The Quote

[Formless]

There are, in fact, plenty of such morons in the world who seem to think in these terms. Most of them just don't want to connect the dots and see that their paradise is actually Somalia, and its only this side of a hellhole because you don't have to stay in a foxhole dodging bullets and bombs all day.

Yes, and every libertarian agrees that Somalia is a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.

...one which in practice is completely incapable of actually ruling its populace, hence not ruled by law or anything else. In other words, a functional anarchy. Don't fucking nitpick, asswipe. It makes you look like the same kind of "refuse to connect the dots" asshole I was talking about.

And in any case, don't think you are fooling anyone with this "I can speak on behalf of people who aren't me" bullshit when we have actual discussions archived with actual self identifying libertarians on this board. I pointed you to one, and there is a perfectly functional search function you can use if you want to see others. Right now though? I don't care to have this discussion, because its off topic, and you completely missed the point. This is the context in which Mike (probably) found the Quote of the Week appealing. That too is demonstrated by the same threads. So please, stuff your indignation in a trash compactor and burn it. I really don't care one way or another what you think about the "libertarian utopia = Somalia" analogy.

[Formless]

A discussion of the different flavors of libertarian would be an interesting thread by itself. There are the objectivists, who have completely erased all responsibility from their moral codes except those codified in explicit, written contracts. There are the anarcho-libertarians, who believe that everything, including contract enforcement, should be privatized. There are the Austrians, who believe that government should exist only to enforce contracts (they criticize monetarism on the grounds that tinkering with interest rates causes asset bubbles). There are the straight-up libertarians, like Milton Friedman, who think that most everything should be privatized, but the government should exist and be responsible for contract enforcement, mitigating extreme poverty (I have heard one say that basic provision of food should be free for those in extreme poverty, or c.f. Friedman's proposed negative income tax), and ensuring monetary stability. There are the classical liberals, like Adam Smith or Friederich Bastiat, who run the gamut from effectively Austrian to believing that almost markets should be free, but government is responsible for provision of welfare to the poor and working-class. There are the "soft libertarians", I call them, like Paul Krugman, who believe that most markets should be free, that international trade should be free, but that there is a role for a large modern government. Then there are the de-facto libertarians, who haven't really thought through their economic beliefs for consistency, but believe that there is a basic moral difference between actively causing a consequence X and passively causing X by not intervening: it's immoral to shoot someone, but it's not immoral to let him shoot five people.

Meh. Sounds about as interesting to me as making a complete genealogy of the Protestant denominations, right down to the latest schism of that Baptist ministry down in Georgia (as the joke goes, you can induce a schism just by changing the carpet). About all it demonstrates is that there isn't the kind of unanimity of opinion amigocabal wants people to believe exists among libertarians. I think a more interesting and useful discussion would be over what the common themes of these strands of libertarianism are that makes them all "libertarianism" and not "anarchism" or "Republicans-in-jargon-camouflage". Then you would have a base by which to start evaluating the ideas as a whole and how they fit into the larger political landscape.

[Formless]

You might also start by explaining how Freud is suddenly German. Last I checked, he was Austrian.

Ah, to be fair, the Quote of the Week misrepresents Freud as a German, and I too mistakenly referred to him as German (even though I should know better). That's not really HMS's fault, though I can't say the same for the rest of his screw-loose interpretations of just about every other fact or statement that he's thrown out so far.

[Surlethe]

A discussion of the different flavors of libertarian would be an interesting thread by itself. There are the objectivists, who have completely erased all responsibility from their moral codes except those codified in explicit, written contracts. There are the anarcho-libertarians, who believe that everything, including contract enforcement, should be privatized. There are the Austrians, who believe that government should exist only to enforce contracts (they criticize monetarism on the grounds that tinkering with interest rates causes asset bubbles). There are the straight-up libertarians, like Milton Friedman, who think that most everything should be privatized, but the government should exist and be responsible for contract enforcement, mitigating extreme poverty (I have heard one say that basic provision of food should be free for those in extreme poverty, or c.f. Friedman's proposed negative income tax), and ensuring monetary stability. There are the classical liberals, like Adam Smith or Friederich Bastiat, who run the gamut from effectively Austrian to believing that almost markets should be free, but government is responsible for provision of welfare to the poor and working-class. There are the "soft libertarians", I call them, like Paul Krugman, who believe that most markets should be free, that international trade should be free, but that there is a role for a large modern government. Then there are the de-facto libertarians, who haven't really thought through their economic beliefs for consistency, but believe that there is a basic moral difference between actively causing a consequence X and passively causing X by not intervening: it's immoral to shoot someone, but it's not immoral to let him shoot five people.

