6 ms·

If I understand correctly, when I make a nice app for a friend and you find out how much did he pay me, you will take out your gun, point at me and force me to

If I understand correctly, when I make a nice app for a friend and you find out how much did he pay me, you will take out your gun, point at me and force me to give you money to sponsor some people who you believe earn less than you think they deserve? This does not sound libertarian at all. How about: you do what you think is good for people and I do what I think is good for people. And we don't try to force each other to change our opinions. If you have something to say, put your gun down and make your arguments. Like we do here, over the internet. Edit: if you propose some tax system, who do you think should execute it? Who should carry a gun to force people to give money? Who will watch the people who carry guns? Who will decide when the force was applied incorrectly? Will you have a moral system when 50%+1 majority can switch morality of murder by 180 degrees?

steveklabnik 13y ago
You don't understand correctly. Socialism is simply worker control of the means of production, states, taxation, etc are entirely orthogonal. "Libertarian socialism" does not refer to social democracy, it refers to socialism. Furthermore, before the 1950s, "libertarian" meant socialist.
- ferdo 13y ago
  "Libertarian" used to be the opposite of "authoritarian": "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." -George Orwell, 1948 Because of the debasement of language, "libertarian" can now mean "creepy rightwingy person" or "antigovernment nutjob", depending on which flavor of Statism one prefers.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Totally. This is the underlying cause of why, since capitalist social and economic relations are inherently authoritarian. I believe by some sort of Rule of Discussions I am required to mention that Orwell was a socialist, to the point of picking up arms in Catalonia. Makes me chuckle every time I see a Republican quote 1984.
    - etherael 13y ago
      How is an economic relationship between two independent entities with complete freedom of action for both independent entities best described as "inherently authoritarian" ?
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        The snarky answer is "because that's not what capitalism is," but let's try to elevate the conversation a bit, shall we? First of all, capitalism is not a synonym for 'trade.' Trade between people has existed since forever, capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years. Secondly, capitalism relies on more than two entities; it also relies on someone to actually enforce property relations. So your explanation is far too simple to actually describe the situation. Your simplification hides the authority: the final arbiter and enforcer of private property. This is generally a state. It's also quite authoritarian. This is the kind of authority that socialists mean when they talk about authoritarian social relations. There's more to it than that, but that's the simplest introduction.
        etherael 13y ago
        > The snarky answer is "because that's not what capitalism is," but let's try to elevate the conversation a bit, shall we? Sure, lets. It would be a waste of time to just spin definitions in a way that makes us inherently right about whatever it is we're talking about without reference to a common agreed set of terms. When advocates for free markets or anarcho capitalists are talking about capitalism, they most decidedly are talking precisely about free trade. I am not sure where you're getting this other definition of capitalism that only exists as a subset of the westphalian nation state, that sounds a lot more like corporatism to me, where limited liability shells are set up with explicit protectionist policies and almost purchased legal protections supporting their manufactured business models from a nation state. Just to be clear where are you getting this definition of capitalism as a creation of the state and something that cannot exist without it, completely divorced from the free market? How would you describe markets which exist outside the control and sanction of the state and without any participatory enforcement by the state, frequently enough actually even actively opposed by the state? The "means of production" and the control of that means is not necessarily within the hands of "the workers" in the marxist sense in those situations, so how is this not a direct example of capitalism without the state? My description does not attempt to hide the authority, the seller is responsible for their security as is the buyer, they are both free to make whatever arrangements they choose with whatever other parties they choose in order to ensure the security of those products. Vendors might buy security cameras or other theft and violence deterrents. Buyers might buy insurance against defects or also be customers of third party organisations which have a vested interest in being trustworthy sources of information about the quality of products available at vendors a-z, and so on, and so forth. It is absolutely not implicitly necessary that security for both parties be provided by a nation state or its legislative, judicial and executive branches. If socialist criticisms of capitalism entirely rely upon classifying capitalism as a sub branch of the nation state, it seems an awfully big hole to not acknowledge that trade and markets can exist entirely divorced from nation states? Further on the subject of socialism; I don't see how