Current Events > I think I'm a libertarian socialist.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It just makes sense. If you're against the idea of authority but believe in the collective power of the worker, then you should read up on it.

sounds dangerously close to commie
---

Are you also a homosexual heterosexual?
---

Dry water

FLUFFYGERM posted...

sounds dangerously close to commie

Do you like the idea of Big Brother? Neither do I. I don't like communism in the American political sense either.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Are you also a homosexual heterosexual?

I know you like to argue, but perhaps you should read up on what it is rather than make assumptions.

treewojima posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Are you also a homosexual heterosexual?

I know you like to argue, but perhaps you should read up on what it is rather than make assumptions.

Sounds like a yes
---

I have no political views because politics is for powerful people
---

yeah it sounds nice in theory when you're 13 years old until you realize it's an impossible pipe-dream

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dry water

"Libertarian" in the American sense is free market economics plus individual liberty. I think the free market is nonsense.

Kyurem-Black posted...

yeah it sounds nice in theory when you're 13 years old until you realize it's an impossible pipe-dream

I'm not an idiot, I know that the US isn't going to change any time soon. Doesn't mean I can't strive for an ideal. It starts with being politically active at the local level.

treewojima posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dry water

"Libertarian" in the American sense is free market economics plus individual liberty. I think the free market is nonsense.

A fully free market is dangerous yes but it's extremely important to the economy for a market to be relatively free.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Are you also a homosexual heterosexual?

---

Godnorgosh posted...

If you consider yourself a libsoc, I'd recommend reading up on anarcho-syndicalism.

I'm sure I will sooner or later. I think I already have - an anarchist system organized by labor unions/syndicates, right?

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.
---

You and me both TC.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

treewojima posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dry water

"Libertarian" in the American sense is free market economics plus individual liberty. I think the free market is nonsense.

A fully free market is dangerous yes but it's extremely important to the economy for a market to be relatively free.

Depends on what you want the outcome of the particular market to be, as well as the side effects on the population.

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.

Central banking is a form of authority. If I have more money than you, I have power over you - and the central bank has power over all. In an absolutely ideal society, there would be no money - allocation of resources would be based on collective needs first, then individual wants.

Of course, we're speaking in absolute ideals here. I'm aware of resource scarcity.

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.

Central banking is a form of authority. If I have more money than you, I have power over you - and the central bank has power over all. In an absolutely ideal society, there would be no money - allocation of resources would be based on collective needs first, then individual wants.

Of course, we're speaking in absolute ideals here. I'm aware of resource scarcity.

You dont like central banking? Fantastic! Neither does Ron Paul, and neither do I. But money existed long before central banks did because it arises naturally to address a market need.

Society needs market prices to allocate resources rationally. This is why a group of libertarians who hate central banking as much as anyone (Ludwig Vin Mises and the Austrian School) were able to correctly predict the fall of the Soviet Union way back in 1921.
---

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all
---

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.

Central banking is a form of authority. If I have more money than you, I have power over you - and the central bank has power over all. In an absolutely ideal society, there would be no money - allocation of resources would be based on collective needs first, then individual wants.

Of course, we're speaking in absolute ideals here. I'm aware of resource scarcity.

You dont like central banking? Fantastic! Neither does Ron Paul, and neither do I. But money existed long before central banks did because it arises naturally to address a market need.

Society needs market prices to allocate resources rationally. This is why a group of libertarians who hate central banking as much as anyone (Ludwig Vin Mises and the Austrian School) were able to correctly predict the fall of the Soviet Union way back in 1921.

The USSR was a joke. They squelched uprisings in anarchist Spain with brute force, which means they never really gave a shit about the people. Let's not talk about the tens (maybe hundreds) of millions killed under their direct command or endorsement.

But you're imagining a system that relies on market forces. What are the alternatives to market forces?

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed
---

Libertarian socialist?

does not compute
---

socialism cant survive. societies that dont at all respect someones private property rights and earned profits grind to a halt
---

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.

Central banking is a form of authority. If I have more money than you, I have power over you - and the central bank has power over all. In an absolutely ideal society, there would be no money - allocation of resources would be based on collective needs first, then individual wants.

Of course, we're speaking in absolute ideals here. I'm aware of resource scarcity.

You dont like central banking? Fantastic! Neither does Ron Paul, and neither do I. But money existed long before central banks did because it arises naturally to address a market need.

Society needs market prices to allocate resources rationally. This is why a group of libertarians who hate central banking as much as anyone (Ludwig Vin Mises and the Austrian School) were able to correctly predict the fall of the Soviet Union way back in 1921.

