Grandpa; Your Sig Line

[Osborn F Enready]

The simple concept of the name, libertarian socialist, is a connundrum in itself.

Maybe they are "collectivist oriented" libertarians.

Maybe they are libertarians in all respects except to property.

Either way, they in no way represent EITHER true ideology, nor can either ideology be mixed with success.

It is an exercise in word redefinition.

[bishop]

getting lost in semantical debates and missing the more important points...... what is the point of such "debates"?

people in vermont are very big on small federal governments and strong state/local governments... and, they also have a strong leftist/socialist leaning towards their views. they're certainly a good example of "libertarian socialists"..

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Maybe not "big" government, but certainly government. Socialism is having all the means of production owned by the state.

We're not talking about state socialism here, but libertarian socialism.
Do a little research on the link one of the moderators posted, huh?
If you don't do that, you'll be doing what nearly everyone else does all the time--completely warping my positions into the opposite of what they were.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Capitalism protects property from the clutches of those who don't own that property and keeps those rights in the hands of those who do own that property.

That's a polite way of saying cpitalism protects the rich from the non-rich.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Everyone has the oppertunity to own as much as he/she desires.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to acquire assets under capitalism? On what
planet?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Capitalism is no more a method for anything than a sink is a method for washing dishes.

Capitalism is a method for brainwashing the masses into carrying out the interests of a wealthy elite. It's quite different than washing the dishes.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Capitalism merely provides the environment for those who want to work hard and save what they've earned.

Capitalism provides an environment for those who must be worked to survive. And the puny wages must be saved up to combat the cost of living which is enforced by private interests.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 For those who want to be lazy and buy lots of drugs/alcohol with welfare money, it's not the best environment.

Capitalism is actually an ideal climate for creating lazy drunks.
And it explains the existence of welfare, too.

Grandpa h.

[Lilith]

No thank you, most of us are more than content to largely or totally ditch formalized law-enforcement, with the rest being in favor of drastically reigning it in. As for "protection", we'll protect ourselves, thanks. The cops ( if any remain employed ) can bring a mop, a bucket, and a bodybag.

"Largely or totally ditch formalized law-enforcement..." Oh, we worship the same god. I have had that thought on more than one occasion..... :)

[grandpa]

Quote by: RVonse I can see your point but I do not believe people would want to work without some sort of motivation. Even the people who are working in the career that they love still have to be motivated to get out of bed.

Most people have such negative attitudes to work precisely because they feel they are being dominated. It also bring about aggressive behavior or apathy.
Some people go straight to bed when they get home not because the work is even that demanding, but because it drains them of their will to go on.
It can be a very serious thing.

Quote by: RVonse Human beings are just smart mammels and when it comes to motivation we share a lot in common with the seals and dolphins at Sea World. Visit Sea World in Florida if you want a lesson in the motivation of mammels and other sea creatures. Do you think the seals would still jump through the hoop if they did not get a fish at the end of their performance? Its exactly the same thing with humans. Somebody has to give us a fish (compensation) or we won't be motivated to do anything productive. Thats just how the brains in all mammels are wired.

Jumping through hoops is not very productive for humans or dolphins, though it can be entertaining for those with enough money to pay and watch.
Yes, a dolphin needs fish, but it does not absolutely need to go through an artificial process to get one. While looking up the "Give a man a fish" quote on the net, I found a version precisely fitting this dicussion: "give a man a fish, and he'll know where to come
for fish. Teach a man to fish, and you've destroyed your marketbase."

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Well?

Sorry, I did have areply but it must have been accidentally deleted. What I meant to put was how the very right to have food, water and shelter is bought.

Quote by: Autolykos Spare us the implication, and be explicit. Otherwise, you are simply speaking in propagandistic platitudes which accomplish nothing as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Pointing out that people have to choose between following orders or potentially starving is hardly a "propagandistic platitude." It's a fact.

Quote by: Autolykos You failed to see my point. Free trade needs no organizations to manage it. Therefore, the fact that organizations exist to manage trade on a global level means that there is no global free trade.

As far as I know, no wage system has ever existed without some form of political
agitation behind it. So, when I hear terms like "free trade" or "free world" I suspect they are synonymous with political agitation.

Quote by: Autolykos Tell me this: Do you believe that using force in self-defense is morally wrong?

Personally, no. If someone attacks me there is a good chance I'll defend myself.

Quote by: Autolykos You did not answer all of my questions -- in fact, you only answered my question about what you mean by the "upper hand". Please answer the remainder of my questions or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance.

Profit is not mutually beneficial in capitalism, as it thrives off of class distinction. Hence, one person typically benefits more from the exchange.

Quote by: Autolykos Wrong. People never "must" do anything.

If you want, you can say tht to jutify anything and I think people do. But in my experience you obey private interests or you risk being thrown out in the street and starving.
So what is presented is a false choice, really. Obviously people are going to choose to obey and have an available supply of food. That makes more sense than enjoying the negative liberty of expulsion, damaged credit, etc. If you want to see capitalim stripped of it facade, just go to a city and look at the mn or woman with a sign saying "will work for food." Chances are good that these people even obeyed the system, but didn't make enough money for it.

Quote by: Autolykos They choose to do things. Furthermore, for a business to control "the means to life" would mean implementing totalitarianism on a scale not yet seen in real life.

"They choose to do these things" or face a real risk of starvation and homlessness. Some choice there.
Ever hear of Bechtel Corporation? Well, they were largely responsible for a battle over water rights in Bolivia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia...282000-2005.29
How is this sort of scenario avoidable under privatization? The logical end of capitalism is to expand and accumulate more cheap labor and profit.

Quote by: Autolykos Also, if a business were to have such a level of control, it would, by definition, cease to be a business and become a government.

All businesses that have a poltical economy and a means of distribution and deprivation have governing funcions. Again, the logical end of capitalism is to expand and accumulate more cheap labor and profit.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

-------------------------------------

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The simple concept of the name, libertarian socialist, is a connundrum in itself. Maybe they are "collectivist oriented" libertarians.

If you did a little research on Libertarian Socialism, it'd help.
Here are some good places to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
And this FAQ is excellent. Even if you don't find yourself agreeing ith its points for some reason, I think one should at least appreciate th work that went into making it. It tackles a host of considerations, challenges and lies:
http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Like damn near anything, it can be seen as a simple or
complex concept. To me its root principles are common sense, but to someone else it might be harder to get at.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Maybe they are libertarians in all respects except to property.

Actully, anarchists typically call themselves Libertarians, because they believe exploitation is a threat to all rights an individual or a society could have.
So, for example, rent is a threat to victims of the Katrina disaster for obvious reasons.
And the now global financial system is an obstacle to everyone if they lack an income.
Crime, as just about any criminologist will admit, is often the result of desperation.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Either way, they in no way represent EITHER true ideology, nor can either ideology be mixed with success. It is an exercise in word redefinition.

That's funny because Libertarian Socialists say the same thing about Capitalist Libertarians, who suggest an authoritarian structure that hordes resourcess is somehow "liberating" us from ourselves. I personally would have to be brainwashed to believe that.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

I think I'll change my signture so people won't likely waste another thread on it, BTW.

This brings me to a question: Has anyone else had a thread started regarding their signture?

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa That's a polite way of saying cpitalism protects the rich from the non-rich.

If you define rich as those who own property and non rich as those who don't own property.

My grandma owns several acres of land. She makes less than $10000 a year.


Obviously, your definition is not useful.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to acquire assets under capitalism?

That's one positive thing about capitalism.

It doesn't matter what color your skin is.

The only color that matters is green.


And if you have enough of it, you can own any asset that is for sale.

Capitalism is a method for brainwashing the masses into carrying out the interests of a wealthy elite.

Such a tired and boring card.


The wealthy could really give a shit about you, ok?

They earned their money just like anyone else.

They don't give a damn about you trying to make a living for yourself and save capital.



You act as if the wealthy have an active interest in keeping average people poor.

You wish.

Maybe that would validate your sociology theories (note that they have nothing to do with economics).

Capitalism provides an environment for those who must be worked to survive.

No one deserves to survive.

Got that?

You earn your keep around here. If you have no intention on adding anything to society, then stop wasting our air.

And the puny wages must be saved up to combat the cost of living which is enforced by private interests.

Shit costs money.

Stop complaining about not having any.


What would you do with a million dollars? Buy a bunch of shit that you never could've afforded before, right?

Capitalism is actually an ideal climate for creating lazy drunks. And it explains the existence of welfare, too.

Are you just saying these things to say them? Or do you have some logic?

[RVonse]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 No one deserves to survive. Got that? You earn your keep around here. If you have no intention on adding anything to society, then stop wasting our air.

I sure wish we could tell that to the heirs of the Gates, Dupont, and Wall fortunes. I feel very confident that none of them are going to contribute anything useful to society.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RVonse I sure wish we could tell that to the heirs of the Gates, Dupont, and Wall fortunes. I feel very confident that none of them are going to contribute anything useful to society.

I'm sure they'll carry on their parents' tradition of writing big checks for various causes.