Meh. Sounds about as interesting to me as making a complete genealogy of the Protestant denominations, right down to the latest schism of that Baptist ministry down in Georgia (as the joke goes, you can induce a schism just by changing the carpet).

That sounds interesting too, although not as interesting as cataloguing libertarians since I like economics more than religion.

About all it demonstrates is that there isn't the kind of unanimity of opinion amigocabal wants people to believe exists among libertarians. I think a more interesting and useful discussion would be over what the common themes of these strands of libertarianism are that makes them all "libertarianism" and not "anarchism" or "Republicans-in-jargon-camouflage". Then you would have a base by which to start evaluating the ideas as a whole and how they fit into the larger political landscape.

I don't think amigocabal is arguing that there's unanimity, but rather that it's a strawman to automatically assume that libertarian implies anarcho-libertarian. It doesn't, any more than Christian implies quiverfull fundamentalist.

[Formless]

I don't think amigocabal is arguing that there's unanimity, but rather that it's a strawman to automatically assume that libertarian implies anarcho-libertarian. It doesn't, any more than Christian implies quiverfull fundamentalist.

That's not what I was referring to. Second post, and I quote: "...every libertarian agrees that..." (Followed by nitpicking about what Somalia's supposed government type is)

I know you like to play devils advocate on this kind of topic, Surlethe, but frankly I don't see any other way to interpret that statement other than "every libertarian believes what I, amigocabal, [say they] believe". That's rather arrogant when he's already been told where to find discussions that invalidate that claim.

Basically, I'm saying that he's committing a No True Scotsman.

But I think you're reading too much into his (very short) statements. His first post was a strawman-- the Somalia argument is that Libertarian policies would lead to Somalia-like conditions, not that Libertarians actually like/agree with that conclusion or advocate that society. I already stated that they would rather believe Big Government is just getting in the way of the Free Market, Corporate Charity, Volunteer efforts, Rugged Individuals, etc. depending on whatever flavor of libertarian they happen to be. That's the match that ignited my flamethrower. Your interpretation, even if correct, would be irrelevant.

[Surlethe]

I don't think amigocabal is arguing that there's unanimity, but rather that it's a strawman to automatically assume that libertarian implies anarcho-libertarian. It doesn't, any more than Christian implies quiverfull fundamentalist.

That's not what I was referring to. Second post, and I quote: "...every libertarian agrees that..." (Followed by nitpicking about what Somalia's supposed government type is)

I know you like to play devils advocate on this kind of topic, Surlethe, but frankly I don't see any other way to interpret that statement other than "every libertarian believes what I, amigocabal, [say they] believe". That's rather arrogant when he's already been told where to find discussions that invalidate that claim.

I read his second post as sarcasm, given that his first post is the question, "Is that an accurate representation of what they believe? People have misrepresented what they believed, arguing that libertarians favor Somalian-type society."

But let's let him settle it, if he reads this.

[Formless]

Well, if that was sarcasm I'm putting waaay too much effort into these posts. But I guess I just don't have much faith in a guy who demonstrates such specific prior knowledge of the debate before asking such a question.

[amigocabal]

I read his second post as sarcasm, given that his first post is the question, "Is that an accurate representation of what they believe? People have misrepresented what they believed, arguing that libertarians favor Somalian-type society."

But let's let him settle it, if he reads this.

The second post was sarcasm.

More to the point, there are controversies even among libertarians, e.g. what individual rights should be protected, the scope of individual rights, what general powers government should have, and how far these powers. One can read these debates among libertarians on Reason.Com.

Almost all libertarians, for example, favor laws against producing a film of a minor being sexually assaulted, and I have not heard of anyone claiming that freedom of speech protects the freedom to produce a film of an actual sexual assault of a minor. But what about a law against a graphic portrayal of a sexual assault on a minor (where the actor/actress playing the minor is a young adult, and camera angles are used to imply the appearance of a sexual assault, when in fact no assault is taking place)? What about animation graphically depicting the sexual assault of a minor. Or a book that graphically describes the sexual assault of a minor? Or hell, just a graphic depiction of sex involving minors (as long as all live actors or actresses involved are consenting adults). Should laws forbid those too? Or should they be protected under freedom of speech.

[Formless]

Ah, my apologies. I find sarcasm easier to detect in longer passages, not short ones. Probably because I've had to deal with far too many Youtube style guttersnipes over the years.

[Akhlut]

So he is against liberty - on balance that is how I was reading it, but one can never be sure with these mystics.

Freud was a hard atheist who was critical of religion; hardly a mystic. His views on psychology are wrong, but J.J. Thomson's model of the atom was wrong too and we don't call him a mystic.

Also, if I say that I think lifesaving organ transplant surgeries for 90 year olds is not necessarily the best use of resources, does that imply that I am thus against all transplant surgeries?

[Bakustra]

Suggesting that Marx and Engels believed in a philosophy of "non-liberty" with their approach to socialism shows that you've never bothered to read The Communist Manifesto, M. Boat, which may be many things, but it is not anti-liberty in any meaningful sense.

[HMS Conqueror]

Babeuf and many other international socialists somehow "originated" from Germany? HMS Conqueror, do you even think before you post, or you're just... posting?

Not all, but come on, the branch of communism that became a major force in the world was explicitly based in the thought of Marx and Hegel.

Suggesting that Marx and Engels believed in a philosophy of "non-liberty" with their approach to socialism shows that you've never bothered to read The Communist Manifesto, M. Boat, which may be many things, but it is not anti-liberty in any meaningful sense.

I have indeed. Have you? If not, here is the key quote, since it is the actual manifesto amidst all the rhetoric:

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. "

The Communist proposal is first to establish an all-powerful state, that controls everything and, by conscription for both military and industrial purposes, everyone.

He then continues - "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another."

This, as far as I can tell, is what people mean when they say Marx did not favour a state. He believes that, in the course of time, when all the "emigrants and rebels" have been dealt with, that his centralised statist policies would remain but would "lose their political character," since there would be no one left who opposes them. Something of a dodge, to say the least.

If you want a real liberal socialist read Proudhon. Who, alas, was French.

Freud was a hard atheist who was critical of religion; hardly a mystic. J.J. Thomson's model of the atom was wrong too and we don't call him a mystic.

He was an atheist to the other religions, and believed in his own. One doesn't have to believe in a creator god or an afterlife to be a mystic. J.J. Thompson set out minimal models that were supported by the evidence he had, which was incomplete. Freud invented random models that sounded good to him.

[Surlethe]

More to the point, there are controversies even among libertarians, e.g. what individual rights should be protected, the scope of individual rights, what general powers government should have, and how far these powers. One can read these debates among libertarians on Reason.Com.

Yes. I am greatly amused every time I read about Von Mises standing up at a Mont Pelerin society meeting and calling them all socialists.

[Bakustra]

Suggesting that Marx and Engels believed in a philosophy of "non-liberty" with their approach to socialism shows that you've never bothered to read The Communist Manifesto, M. Boat, which may be many things, but it is not anti-liberty in any meaningful sense.

I have indeed. Have you? If not, here is the key quote, since it is the actual manifesto amidst all the rhetoric:

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. "

The Communist proposal is first to establish an all-powerful state, that controls everything and, by conscription for both military and industrial purposes, everyone.

He then continues - "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another."

This, as far as I can tell, is what people mean when they say Marx did not favour a state. He believes that, in the course of time, when all the "emigrants and rebels" have been dealt with, that his centralised statist policies would remain but would "lose their political character," since there would be no one left who opposes them. Something of a dodge, to say the least.

If you want a real liberal socialist read Proudhon. Who, alas, was French.

There's no such thing as a liberal socialist. Liberalism is (in a global context) entirely opposed to socialism, as it prioritizes the "rights" of property over the rights of humans, whereas socialism does the opposite.

In any case, the point is that the mechanisms of the state would be used to abolish private property, in the sense of "ability to sell ownership of capital while maintaining the use of it for labor", mitigate the negative effects of the industrial revolution, and continue the development of wealth to establish a prosperous society for all. Things like industrial armies were an effort to avoid the practice of having a perpetual underclass of physical laborers by sharing the burdensome physical tasks of massive public works across the whole of the public, much like conscription in militaries is an effort to avoid the practice of having a soldiery segregated from the public and to share the burden of the defense of the state across the body public. If that's anti-liberty, I have to question why perpetual segregation of physical laborers and soldiers from the public as a whole is really that libertarian.

Then, once the bourgeoisie had been eliminated and proletarian rule had been so solidified as to delegitimize bourgeoisie thought, there would be a fully democratic society in place, without the divisions of wealth that characterize liberal/bourgeoisie democracy and act to ensure that the power of the state is turned to the benefit of capitalists rather than the people as a whole. At this point, the state would be (eventually) obsoleted, as many to all of its functions would either themselves become obsolete or be ran by the public for public benefit, and thus would be dissolved. But I see that you consider the rights of property more important than the rights of humans, since you're focused on "centralized" (LOL) and "statist" (LOLOL) as being concepts opposed to liberty wholly. It's too bad that you read but did not understand, and it's worse that you think that property rights are more important than human rights.