The USSR was a joke. They squelched uprisings in anarchist Spain with brute force, which means they never really gave a shit about the people. Let's not talk about the tens (maybe hundreds) of millions killed under their direct command or endorsement.

But you're imagining a system that relies on market forces. What are the alternatives to market forces?

The alternative to voluntary market transactions is coercion, just like the alternative to consensual sex, freely choosing who you marry, etc.

I suspect that you arrived at your way of thinking because you mixed up a free market with crony capitalism, based on your comment about central banks. I'm not trying to bust your chops btw, most people in the US know literally nothing about the Federal Reserve.

The below gives a good overview of what I mean when I say that crony capitalism =/= a free market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DI9qfgxbkU" data-time="
---

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

have you seen the US

its not going to stop being a corporate hellscape on its own
---

Godnorgosh posted...

PanzerElite posted...

Libertarian socialist?

does not compute

Left-libertarianism is pretty old, dawg

Anarchism is quite old.
Personally, I doubt we could get by without a power structure of some kind, but what do I know? Only that which is, which isn't all that can be.

DavidWong posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed

In my way, there is no government. Power is directly allocated by autonomous collectives based on democratic processes. If said collective decides to create some sort of vertical hierarchy, it can be immediately recalled. You can have a leader, but if he fucks things up you can kick him or her out. As long as a person knows what they're doing, all is well.

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed

In my way, there is no government. Power is directly allocated by autonomous collectives based on democratic processes. If said collective decides to create some sort of vertical hierarchy, it can be immediately recalled. You can have a leader, but if he fucks things up you can kick him or her out. As long as a person knows what they're doing, all is well.

That's literally what a fucking government is, dude
---

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

treewojima posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Then you arent as anti-authority as you think you are.

Do tell.

You want to prevent price discovery and market competition. That requires very powerful central authority.

Central banking is a form of authority. If I have more money than you, I have power over you - and the central bank has power over all. In an absolutely ideal society, there would be no money - allocation of resources would be based on collective needs first, then individual wants.

Of course, we're speaking in absolute ideals here. I'm aware of resource scarcity.

You dont like central banking? Fantastic! Neither does Ron Paul, and neither do I. But money existed long before central banks did because it arises naturally to address a market need.

Society needs market prices to allocate resources rationally. This is why a group of libertarians who hate central banking as much as anyone (Ludwig Vin Mises and the Austrian School) were able to correctly predict the fall of the Soviet Union way back in 1921.

The USSR was a joke. They squelched uprisings in anarchist Spain with brute force, which means they never really gave a shit about the people. Let's not talk about the tens (maybe hundreds) of millions killed under their direct command or endorsement.

But you're imagining a system that relies on market forces. What are the alternatives to market forces?

The alternative to voluntary market transactions is coercion, just like the alternative to consensual sex, freely choosing who you marry, etc.

I suspect that you arrived at your way of thinking because you mixed up a free market with crony capitalism, based on your comment about central banks. I'm not trying to bust your chops btw, most people in the US know literally nothing about the Federal Reserve.

The below gives a good overview of what I mean when I say that crony capitalism =/= a free market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DI9qfgxbkU" data-time="

Capitalism requires a force to act upon an individual. If your force is greater than my force, we are unequal. Hence, capitalism cannot assure equality.

I'm pretty close to being one as well.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed

In my way, there is no government. Power is directly allocated by autonomous collectives based on democratic processes. If said collective decides to create some sort of vertical hierarchy, it can be immediately recalled. You can have a leader, but if he fucks things up you can kick him or her out. As long as a person knows what they're doing, all is well.

That's literally what a fucking government is, dude

Let me correct my statement. Government isn't bad, as long as it derives direct authority from the people. The state is bad. I should have used "state" in the sense of "government."

The important point to derive is that governments' authority should derive directly from the people. If you're among a group of people, and you arrive at a democratic conclusion at where you should go out to eat, is that decision a separate entity? Or did you just make an agreement to get some food?

treewojima posted...

Capitalism requires a force to act upon an individual. If your force is greater than my force, we are unequal. Hence, capitalism cannot assure equality.

lol'd
---

treewojima posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed

In my way, there is no government. Power is directly allocated by autonomous collectives based on democratic processes. If said collective decides to create some sort of vertical hierarchy, it can be immediately recalled. You can have a leader, but if he fucks things up you can kick him or her out. As long as a person knows what they're doing, all is well.

That's literally what a fucking government is, dude

Let me correct my statement. Government isn't bad, as long as it derives direct authority from the people. The state is bad. I should have used "state" in the sense of "government."