it's actually possible for socialism to exist without states? Having a centralised body which exercises violent authority to which all parties must submit and participate in is pretty much the definition of a state, How can socialists criticise free market approaches for defacto use of state enforcement mechanisms because they are what is available rather than the only way free market participants may enforce their terms and conditions when the very nature of socialism is to rely on that exact same state but in a more direct way and with no alternative mechanism for enforcement at all? A political entity which dispenses edicts amongst a population which is entirely free to ignore them is little more than a church, of what consequence is a socialist platform without a monopoly on force to compel adherence to the edicts and forcibly finance the policies of the political entity through taxation?
  - inthewind 13y ago
    Yes, badges can so oversimplify and mislead. From Wikipedia: Democrat: is a proponent of democracy Republican: An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship Libertarianism: a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. All of them sound pretty great to me, to the point I could easily choose to be a republican libertarian democrat. Heck you could even probably be a republican libertarian democratic anarchist.
- etherael 13y ago
  So by describing socialism as orthogonal to taxation are you attempting to imply that socialism can exist without taxation? How exactly does that work? What does it in practice mean for "worker control of the means of production" to be enacted without violent centralised control administered by a political entity? "Worker control of the means of production" sounds an awful lot like classical marxist communism and all the associated implications. And thus the off in the reeds tangential strangeness associated with private vs personal property, ad et al.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    I'm not attempting anything, I'm telling you how socialists define and use the term 'socialism.' > How exactly does that work? It depends on what kind of socialist you're talking about, and at what scale. For example, the Mondragon corporation is a form of socialism. It's a worker co-operative with 80,000 employees. Another example of socialism at a larger scale is revolutionary Catalonia, where Orwell fought. For three years, the entire region was run in a socialist manner. Most industries operated under trade federations, and the rural areas also collectivised. Unfortunately, due to some squabbling between communists and anarchists, when the fascists showed up they got steamrolled. > "Worker control of the means of production" sounds an awful lot like classical marxist communism and all the associated implications You're close but wrong. There are two main forms of socialism: utopian and scientific. Marxism is the 'scientific' form, but communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless (maybe) society. In the Marxist framework, socialism is a step on the path to communism, not the same thing. But regardless of which kind you're talking about, workers run things rather than capitalists.
    - etherael 13y ago
      > It depends on what kind of socialist you're talking about, and at what scale. For example, the Mondragon corporation is a form of socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_corporation At the smaller scale; Intriguing stuff, but from reading this it sounds a whole lot like just another company with an interesting incentive scheme for employees and shareholders? From reading through that it seems to be just another market participant rather than some top down re-organisation of the entire market system itself. On the subject of revolutionary catalonia, it sure does sound more like what my initial perception of socialism really is, people being forcibly compelled to toe the communist party line with threats of death, ad et al. Against that backdrop I suppose it is unsurprising that the anarchists and communists were squabbling, and this is what I was aiming at with my initial criticism of socialism as a necessarily "political" entity rather than just another voluntary participant subject to the same market forces as all the other voluntary participants. And thus vulnerable to both poor market performance relative to the competition and also the negative externalities of being focused on politics rather than actual material results. > workers run things rather than capitalists. Doesn't that once again reduce to "workers control the means of production" and then you're left with workers councils figuring out what's personal vs private property and all the political nonsense that goes along with that, munging the entire thing once again at scale into a necessarily authoritarian and political entity?
dllthomas 13y ago
If I take your friend's phone and you find out about it, would you take out your gun, point it at me, and force me to ...? I expect the answer is "yes", so I'm assuming that for the remainder of this response - if the answer is "no" then let me know and I'll respond to that. I would contend that the reason you would be okay with responding to theft with (ultimately) violence is because it violates a social agreement (property rights) that our society has predominately agreed to adhere to. I do not see any inherent philosophical reason that violation of other aspects of our social compact (taxation) is different - if you believe it is, either inherently or as a matter of practicality - please explain your reasoning.

steveklabnik 13y ago

You don't understand correctly. Socialism is simply worker control of the means of production, states, taxation, etc are entirely orthogonal. "Libertarian socialism" does not refer to social democracy, it refers to socialism. Furthermore, before the 1950s, "libertarian" meant socialist.

ferdo 13y ago
"Libertarian" used to be the opposite of "authoritarian": "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." -George Orwell, 1948 Because of the debasement of language, "libertarian" can now mean "creepy rightwingy person" or "antigovernment nutjob", depending on which flavor of Statism one prefers.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Totally. This is the underlying cause of why, since capitalist social and economic relations are inherently authoritarian. I believe by some sort of Rule of Discussions I am required to mention that Orwell was a socialist, to the point of picking up arms in Catalonia. Makes me chuckle every time I see a Republican quote 1984.
  - etherael 13y ago
    How is an economic relationship between two independent entities with complete freedom of action for both independent entities best described as "inherently authoritarian" ?
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      The snarky answer is "because that's not what capitalism is," but let's try to elevate the conversation a bit, shall we? First of all, capitalism is not a synonym for 'trade.' Trade between people has existed since forever, capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years. Secondly, capitalism relies on more than two entities; it also relies on someone to actually enforce property relations. So your explanation is far too simple to actually describe the situation. Your simplification hides the authority: the final arbiter and enforcer of private property. This is generally a state. It's also quite authoritarian. This is the kind of authority that socialists mean when they talk about authoritarian social relations. There's more to it than that, but that's the simplest introduction.
      - etherael 13y ago
        > The snarky answer is "because that's not what capitalism is," but let's try to elevate the conversation a bit, shall we? Sure, lets. It would be a waste of time to just spin definitions in a way that makes us inherently right about whatever it is we're talking about without reference to a common agreed set of terms. When advocates for free markets or anarcho capitalists are talking about capitalism, they most decidedly are talking precisely about free trade. I am not sure where you're getting this other definition of capitalism that only exists as a subset of the westphalian nation state, that sounds a lot more like corporatism to me, where limited liability shells are set up with explicit protectionist policies and almost purchased legal protections supporting their manufactured business models from a nation state. Just to be clear where are you getting this definition of capitalism as a creation of the state and something that cannot exist without it, completely divorced from the free market? How would you describe markets which exist outside the control and sanction of the state and without any participatory enforcement by the state, frequently enough actually even actively opposed by the state? The "means of production" and the control of that means is not necessarily within the hands of "the workers" in the marxist sense in those situations, so how is this not a direct example of capitalism without the state? My description does not attempt to hide the authority, the seller is responsible for their security as is the buyer, they are both free to make whatever arrangements they choose with whatever other parties they choose in order to ensure the security of those products. Vendors might buy security cameras or other theft and violence deterrents. Buyers might buy insurance against defects or also be customers of third party organisations which have a vested interest in being trustworthy sources of information about the quality of products available at vendors a-z, and so on, and so forth. It is absolutely not implicitly necessary that security for both parties be provided by a nation state or its legislative, judicial and executive branches. If socialist criticisms of capitalism entirely rely upon classifying capitalism as a sub branch of the nation state, it seems an awfully big hole to not acknowledge that trade and markets can exist entirely divorced from nation states? Further on the subject of socialism; I don't see how it's actually possible for socialism to exist without states? Having a centralised body which exercises violent authority to which all parties must submit and participate in is pretty much the definition of a state, How can socialists criticise free market approaches for defacto use of state enforcement mechanisms because they are what is available rather than the only way free market participants may enforce their terms and conditions when the very nature of socialism is to rely on that exact same state but in a more direct way and with no alternative mechanism for enforcement at all? A political entity which dispenses edicts amongst a population which is entirely free to ignore them is little more than a church, of what consequence is a socialist platform without a monopoly on force to compel adherence to the edicts and forcibly finance the policies of the political entity through taxation?
- inthewind 13y ago
  Yes, badges can so oversimplify and mislead. From Wikipedia: Democrat: is a proponent of democracy Republican: An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship Libertarianism: a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. All of them sound pretty great to me, to the point I could easily choose to be a republican libertarian democrat. Heck you could even probably be a republican libertarian democratic anarchist.
etherael 13y ago
So by describing socialism as orthogonal to taxation are you attempting to imply that socialism can exist without taxation? How exactly does that work? What does it in practice mean for "worker control of the means of production" to be enacted without violent centralised control administered by a political entity? "Worker control of the means of production" sounds an awful lot like classical marxist communism and all the associated implications. And thus the off in the reeds tangential strangeness associated with private vs personal property, ad et al.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I'm not attempting anything, I'm telling you how socialists define and use the term 'socialism.' > How exactly does that work? It depends on what kind of socialist you're talking about, and at what scale. For example, the Mondragon corporation is a form of socialism. It's a worker co-operative with 80,000 employees. Another example of socialism at a larger scale is revolutionary Catalonia, where Orwell fought. For three years, the entire region was run in a socialist manner. Most industries operated under trade federations, and the rural areas also collectivised. Unfortunately, due to some squabbling between communists and anarchists, when the fascists showed up they got steamrolled. > "Worker control of the means of production" sounds an awful lot like classical marxist communism and all the associated implications You're close but wrong. There are two main forms of socialism: utopian and scientific. Marxism is the 'scientific' form, but communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless (maybe) society. In the Marxist framework, socialism is a step on the path to communism, not the same thing. But regardless of which kind you're talking about, workers run things rather than capitalists.
  - etherael 13y ago
    > It depends on what kind of socialist you're talking about, and at what scale. For example, the Mondragon corporation is a form of socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_corporation At the smaller scale; Intriguing stuff, but from reading this it sounds a whole lot like just another company with an interesting incentive scheme for employees and shareholders? From reading through that it seems to be just another market participant rather than some top down re-organisation of the entire market system itself. On the subject of revolutionary catalonia, it sure does sound more like what my initial perception of socialism really is, people being forcibly compelled to toe the communist party line with threats of death, ad et al. Against that backdrop I suppose it is unsurprising that the anarchists and communists were squabbling, and this is what I was aiming at with my initial criticism of socialism as a necessarily "political" entity rather than just another voluntary participant subject to the same market forces as all the other voluntary participants. And thus vulnerable to both poor market performance relative to the competition and also the negative externalities of being focused on politics rather than actual material results. > workers run things rather than capitalists. Doesn't that once again reduce to "workers control the means of production" and then you're left with workers councils figuring out what's personal vs private property and all the political nonsense that goes along with that, munging the entire thing once again at scale into a necessarily authoritarian and political entity?

dllthomas 13y ago

If I take your friend's phone and you find out about it, would you take out your gun, point it at me, and force me to ...? I expect the answer is "yes", so I'm assuming that for the remainder of this response - if the answer is "no" then let me know and I'll respond to that. I would contend that the reason you would be okay with responding to theft with (ultimately) violence is because it violates a social agreement (property rights) that our society has predominately agreed to adhere to. I do not see any inherent philosophical reason that violation of other aspects of our social compact (taxation) is different - if you believe it is, either inherently or as a matter of practicality - please explain your reasoning.