you are on to some excellent thoughts. Refine them and work on them and do not be afraid to make mistakes.

frankksj and NL Atheist, both must remember that we of the libertarian bent (I self identify as an anachro-syndicalist) must remember we are in it for the long haul. Not in my life or in yours or your children or even your grandchildren but eventually there will be a non coercive non oppressive society where the good of all will be paramount.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JAH's post
16-11-2013, 03:30 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
@frankksj, you said something i really want to address to make a new point.
"what if you're a beautiful woman, and 51% of the town wants to have sex you? You don't own your body, so who are you to deny the men their right to exercise of free will?"
On the surface, sounds pretty heinous, but the democracy we live in today has this rule. The 51% can essentially bully the 49%. That's why I believe in some form of decentralised consensus democracy, although I'd have to read up some more about this. I'm interested what you think should be the preferred system for decision making in a libertarian society.
Furthermore, I am not sure what the exact division between private and collective goods should be, but I do know that in a society with worker self-management with rewards based on contribution, being an entrepeneur should be encouraged and people should be able to use the money they earn to buy goods that other people make. I do not want to police every transaction in a society, that would be a form of tyranny, counter-productive to my ideals.

@JAH, I think you're right that this is an ideal situation we must strive for and we cannot just create it over night. Thanks for your support, I will keep learning more about this and adjusting my views.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NL Atheist's post
16-11-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 03:09 PM)JAH Wrote:  Girly lose the Churchill quote I am old and extremely liberal in the sense that frankksj uses the term and I have a brain and retain a heart. The most awful of that old dead man's quotes.

Settle down, Jahweh. Girly's an old man who's just about as communist as they come. "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need." didn't come from Marx, it came from Jebus. It came from The Word. And I am nothing if not my own personal Jebus.




As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Haha Girly, I was just listening to the Marilyn Manson version an hour ago.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NL Atheist's post
16-11-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 03:34 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Haha Girly, I was just listening to the Marilyn Manson version an hour ago.




As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 12:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  When I said "a lot" I made a mistake. I meant that i do not agree with taking people's possessions, and I used "a lot" because that is what's being done right now.
In this thread I've learnt a bit about libertarianism, and trust me, I'm still learning a lot about it.
...

As I said, I'm still learning, and I'd like to thank you again for discussing this with me, it's really helping me a lot.

I am stunned. This doesn't happen often on the internet or in real life. This is how people (including me) learn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Regular_Joe's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: