Sign In

Socialism vs Libertarianism — Page 2

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

One of the reasons I’ve seen countries experiment with Basic Income (or at least Finland’s reason, if the article I read was correct) is because of the way their benefits system worked. In effect, the old/current system more or less had you risk losing more by looking for work than to try to seek employment. The experiment was to see if UBI would actually provide a better safety net that wouldn’t make finding gainful employment detrimental to those relying on its benefits, and thus improve unemployment rates.

I, for one, would be strongly encouraged to seek out employment if I knew I had such a safety net in place. Right now, I receive disability, but that’s due to social anxiety, nothing physical. I could muster up the courage to get off my can and look for work, perhaps even land a job in spite of my woeful lack of experience. But then what happens? I lose my disability, and if I get laid off/fired later on, I have to return to the tedious wringer that is the welfare system.

So you won’t try to get a job because you might lose it later and end up where you started? I’m not following. Not criticizing, just not understanding.

TV’s Frink said:

A job would probably benefit you beyond the money.

Self-esteem, self-respect, self-reliance, etc., not to mention the socialization aspects of working on a team.

I’m not knocking disability benefits; I relied on them in the past after my accident, and collected unemployment after layoffs until I got back on my feet. There are some things you only get by providing for yourself though, and there is a demotivating aspect to collecting benefits.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jay said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

One of the reasons I’ve seen countries experiment with Basic Income (or at least Finland’s reason, if the article I read was correct) is because of the way their benefits system worked. In effect, the old/current system more or less had you risk losing more by looking for work than to try to seek employment. The experiment was to see if UBI would actually provide a better safety net that wouldn’t make finding gainful employment detrimental to those relying on its benefits, and thus improve unemployment rates.

I, for one, would be strongly encouraged to seek out employment if I knew I had such a safety net in place. Right now, I receive disability, but that’s due to social anxiety, nothing physical. I could muster up the courage to get off my can and look for work, perhaps even land a job in spite of my woeful lack of experience. But then what happens? I lose my disability, and if I get laid off/fired later on, I have to return to the tedious wringer that is the welfare system.

So you won’t try to get a job because you might lose it later and end up where you started? I’m not following. Not criticizing, just not understanding.

I think what he’s saying is that if he loses the job, he wouldn’t get to go back onto disability right away, as he lost it while he was working. Depending on how long the application process is vs how long he previously worked, it might just end up being a net loss in income versus just not applying for work.

Author
Time

flametitan said:

Jay said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

One of the reasons I’ve seen countries experiment with Basic Income (or at least Finland’s reason, if the article I read was correct) is because of the way their benefits system worked. In effect, the old/current system more or less had you risk losing more by looking for work than to try to seek employment. The experiment was to see if UBI would actually provide a better safety net that wouldn’t make finding gainful employment detrimental to those relying on its benefits, and thus improve unemployment rates.

I, for one, would be strongly encouraged to seek out employment if I knew I had such a safety net in place. Right now, I receive disability, but that’s due to social anxiety, nothing physical. I could muster up the courage to get off my can and look for work, perhaps even land a job in spite of my woeful lack of experience. But then what happens? I lose my disability, and if I get laid off/fired later on, I have to return to the tedious wringer that is the welfare system.

So you won’t try to get a job because you might lose it later and end up where you started? I’m not following. Not criticizing, just not understanding.

I think what he’s saying is that if he loses the job, he wouldn’t get to go back onto disability right away, as he lost it while he was working. Depending on how long the application process is vs how long he previously worked, it might just end up being a net loss in income versus just not applying for work.

That’s about right.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

Jay said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

One of the reasons I’ve seen countries experiment with Basic Income (or at least Finland’s reason, if the article I read was correct) is because of the way their benefits system worked. In effect, the old/current system more or less had you risk losing more by looking for work than to try to seek employment. The experiment was to see if UBI would actually provide a better safety net that wouldn’t make finding gainful employment detrimental to those relying on its benefits, and thus improve unemployment rates.

I, for one, would be strongly encouraged to seek out employment if I knew I had such a safety net in place. Right now, I receive disability, but that’s due to social anxiety, nothing physical. I could muster up the courage to get off my can and look for work, perhaps even land a job in spite of my woeful lack of experience. But then what happens? I lose my disability, and if I get laid off/fired later on, I have to return to the tedious wringer that is the welfare system.

So you won’t try to get a job because you might lose it later and end up where you started? I’m not following. Not criticizing, just not understanding.

I think what he’s saying is that if he loses the job, he wouldn’t get to go back onto disability right away, as he lost it while he was working. Depending on how long the application process is vs how long he previously worked, it might just end up being a net loss in income versus just not applying for work.

That’s about right.