The important point to derive is that governments' authority should derive directly from the people. If you're among a group of people, and you arrive at a democratic conclusion at where you should go out to eat, is that decision a separate entity? Or did you just make an agreement to get some food?

there is no meaningful difference between a state and a government.

once you have elected officials and a discernible power structure and organization, you have a state/government
---

Me too, bro
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

treewojima posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed

In my way, there is no government. Power is directly allocated by autonomous collectives based on democratic processes. If said collective decides to create some sort of vertical hierarchy, it can be immediately recalled. You can have a leader, but if he fucks things up you can kick him or her out. As long as a person knows what they're doing, all is well.

That's literally what a fucking government is, dude

Let me correct my statement. Government isn't bad, as long as it derives direct authority from the people. The state is bad. I should have used "state" in the sense of "government."

The important point to derive is that governments' authority should derive directly from the people. If you're among a group of people, and you arrive at a democratic conclusion at where you should go out to eat, is that decision a separate entity? Or did you just make an agreement to get some food?

there is no meaningful difference between a state and a government.

once you have elected officials and a discernible power structure and organization, you have a state/government

So now we're dropping into a debate about hierarchy. This will inevitably turn into a debate about human nature and autonomy. Have you ever conceded that you were wrong in an argument?

hockeybub89 posted...

Me too, bro

It's a weird feeling, isn't it? Hating the idea of authority while living under it.

treewojima posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Me too, bro

It's a weird feeling, isn't it? Hating the idea of authority while living under it.

Not really.
---

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

treewojima posted...

DavidWong posted...

government intervention in economics = bad news

the idea of the "state" existing who provide healthcare, roads, police, hospitals, courts and that's all = good time for all

There doesn't have to be a state to allocate those resources. Does the state or federal government tell your local fire department how to operate? No, they just give them money to do so. A local fire station operates on its own - likely with a bureaucracy, but it could just as easily operate as a democratic institution.

Yes, but the citizens paying taxes to a central government who then allocates those funds to the states based on need is better than having the state with the most citizens immediately having the most money.

That will still happen of course, but my way, funds are more fairly allocated and the states are given all they need rather than hoarding money. Let the government hoard money and allocate out to states when needed, rather than states hoarding money and not providing to other states who will need it.

of course, my way requires a totally fair and impartial federal government to succeed

In my way, there is no government. Power is directly allocated by autonomous collectives based on democratic processes. If said collective decides to create some sort of vertical hierarchy, it can be immediately recalled. You can have a leader, but if he fucks things up you can kick him or her out. As long as a person knows what they're doing, all is well.

Fair enough. Different ideals.
---

Kineth posted...

treewojima posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Me too, bro

It's a weird feeling, isn't it? Hating the idea of authority while living under it.

Not really.

Then I'd submit that you're conditioned to accept it, whether you know it or not. It's not your fault, it's just what you're comfortable with. I don't think any less of you for it - I just ask that you question it.

Everyone should question authority, regardless of its origin.

Yes I have.

You're just posting shit for the sake of posting now, treewojima, so I wouldn't call it a debate.
---

treewojima posted...

Kineth posted...

treewojima posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Me too, bro

It's a weird feeling, isn't it? Hating the idea of authority while living under it.

Not really.

Then I'd submit that you're conditioned to accept it, whether you know it or not. It's not your fault, it's just what you're comfortable with. I don't think any less of you for it - I just ask that you question it.

Everyone should question authority, regardless of its origin.

Uh, I was saying that it isn't weird to hate authority while living under it and earlier I said that I'm adjacent to being a libertarian socialist.
---

treewojima posted...

Capitalism requires a force to act upon an individual. If your force is greater than my force, we are unequal. Hence, capitalism cannot assure equality.

lmao
---

Kineth posted...

treewojima posted...

Kineth posted...

treewojima posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Me too, bro

It's a weird feeling, isn't it? Hating the idea of authority while living under it.

Not really.

Then I'd submit that you're conditioned to accept it, whether you know it or not. It's not your fault, it's just what you're comfortable with. I don't think any less of you for it - I just ask that you question it.

Everyone should question authority, regardless of its origin.

Uh, I was saying that it isn't weird to hate authority while living under it and earlier I said that I'm adjacent to being a libertarian socialist.

Lol, I totally missed your last post and misunderstood then. My bad.

treewojima posted...

Capitalism requires a force to act upon an individual. If your force is greater than my force, we are unequal. Hence, capitalism cannot assure equality.

I don't think you appreciate how much central power is necessary to maintain "equality".
---