140 replies to this topic

[captainbeefheart]

At any rate, I don't wish to upset anyone with my politics, I'm sure many here won't agree with them as no one here has clearly ever read any Marxist material but I am getting a bit tired of the constant Libertarian rhetoric I see around here, it's very off putting I find generally to want to help a movement with what appears to be a political agenda. You can believe that stuff if you want but by trying to make this movement purely a Libertarian one I don't think you have any idea how damaging that could be.

I'm not saying that private funding would be bad, as when I talk about socialism I mean a society totally free of the free market and of money, and we don't live in that society, so you work with what you got. We do need private funding at the moment for this stuff, I agree on that. But I find it mad that some think we should have this narrow thought of how we can achieve what we want here, spread your net, don't alienate groups and create a niche!

[eternaltraveler]

as no one here has clearly ever read any Marxist material

on the contrary. I've read quite a bit. Know thy enemy

trying to make this movement purely a Libertarian one

It's hardly that. It's less libertarian now than it's been in the time I've been a part of it. Pragmatism should win out since the world is not going to become a libertarian or marxist utopia any time soon.

[captainbeefheart]

on the contrary. I've read quite a bit. Know thy enemy

well I hope you don't consider me your enemy, I just want a better world, that's all!

It's hardly that. It's less libertarian now than it's been in the time I've been a part of it. Pragmatism should win out since the world is not going to become a libertarian or marxist utopia any time soon.

Agreed, I don't see it happening any time soon. I merely mean I hope people don't get it in their heads that you have to believe in a certain political ideology to be a transhunist, life extentionist or whatever! Like for instance the fight ageing blog is clearly written by a Libertarian, there are many posts on that blog I simply couldn't tweet, or post on facebook or what not. Although the last few have been fine!

Edited by captainbeefheart, 24 August 2009 - 03:33 PM.

[JLL]

The Marx you so love, with Engels, openly wrote in newspapers at the time that people in inferior nations/cultures should be exterminated. He was pro-holocaust, there's no denying it.

Hitler later took this same idea but swapped nations/cultures for races. Regardless of the details of implementation, both national socialism and communism are based on the idea that it is okay for some to decide how others should live (and, unfortunately, die).

If you subscribe to this idea, then go ahead. Personally, I find it utterly disgusting.

[captainbeefheart]

Wow, well when you have no actual arguments then you can always throw in Godwins law!

Nonsense of course, the anti semtism red herring I have heard before which could only be concluded from a superficial understanding of what Marx wrote in 'On The Jewish Question'. It has some rather crude language indeed. The irony is that it was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians. Marx himself was Jewish, his father was a Rabbi, he was ashamed of all that as he was a Materialist and didn't believe in all that stuff, which is why he seemed hostile to it, he wanted to separate himself from it.

[captainbeefheart]

come on, it's easy to find little quotes here and there you can make something seem different to what it is.

Victorian England was an unregulated Capitalist system and look at the horrors that happened under that. Or how many people have lost their lives from people cutting corners to make more money. We culdbe here all day talking about the horrors under the name of capitalism! It's always bizarre when people try and find little things like this in defence of capitalism when that system has created so much death and suffering, it's so illogical!

Edited by captainbeefheart, 24 August 2009 - 04:58 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

Or if you meant the Mexico comment

"Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?"

Again taken way out of context it was a comment on the Mexican state and at the reality of the material conditions in Mexico at the time, not against the people...but nice try.

Marx lived in an age when racial biases were the norm. Marx was a long term proponent of the abolition of slavery and equal rights for all. In that respect he was incredibly advanced for his time.

And at any rate your argument still has nothing to do with Communism/Socialism as a system and 'Marxism' is much bigger then Marx the man...

[JLL]

Has nothing to do with anti-semitism. It was Hitler who was concerned with the jews.