[HMS Conqueror]

Property rights are rights of humans over property, not rights belonging to pieces of property. Proudhon's Mutualism is a socialist vision of what property rights should be, which is why it's a liberal (or "libertarian" if you want to distinguish from the US political label) strand of socialism. It's completely opposed to the Marxian state socialism conception which never does in fact become anarchist, Marx merely plays with definitions to argue that the "public power" - that remains in force - would no longer be "political". As if an enormous and vaguely defined group like 'the proletariat' isn't going to have internal disagreements and politics.

This is the split that broke the First International, btw, not just something I made up, and the Bakunin camp has been completely vindicated by history now that we see the actual results of Marxism in the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, and the rest.

e: I realise I didn't directly respond to your argument that conscripting children to work in factories isn't authoritarian, but don't think I ignored that, it's just self-rebutting.

[Bakustra]

Property rights are rights of humans over property, not rights belonging to pieces of property. Proudhon's Mutualism is a socialist vision of what property rights should be, which is why it's a liberal (or "libertarian" if you want to distinguish from the US political label) strand of socialism. It's completely opposed to the Marxian state socialism conception which never does in fact become anarchist, Marx merely plays with definitions to argue that the "public power" - that remains in force - would no longer be "political". As if an enormous and vaguely defined group like 'the proletariat' isn't going to have internal disagreements and politics.

This is the split that broke the First International, btw, not just something I made up, and the Bakunin camp has been completely vindicated by history now that we see the actual results of Marxism in the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, and the rest.

Property rights are inherently opposed to human rights because while human rights are the rights of the many and serve to share power, property rights are the rights of the few and serve to consolidate power. How does "trespassers will be shot on sight", a consequence of property rights taken to absolutism, fit with any sort of right to life? It doesn't, and indeed it supercedes the right to life, which would seem to be pretty damn fundamental to any system of human rights. The right to control property is inherently opposed to human rights- one cannot say that there is harmony when we have a right to free expression and a right to stop anybody from freely expressing themselves on our property. The only property rights that aren't as combative are rights of intellectual property, but those are the least coherent set of property rights! So libertarianism must choose between human rights and property rights as the more important. Anarchism and libertarian socialism chose human rights, liberalism chose property rights. That is not to say that property rights are inherently illegitimate- I used "prioritize" for a reason.

No, it hasn't, really. Marx argued that socialism could only emerge in industrialized nations, and since Marxism has never been implemented in an industrialized nation, it has never actually been put to the test and the failures of the USSR and PRC were anticipated by Marx, as he argued that a nation must first achieve the wealth surpluses of capitalism before it can develop working socialism, else it establishes a state capitalism that replicates the evils of capitalism but impedes socialism by making the state the capitalist class. This is also ignoring that Marx believed in mass revolutions and the vanguardism of the USSR and PRC is effectively opposed to that.

[HMS Conqueror]

Property rights are human rights. All property is owned by someone, not by itself, and just about everyone owns at least some property. In fact even in the authoritarian system Marx favours there are still property rights, but the state has them all. The question is: what is the just distribution of property rights? Mutualism says that everyone has a right to property in the produce of his labour, but not to rental or other investment income. I disagree personally, but I consider Mutualism to be a legitimate strand of liberal thought, because it tries to distribute property rights to individuals, and also to be socialist. Marxism takes property rights from individuals and gives them to a single omnipotent body, and we have seen the results of that quite clearly.

[Bakustra]

Property rights are human rights. All property is owned by someone, not by itself, and just about everyone owns at least some property. In fact even in the authoritarian system Marx favours there are still property rights, but the state has them all. The question is: what is the just distribution of property rights? Mutualism says that everyone has a right to property in the produce of his labour, but not to rental or other investment income. I disagree personally, but I consider Mutualism to be a legitimate strand of liberal thought, because it tries to distribute property rights to individuals, and also to be socialist. Marxism takes property rights from individuals and gives them to a single omnipotent body, and we have seen the results of that quite clearly.

Please address my actual points, you fucking idiot. How is the right to freedom of movement compatible with trespassing laws, or any of the other contradictions I brought up between human rights and property rights?

Also, Marxism is entirely about ensuring everybody has the full access to the fruits of their labor, you fucking idiot. That's not a difference between Proudhon and Marx at all.

[HMS Conqueror]

Trespassing laws (or something similar) are an inherent requirement of nature. Physical objects have exclusive uses. I can grow potatoes, or you can dig for oil. We can't do both with the same land. Philosophy is about deciding who has legitimate property rights in what. Liberalism says that, broadly speaking, individuals have property rights in 1. themselves 2. the things they use productively. Authoritarianism grants property rights in individuals and/or the things they use productively to other people.