[Osborn F Enready]

Grandpa said: If you did a little research on Libertarian Socialism, it'd help.

I say:
Here is the clippet from YOUR link, which embodies what I contend is NONSENSICAL of the "libertarian socialist" theory.

Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy and voluntary federation in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.

What do they mean, or do YOU interpret as the meaning of "direct democracy" and "voluntary federation"?????

Like other socialists, libertarian socialists believe that objects should be held communally and controlled democratically; the only exception being personal possessions. Whereas "private property" grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, "possession" grants no rights to things that are not in use. A property title grants owners the right to withhold his property from others, or, if he desires, to require payment from those who wish to use it. "Possession," on the other hand, is not compatible with this form of "exploitation" or "extortion". Possession amounts to the right to use, rather than own, for oneself.

This is absolutely non-sensical, since there is no delineation of WHAT CAN constitute as private property, or possessions. This is a poorly written "attempt" to muddle through illogical process.

For this reason it is accurate to say that libertarian socialists favor the labor theory of value over the subjective theory of value. This means that, to an anarchist, objects have a value associated with them based upon the amount of labor put in to them. As such, the only way profit can be produced is by paying workers less than this value or by charging consumers more than this value. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that an object's value is determined by supply and demand. Despite this preference, not all libertarian socialists would argue that the labor theory is any more concrete than the subjective theory, simply that it is more fair.

Supply and demand WILL ultimately rule ANY given market. Denying this will not change things.

If people make a widget that nobody has use for, desire for, need for, there will be NO DEMAND, therefore there will be a bunch of un-purchased widgets.

If people make a limited supply of widgets, that EVERYBODY has use for, need for, or desire for, THE PRICE WILL RISE IN THE BLACK MARKET IF THE MAIN MARKET WILL NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE DEMAND OF THE MARKEPLACE.

This entire theory is ILLOGICAL, based on these principles.

Grandpa said: Crime, as just about any criminologist will admit, is often the result of desperation.

I say:
And trying to limit desperation is like trying to regulate craving. WONT HAPPEN, and even if it does it wont make a damn bit of difference because "desperation" knows NO BOUNDARY. Desperation crosses every line from mental to physical, relative to abstract. Can't be done. The grass is always greener my friend, for one reason or another.

Grandpa said: That's funny because Libertarian Socialists say the same thing about Capitalist Libertarians, who suggest an authoritarian structure that hordes resourcess is somehow "liberating" us from ourselves.

I say:
Give me an example of a LIBERTARIAN "authoritarian structure" such as you speak of, please?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: RVonse I sure wish we could tell that to the heirs of the Gates, Dupont, and Wall fortunes. I feel very confident that none of them are going to contribute anything useful to society.

Heirs earn their keep merely because of what their parents did.

IE, their parents transferred hard work into money.

You can always give money away.


I know that seems unfair to you.

Life is unfair.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I may not contribute anymore..... I don't want to be WARNED again by the BIASED MODERATOR.

You haven't been warned in this thread... yet. However you are certainly are providing a very healthy argument for gaining a warning point.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chris the Chees, my point as originally stated is valid, and this is NOT a reply to YOUR warning.

It is a reply to your STATEMENTS in this THREAD YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN.

The point is, and I think the point is quite clear, "libertarian socialism" is an attempted "middlegrounds" between delineated oppostites.

If you mix black and white paint, do you get "black-white paint"? No, you get grey paint.

You mix libertarians and socialists, you get democrats.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The point is, and I think the point is quite clear, "libertarian socialism" is an attempted "middlegrounds" between delineated oppostites. If you mix black and white paint, do you get "black-white paint"? No, you get grey paint. You mix libertarians and socialists, you get democrats.

I think you are wrong, you misunderstand the basic nature of socialism. You associate it, wrongly, with centralised government. Socialism is the principal that wealth should not be held by an elite. Centralised distrobution is one solution, but not the only. A point which many council communists, etc are very quick to point out.

[tman_ndsu08]

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

Socialism is a social system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by ... a State.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Socialism is the principal that wealth should not be held by an elite.

So as long as I'm not an elite, I can have all the wealth I want?


What an absurd statement.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

That is a very impressive misquote: -

Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State.

Note that you missed out a vast chunk of the actual quote, and now it says something very different.

So as long as I'm not an elite, I can have all the wealth I want?

Having control of a vast amount of wealth makes you an elite.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State.

This quote is equivalent to the following quote:

This control may only be exercised through a State

Having control of a vast amount of wealth makes you an elite.

Says who?

Having a lot of money doesn't make you jack squat.

Even people who have a lot of money and consider themselves elite aren't elite.