EDIT: Here's some information on what I'm referring to: http://ziontruth.blo...engels-and.html

Now here is "Hungary and Panslavism" that Friedrich Engels had published the previous month [January 1849], also approved by Marx who wrote for the same publication [Neue Rheinische Zeitung]:

These remains of nations [the Slavic peoples] which have been mercilessly trampled down by the passage of history, as Hegel expressed it, this ethnic trash always becomes and remains until its complete extermination or denationalization, the most fanatic carrier of counterrevolution, since its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. . . [p 63]

I'm trying to find a video about this very same thing, but can't remember the right search terms. In any case, this is one of the quotes I'm talking about:

http://jonjayray.tri...m/lefteug2.html

"In January 1849, months before he migrated to London, Karl Marx published an article by Friedrich Engels in Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung announcing that in Central Europe only Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress. The rest must go. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

Found it:

Edited by JLL, 24 August 2009 - 07:34 PM.

[JLL]

And, what I said earlier still stands:

Regardless of the details of implementation, both national socialism and communism are based on the idea that it is okay for some to decide how others should live (and, unfortunately, die).

[rwac]

Found it:

That was a good video. I'm surprised I haven't seen it before.
Thanks for posting it.

[captainbeefheart]

Shame that actually appears to be a mis translation from German to English...

Again though as I said Marxism is bigger then one man, or two men or a hundred men! There are a lot of Marxist writers, saying many things I probably don't agree with. Instead of actually attacking what I have talked about you have decided to just slander characters instead. You can find a couple pretty awful bits of writing very much of it's time, but these are indivdules, not Marxism as a whole...

This is like saying the founders of America agreed with the slave trade, so american liberty is about the slave trade is it? It's nonsense. Marx said many things i don't agree with, and many things I do, he advanced the labour movement by a long way. He was also a drunk who fathered many illegitimate children... He wasn't perfect...

Regardless of the details of implementation, both national socialism and communism are based on the idea that it is okay for some to decide how others should live (and, unfortunately, die).

No, it's not even a system of government...

It's writing to inform people of the class system. Once class is removed from society Marxism essentially doesn't exist anymore. It's about achieving demrcrascy, we all rule, bottom up, not top down like you describe.

[captainbeefheart]

Found it:

That was a good video. I'm surprised I haven't seen it before.
Thanks for posting it.

You have probably not seen it before because it would not stand up to any close scrutiny...

[Blue]

Theory is nice but experiments rule. Lots of people have tried to implement socialism. Not just the Communist states which in fact were quite varied from the technophobic Red Kmers to the corporatist Yugoslavia to self-sufficient Chinese Communes to industrialist centrally planned Soviet Union. All failed. More importantly, socialism has also always failed even when enthusiastic true believers have gathered together in communities like Owen's New Haven. They inevitably have failed or if they have survived like the Israeli kibbutzim for a longer period it is due to continuing state support and bankruptcy bail-outs with the money ultimately coming from taxation of the private sectior.

So socialism has been extensively tried and for whatever reason it has not worked.

[eternaltraveler]

well I hope you don't consider me your enemy

No. Only one of the particular philosophies you have.

I merely mean I hope people don't get it in their heads that you have to believe in a certain political ideology to be a transhunist, life extentionist or whatever!

Of course. Death is big enough of a common enemy that capitalism, socialism and every other ism should damn well unite in the fight against it and worry about their own bickering once that enemy is cast down.

[captainbeefheart]

So socialism has been extensively tried and for whatever reason it has not worked.

You are indeed correct, in a way, it has been attempted, and failed. However the problem with this argument is that...so has capitalism. Capitalism doesn't work and fails frequently i.e. how we have recession after recession, how it has never solved the problems of poverty. The only way it even deals with it is with socliased systems which are pockets of socialism! That or charity which just shows a failure of Capitalism.

I think we should also look at why socialism has failed, socialism has hardly ever been given a fair go. Take the Commune De Paris which probably is the closest we have ever come to a true socialist system, it was workers control. However this was soon put to a stop when the Republican guard was sent in a massacred them all...

In Cuba it did start out with Marxist ideas however as America refused to trade and Cuba being a small place they had no choice but to accept help from the soviet union and it slowly lost it's Marxist ideas. Russia failed because it was unable to get help from other nations, and as I said and as any Marxist would say it must be international to work.

So far I haven't seen any unique or convincing arguments against socialism, simply slanderous attacks from very dubious sources that are not backed up by any sources, just this historian fellow who clearly has the argument set out before finding out the history, and not to mention ignores the extremely bloody and racist history he supports! Always baffles me that one!

[JLL]

The kind of capitalism you're talking about is not the kind of capitalism libertarians advocate - it's a mixture between capitalism and socialism.

Libertarians claim that the reason this "capitalism" has failed is precisely because there is too much socialism (i.e. state control) in it. The bailout, for example, could not happen if there was no state and no taxes. The bailout is pure socialist thinking - even the so-called capitalists admit that. But they are wrong in saying that they are using socialist tools to fix a capitalist problem. In reality, they are using socialist tools to fix a socialist problem. Of course, what you need is a capitalist fix for the socialist problem, but that's not going to happen.

Capitalism, by definition, requires no state. The essential point of capitalism is the (absolute) ownership of private property - this also separates it from socialism and communism. Some minarchists would say the existence of the state is optional with capitalism, but I argue that the two are mutually exclusive. Either you are entitled to own property, or there exists a state that has the power to tax you and therefore steal your property.

But yes, I agree that the kind of "capitalism" we have has failed and will continue to fail. Until the state is removed from the equation, the same cycles will happen all over again.

As a side note, libertarian capitalism has been tried a few times, and it was quite succesful. The (not-so) wild west is a good example. But, this experiment vanished as state control spread throughout the gold mines and private law systems of the time.

The one thing in common with capitalist and socialist experiments is that they were both destroyed by socialists.

[JLL]

And once again, the difference between a libertarian experiment and a socialist experiment is that when you ask the libertarian "what if I don't wanna come and live in your taxless utopia?", he will answer "that's okay; you can choose to live under a state if you like." When you ask a socialist "what if I don't wanna come and live in your socialist utopia?", he will answer "then we will force you."

Socialists believe forcing people to do what they think is good (pay taxes, help the poor, etc.) at gunpoint is okay. Libertarians do not. This is crucial.

[Blue]

Capitalism without a state (anarcho-capitalism) has had as little success as socialism. The "Wild West" is not an example. The territory was always claimed by the US who defended it with troops against internal and external enemies. As well as usually quickly introducing functioning law enforcement and other state functions once the population density got big enough. More generally, if there is in fact no state what happens is that after a period of violent struggle a number of armed gangs or tribes create new de facto states each which controll a territory. Like in Somalia. The anarcho-capitalist dream that a person would be able to choose and buy military protection from a number of different providers has never happened. Military protection is always a monopoly on a certain terriotry except briefly during civil wars.

[captainbeefheart]

As a side note, libertarian capitalism has been tried a few times, and it was quite succesful. The (not-so) wild west is a good example. But, this experiment vanished as state control spread throughout the gold mines and private law systems of the time.

Actually I'd say the opposite, Victorian Britain saw the states power stripped away, total non regulation, much of the rhetoric of Libertarianism and it didn't work.

Adam Smith I see quoted by Libs a lot, with hindsight we can see he got things very wrong. Marx on the other hand got much more correct.

Chile, is a good example of Libertarianism. The Socialist, democratically elected president got overthrown by a American funded Coup resulting in the death of millions. The country stripped away any state intervention, gave absolute power to the free market. What we saw was a few indivdules getting unimaginably rich and the majority living in extreme poverty, wages for the first time in their history began rolling backwards.

As Blue mentioned the US has always been controlled by one state or another.

Look at which countries have the highest general standard of living, always the more socialised countries. Look at Cuba, granted certainly not a example of a socialist country. However are the Cuban people better off now then before the Cuban revolution? Massively. The Islands around Cuba had a smilier political position as Cuba around the revolution. Look now and the countries around Cuba with free markets and what not are largely the same, mass poverty and suffering, and half the life exptenancy of Cubans. And as I said if it wasn't for the USA intentionally trying to destroy it the perhaps we would have seen a good example of socialism, but I guess we won't know!

The recession we're in was caused by unregulated markets, like the 30s crash was. I see no evidence that unregulated capitalism works, just the opposite, whilst being given a fair crack at the whip, which socialism never has...

And once again, the difference between a libertarian experiment and a socialist experiment is that when you ask the libertarian "what if I don't wanna come and live in your taxless utopia?", he will answer "that's okay; you can choose to live under a state if you like." When you ask a socialist "what if I don't wanna come and live in your socialist utopia?", he will answer "then we will force you."