Marxism is certainly not about ensuring people receive the fruits of their labour. If the actual manfiesto doesn't persuade you, how about the other strapline, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". You hopefully notice that these are contradictory.

[Bakustra]

Trespassing laws (or something similar) are an inherent requirement of nature. Physical objects have exclusive uses. I can grow potatoes, or you can dig for oil. We can't do both with the same land. Philosophy is about deciding who has legitimate property rights in what. Liberalism says that, broadly speaking, individuals have property rights in 1. themselves 2. the things they use productively. Authoritarianism grants property rights in individuals and/or the things they use productively to other people.

Marxism is certainly not about ensuring people receive the fruits of their labour. If the actual manfiesto doesn't persuade you, how about the other strapline, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". You hopefully notice that these are contradictory.

For fuck's sakes, learn context. This applies to both of your points, by the way. By the way, if that were the case, joint-stock companies would be illegal under liberalism, so you're wrong about the ideology you claim to believe in. Hah.

Finally, what exactly does "the workers must seize the means of production" mean to you, if we're going to reduce everything to catchphrases?

[HMS Conqueror]

Aside from that I didn't say anywhere I support joint stock companies, I don't understand why anything I said implies they should be illegal in liberalism. Joint stock companies are just poolings of property individuals already own.

This is one of those tricks of collective nouns. As he makes clear in his Manifesto, Marx wants The Workers to seize the means of production, by which he means the state. And the state should then distribute the fruits of The Workers's labour back to them in what manner it sees fit. He does not mean that individual workers should own shares in their place of work, which is what Proudhon means.

[Thanas]

This is one of those tricks of collective nouns. As he makes clear in his Manifesto, Marx wants The Workers to seize the means of production, by which he means the state. And the state should then distribute the fruits of The Workers's labour back to them in what manner it sees fit. He does not mean that individual workers should own shares in their place of work, which is what Proudhon means.

What is the practical difference if a worker collective owns the means of production or a shareholder's collective composed by workers own the means of production?

[Lord Zentei]

^
Insofar as the workers in the collectivist system must only own shares in the company for which they work, the liberal model allows for greater flexibility of ownership, more numerous sources of investment funds, and permits people to invest in companies other than the one they're working for.


@HMS Conqueror:
Don't say that Marx's philosophy is anti-freedom. It's simply nonsense to do so. You can assert that attempts to implement the Marxist model have all gone wrong, and you can claim that this is either due to the Marxist revolutionary process having been hijacked by corrupt groups and/or due to the fact that the Marxist model itself has been falsified as a useful means of achieving greater freedom for people. But that's a statement about the historic implementations of Marxism and the accuracy and reliability of Marxist socioeconomic theory, it's not to say that the actual philosophy itself was anti-freedom. I'm as much of a critic of Marx as the next guy (as resident communists will probably agree), but I certainly don't claim that Marx was gunning for reduction in people's freedoms.

[HMS Conqueror]

This is one of those tricks of collective nouns. As he makes clear in his Manifesto, Marx wants The Workers to seize the means of production, by which he means the state. And the state should then distribute the fruits of The Workers's labour back to them in what manner it sees fit. He does not mean that individual workers should own shares in their place of work, which is what Proudhon means.

What is the practical difference if a worker collective owns the means of production or a shareholder's collective composed by workers own the means of production?

Well, take two specific examples:

1. The steel industry is owned by the state, and I presumably have some input in how the people who make up the state is chosen (being generous, Vanguardists might disagree with you there).

2. SD.Net Blast Furnace Inc. is jointly owned by its 1,000 employees, of whom I am one.

There's a big difference in how much practical control I have over my own workplace in each situation. Also, the second example doesn't require a state with sweeping de-facto and de-jure powers. It can still have meaningful freedom of speech, to take one example, because there are still a lot of private, competing (albeit worker owned) printing shops, television stations, etc.

Lord Zentei: There is room for disagreement, but to say it's "simply nonsense" goes way too far. There are a number of very highly regarded philosophers who take the same stance, including, as I've said, many who self-identified as communists. And frankly, the words of the Communist Manifesto itself are pretty indisputable.

[Thanas]

Lord Zentei: There is room for disagreement, but to say it's "simply nonsense" goes way too far. There are a number of very highly regarded philosophers who take the same stance, including, as I've said, many who self-identified as communists. And frankly, the words of the Communist Manifesto itself are pretty indisputable.

No, it is nonsense, for you are ignoring the context in which the text was written.