That doesn't make sense firstly. But also what freedom is there to choose to live under Capitalism or not? You have to play by the capitalist rules or you starve, you don't own your means of production so you work for someone else at what they will pay you, which usually is enough to get by, let alone reinvest your capital into the system to make money. That's not freedom, that's freedom for the rich. Some indeed do make it, but how many million suffer for one rockafella, it's such a waste of human potential. What if Darwin had been born poor, he would never have had the time to make the discoveries he did.

The only way a socialist revolution occurs is when the majority understand that the way of life under capitalism is intolerable and do something about it. The masses do not own the means of production, have little money so indvdully are powerless so cannot force anything onto anyone in our system. So socialism is democracy!

[valkyrie_ice]

I always love the anarcho-capitalists. Absolute ownership indeed. No government. No laws. Just absolute Free Market.

But in a free market of that nature, say we both run the same business? My product may suck compared to yours, but I still want to get your customers.

So, what's the easiest way for me to get all your customers? I kill you and take everything you own for myself. After all, there is no government to stop me, and by my moral code, or lack thereof, I'm simply insuring my own survival, right? I simply out competed you in the FREE MARKET.

Everyone seem to forget that humans are not ALL peaceful, kind, loving, and caring people who are willing to "play by the rules" and that is why GOVERNMENT exists. When it is government ruled by the people it ensures that those who refuse to play by the rules cannot just do as they wish. In the absence of restraint, violence will always win.

Until such as time as we can overcome these primitive behaviors as a species, Government will be needed to ensure that there is a level playing field and that everyone is playing by the same rules. In a true open democracy, there will be no need for a separate body of legislators, enforcers, and judges because EVERYONE will be the government, but we don't have that yet. Until then, we must do the best we can with what we have, and try our best to ensure our government ensures everyone equal status before law, equal access to everything required for Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and a level playing field in every aspect of society. Could free markets provide it better? Possibly, but our history shows all too well that they will not, because leveling the playing field is not in the interest of any highly successful competitor, after all, if it were, they might be out-competed. Survival of the fittest only works when someone can't figure out ways to rig the game.

I don't care what you try to label that as, it is simply a truth we must live with until such a time as we can remove the unwanted and primitive behaviors from our species that lead to wars, poverty, exploitation, and violence.

I'm certain I will be flamed by many sides for daring to actually point out WHY government is needed, but I'm simply telling the truth as I see it.

[Blue]

As a side note, libertarian capitalism has been tried a few times, and it was quite succesful. The (not-so) wild west is a good example. But, this experiment vanished as state control spread throughout the gold mines and private law systems of the time.

Actually I'd say the opposite, Victorian Britain saw the states power stripped away, total non regulation, much of the rhetoric of Libertarianism and it didn't work.

Adam Smith I see quoted by Libs a lot, with hindsight we can see he got things very wrong. Marx on the other hand got much more correct.

Chile, is a good example of Libertarianism. The Socialist, democratically elected president got overthrown by a American funded Coup resulting in the death of millions. The country stripped away any state intervention, gave absolute power to the free market. What we saw was a few indivdules getting unimaginably rich and the majority living in extreme poverty, wages for the first time in their history began rolling backwards.

As Blue mentioned the US has always been controlled by one state or another.

Look at which countries have the highest general standard of living, always the more socialised countries. Look at Cuba, granted certainly not a example of a socialist country. However are the Cuban people better off now then before the Cuban revolution? Massively. The Islands around Cuba had a smilier political position as Cuba around the revolution. Look now and the countries around Cuba with free markets and what not are largely the same, mass poverty and suffering, and half the life exptenancy of Cubans. And as I said if it wasn't for the USA intentionally trying to destroy it the perhaps we would have seen a good example of socialism, but I guess we won't know!

The recession we're in was caused by unregulated markets, like the 30s crash was. I see no evidence that unregulated capitalism works, just the opposite, whilst being given a fair crack at the whip, which socialism never has...

And once again, the difference between a libertarian experiment and a socialist experiment is that when you ask the libertarian "what if I don't wanna come and live in your taxless utopia?", he will answer "that's okay; you can choose to live under a state if you like." When you ask a socialist "what if I don't wanna come and live in your socialist utopia?", he will answer "then we will force you."

That doesn't make sense firstly. But also what freedom is there to choose to live under Capitalism or not? You have to play by the capitalist rules or you starve, you don't own your means of production so you work for someone else at what they will pay you, which usually is enough to get by, let alone reinvest your capital into the system to make money. That's not freedom, that's freedom for the rich. Some indeed do make it, but how many million suffer for one rockafella, it's such a waste of human potential. What if Darwin had been born poor, he would never have had the time to make the discoveries he did.

The only way a socialist revolution occurs is when the majority understand that the way of life under capitalism is intolerable and do something about it. The masses do not own the means of production, have little money so indvdully are powerless so cannot force anything onto anyone in our system. So socialism is democracy!

Lots of mistakes regarding Victorian England and industrial revolution. Conditions were worse before the industrial revolution. People lived on the edge of starvation. With the industrial (and agricultural revolution) this stopped. People could see most of their children grow up. Yes, working conditions were horrible but overall this was still an improvement. Further improvements could only take place after gdp/capita has increased further. If gdp/capita is low enough conditions will be bad.

Regarding Chile, also check your facts. The reforms introduced made its economy grew rapidly it is now far richer than its neighbors and has better life expectancy etc (including Cuba).

Cuba was the richest country in the Latin America before the Communist revolution with for example infant mortality similar to that in Western Europe.

[captainbeefheart]

Lots of mistakes regarding Victorian England and industrial revolution. Conditions were worse before the industrial revolution. People lived on the edge of starvation. With the industrial (and agricultural revolution) this stopped. People could see most of their children grow up. Yes, working conditions were horrible but overall this was still an improvement. Further improvements could only take place after gdp/capita has increased further. If gdp/capita is low enough conditions will be bad.

I wasn't talking about the industrial revolution as a whole, I was talking about the Libertarian ideas that came around it. Improvements did come with the industrial revolution but they came at odds to the libertarian ideas. I.e. 'the great stink' where the smell from the slums in London had got so bad good Gracie even the rich could smell it! So mass public works had to take place to build a mass sewage systems. This was now possible in the industrial revolution. But it was not libertarian politics that created this great stuff, it was at odds with it.

Regarding Chile, also check your facts. The reforms introduced made its economy grew rapidly it is now far richer than its neighbors and has better life expectancy etc (including Cuba).

I was talking about the Pinochet era, what I said was correct. Poverty doubled while unions, public health and social security was crushed. Growth was 1.5% while Latin american average was 4.3%

Cuba was the richest country in the Latin America before the Communist revolution with for example infant mortality similar to that in Western Europe.

I don't know how rich it was but the majority of people certainly didn't get to share in the wealth, i.e. why there was a revolution! Revolutions, certainly violent ones, don't come because everything is hunky dorey... Some were indeed very rich, which is why the American Mafia was there cashing in!

[Blue]

The stink in medieval cities with sewage and excrements being thown out of the windows onto the street and similarly from horses was always quite unpleasant even before the industrial revolution.Sewage system was not built to improve the smell for the rich. Rather, all governments like to see their nation strong and rich and populous, for prestige and military reasons if nothing else, so once it become clear from epidemiology that sewage systems actually decreased mortality and morbidity then it become a government priority.

But wages and other benefits such as reduced working time could not improve before gdp/capita improved. Once gdp/capita had improved then wages will also improve in a free market since workers will move to higher paying jobs.

Redgarding Pinochet his regime was quite varied with sometimes rapid economic growth, sometimes deep depressions, sometimes liberal reforms, sometimes more state control, so difficult to draw any conclusions. But growth in Chile since 1985 has been much more rapid than the average of Latin America and the governments since Pinochet has not changed his policies significantly.

Regime change or armed rebellion can came with any large-scale popular support. Some health statistics:
http://www.cartadecu...hcare_facts.htm

[captainbeefheart]

The stink in medieval cities with sewage and excrements being thown out of the windows onto the street and similarly from horses was always quite unpleasant even before the industrial revolution.Sewage system was not built to improve the smell for the rich. Rather, all governments like to see their nation strong and rich and populous, for prestige and military reasons if nothing else, so once it become clear from epidemiology that sewage systems actually decreased mortality and morbidity then it become a government priority.

Well that is when it became a problem and something was done about it! It had been a problem for a very long time before anything was done about it.

But wages and other benefits such as reduced working time could not improve before gdp/capita improved. Once gdp/capita had improved then wages will also improve in a free market since workers will move to higher paying jobs.

Nonsense, that is totally wrong that change ever occurs without some sort of workers movement, union etc. All the rights we have now have come from workers demanding them, not being given them because of economic growth. Just look at the current situation up until the 80s profit, wages and production went up at similar rates (unequal but still as one went up they all went up) since union power has decreased we have seen growth and profit sore and wages not keep pace at all, people work much longer hours and salary linked pensions have all but disappeared.

Redgarding Pinochet his regime was quite varied with sometimes rapid economic growth, sometimes deep depressions, sometimes liberal reforms, sometimes more state control, so difficult to draw any conclusions. But growth in Chile since 1985 has been much more rapid than the average of Latin America and the governments since Pinochet has not changed his policies significantly.

No I think it's quite easy, when what I was talking about occurred growth was low and poverty high.

Regime change or armed rebellion can came with any large-scale popular support. Some health statistics:
http://www.cartadecu...hcare_facts.htm

Even according to your stats Cuba improved after the revolution it looks like to me, that's what i said?

And the majority in the country were proletariat or peasantry, so needed that support...

Edited by captainbeefheart, 25 August 2009 - 03:18 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

The stat I assume you mean is the decline rate? I'm not sure that one little stat proves much, other then in 1960 Chile was a lot worse, Cuba still has less infant morality...

[JLL]

Capitalism without a state (anarcho-capitalism) has had as little success as socialism. The "Wild West" is not an example. The territory was always claimed by the US who defended it with troops against internal and external enemies. As well as usually quickly introducing functioning law enforcement and other state functions once the population density got big enough. More generally, if there is in fact no state what happens is that after a period of violent struggle a number of armed gangs or tribes create new de facto states each which controll a territory. Like in Somalia. The anarcho-capitalist dream that a person would be able to choose and buy military protection from a number of different providers has never happened. Military protection is always a monopoly on a certain terriotry except briefly during civil wars.

So you are saying that the only thing we need the state for is defense against external enemies?

Which troops defended the US when the first settlers arrived? Functioning private law enforcement existed before it was made federal, and it got worse. That much we know from history books.

Not sure why you consider wild west not to be an example. I think it's a good example. How about medieval Iceland then?

And the most important question: How is the state different from an armed gang controlling a territory?

[JLL]

Actually I'd say the opposite, Victorian Britain saw the states power stripped away, total non regulation, much of the rhetoric of Libertarianism and it didn't work.

As long as there is a government, there is regulation.

Chile, is a good example of Libertarianism.

What is your definition of libertarianism?

Look at which countries have the highest general standard of living, always the more socialised countries.

Please show me statistics of this. How do you measure "standard of living"?

The recession we're in was caused by unregulated markets, like the 30s crash was. I see no evidence that unregulated capitalism works, just the opposite, whilst being given a fair crack at the whip, which socialism never has...

Where have you seen unregulated capitalism, except in the wild west? The US today? Give me a break; there's nothing unregulated about it.

And once again, the difference between a libertarian experiment and a socialist experiment is that when you ask the libertarian "what if I don't wanna come and live in your taxless utopia?", he will answer "that's okay; you can choose to live under a state if you like." When you ask a socialist "what if I don't wanna come and live in your socialist utopia?", he will answer "then we will force you."

That doesn't make sense firstly. But also what freedom is there to choose to live under Capitalism or not? You have to play by the capitalist rules or you starve, you don't own your means of production so you work for someone else at what they will pay you, which usually is enough to get by, let alone reinvest your capital into the system to make money. That's not freedom, that's freedom for the rich. Some indeed do make it, but how many million suffer for one rockafella, it's such a waste of human potential. What if Darwin had been born poor, he would never have had the time to make the discoveries he did.

You are ignoring the point, and you know it.

How exactly does it not make sense? If you were to be the ruler of a socialist state, would you accept that people choose to not pay taxes to your state and live in a libertarian community instead? Because if so, I have no problem with your socialism. I just won't have anything to do with it.

And how does capitalism prevent, by definition, the ownership of the means of production? As I said, capitalism is merely private ownership.

What seems like the real contradiction to me is that everything is state-controlled (socialism) yet still allegedly owned by the workers...

[JLL]

So, what's the easiest way for me to get all your customers? I kill you and take everything you own for myself. After all, there is no government to stop me, and by my moral code, or lack thereof, I'm simply insuring my own survival, right? I simply out competed you in the FREE MARKET.

What a realistic scenario.

How does the state prevent this from happening? What if the state decides to use its "own moral code" and kill you? Who is there to protect you then? The people? The same people that for some reason are not protecting you when there is no state?

I just love statists

Everyone seem to forget that humans are not ALL peaceful, kind, loving, and caring people who are willing to "play by the rules" and that is why GOVERNMENT exists. When it is government ruled by the people it ensures that those who refuse to play by the rules cannot just do as they wish. In the absence of restraint, violence will always win.

I have not argued that all humans are peaceful.

But, there are four possible scenarios:

(1) All people are good
(2) The minority of people are good
(3) The majority of people are good
(4) All people are bad

If (1) is true, then clearly, no government is needed.

If (2) is true, then a government won't help, because in democracy, the government is supposed to represent the opinion of the majority, which would thus consist mostly of people are not good. The case is made even worse by the fact that good people do not seek power to control other people; it's the bad people that do. The same applies to (4).

If (3) is true, as it seems to be, then government will also not work, because again, it's mostly bad people who seek to control others and avoid retaliation. If you wanted to do bad things to other people without fear of getting punished, which career path would you choose: one where you have to work and use your talent to produce goods and services that people will voluntarily buy from you, or one where you are among the small minority that has all the guns and the power?

You are worried about the goodness of people, but are you not worried about the goodness of the people in charge? The fact that there are evil people is an argument against the state, not for it.

[captainbeefheart]

What is your definition of libertarianism?

You can define it in a number of ways, as I can see. But most Libertarians at least believe in some government, as a guardian of property rights. But you seem to be talking about Anarchism if you want no government? Of course the problem here is without any sort of structure some sort of structure would form naturally, so tyranny would still of course be there.

Where have you seen unregulated capitalism, except in the wild west? The US today? Give me a break; there's nothing unregulated about it.

Not totally unregulated as some regulation forced by some group will always take it's place, as I said structure will naturally form. Like the drugs trade is probably the freeiest market there is, no regulation. It's a rather brutal world too, one I wouldn't wana live in it...

How exactly does it not make sense? If you were to be the ruler of a socialist state, would you accept that people choose to not pay taxes to your state and live in a libertarian community instead? Because if so, I have no problem with your socialism. I just won't have anything to do with it.

There wouldn't be 'rulers' that's kind of the point, there would be no class structure. Work places would be democratically run by workers. Tax also wouldn't really come into it, at least in the long term. There would be no need for money. Ultimately with the combination of technology and working together the idea would be that at some point we'd all have access to everything we would need so it wouldn't be an issue. Even now there is in fact plenty of food in the world for all, however because of economic and political systems we allow billions to suffer without enough food, it's madness it really is!

And how does capitalism prevent, by definition, the ownership of the means of production? As I said, capitalism is merely private ownership.

Because you must have capital to buy the means of production. If you're born poor your chances of ever owning means of production are slim to zero as you're forced to sell your self for much less then what you produce. If you're born rich then you can just get handed them. Even if you don't get handed life on a silver plate you're more likely to go to private school and people thus get the connections and statically speaking you're much more likely to get a better job regardless of how well you do!

What seems like the real contradiction to me is that everything is state-controlled (socialism) yet still allegedly owned by the workers...

Publicly owned, no ownership. The point is that everyone that is put in a decision making role is voted there, so there is accountability, if they do a bad job you can kick them out. This is not possible if someone is able to form a monopoly which frequently happens even in a regulated system. In an unregulated system sooner or later all systems would become a monopoly in some way or another.

[captainbeefheart]

This is the great irony I think of Libertarianism, it wants to remove one tyranny and replace it with another!