Got it. Why work under the assumption that you’re more likely to lose the job than keep it though? Even if you did, you could file for unemployment benefits to span the gap until your disability kicks back in.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

So is it just fake news that Libertarians tend to be men and aren’t fond of women’s rights, broad brush notwithstanding?

Hard to say. According to a few political tests I found online I should call myself a libertarian, and I know two women who identify themselves as such. I know it’s just anecdotal evidence but in my case I know more female libertarians than male. And I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t be fond of women’s rights, so yes, as the best president in the galaxy, and a “very stable genius” says, it’s “fake news”

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

The state should own and operate everything short of small businesses/organizations, homes, and IPs (intellectual properties). Megacorporations/conglomerates should not exist. Everyone should receive free health care, basic incomes, and adequate housing by right of being human. There should be complete separation of church and state, and complete freedom of religion (so definitely no state religion/atheism).

But how would you achieve that? The non-existence of megacorporations. Isn’t it the goal of every small business to be huge one day? Also if everybody would receive a basic income (I guess you’re talking about the idea of paying people for NOT working), why would people work? I heard that there are people who work because they love their work, but I never met anybody like that. I feel safe to assume that a significantly huge part of the population would simply sit on their butts doing nothing. I know I probably would. In other words these two things take away the motivations of companies to grow and people to work. Meaning that the state would have much smaller tax incomes. I agree with the religious bits

Author
Time
 (Edited)

pittrek said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

The state should own and operate everything short of small businesses/organizations, homes, and IPs (intellectual properties). Megacorporations/conglomerates should not exist. Everyone should receive free health care, basic incomes, and adequate housing by right of being human. There should be complete separation of church and state, and complete freedom of religion (so definitely no state religion/atheism).

But how would you achieve that?

I don’t know how. I don’t believe much of it is achievable now, in the near future, or even in the next hundred years. We first need to nurture the mindset which will set us on that path.

The non-existence of megacorporations. Isn’t it the goal of every small business to be huge one day?

I wager that varies from business to business.

Also if everybody would receive a basic income (I guess you’re talking about the idea of paying people for NOT working), why would people work? I heard that there are people who work because they love their work, but I never met anybody like that. I feel safe to assume that a significantly huge part of the population would simply sit on their butts doing nothing. I know I probably would.

I would like to get a job just to socialize and feel like I’m contributing something of value to society.

And again, we need to nurture future generations to be the kind of people who wouldn’t be content to sit on their asses just 'cause they don’t need to work.

Author
Time

pittrek said:

TV’s Frink said:

So is it just fake news that Libertarians tend to be men and aren’t fond of women’s rights, broad brush notwithstanding?

Hard to say. According to a few political tests I found online I should call myself a libertarian, and I know two women who identify themselves as such. I know it’s just anecdotal evidence but in my case I know more female libertarians than male. And I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t be fond of women’s rights, so yes, as the best president in the galaxy, and a “very stable genius” says, it’s “fake news”

Indeed, among the true Libertarians I know personally, 75% of them are women…

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

pittrek said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

The state should own and operate everything short of small businesses/organizations, homes, and IPs (intellectual properties). Megacorporations/conglomerates should not exist. Everyone should receive free health care, basic incomes, and adequate housing by right of being human. There should be complete separation of church and state, and complete freedom of religion (so definitely no state religion/atheism).

But how would you achieve that? The non-existence of megacorporations. Isn’t it the goal of every small business to be huge one day?

Not entirely…many a company may feel the absolute pressure towards increased size primarily and principally in order to keep pace with the heaviest or most urgent of competitors…I certainly recall regretting the need to increase our factory’s size simply in order to remain relevant…

My own policy suggestion would merely be to enforce a regulation whereby an individual (or corporation) might be able only to own a single store (or corporation) within a specific geographical region. The lack of diverse product offerings in modern times most certainly has at its root the fact that much of the available retail space is in the hands of a select few.

Also if everybody would receive a basic income (I guess you’re talking about the idea of paying people for NOT working), why would people work? I heard that there are people who work because they love their work, but I never met anybody like that. I feel safe to assume that a significantly huge part of the population would simply sit on their butts doing nothing. I know I probably would. In other words these two things take away the motivations of companies to grow and people to work. Meaning that the state would have much smaller tax incomes. I agree with the religious bits

Basic income is certainly a concept with interesting potential…although one strong negative aspect appears to be its deleterious effect when a similar such undertaking was applied to the citizens of Rome during that empire’s guaranteed rice quotas…yet on a more positive level it could potentially free individuals to pursue higher educations or to delve more deeply into the arts…

Most probably, however, an uncomfortably large percentage of individuals might simply become habituated to spending copious amounts of time gaming or in following other similarly unproductive pursuits…

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

pittrek said:

TV’s Frink said:

So is it just fake news that Libertarians tend to be men and aren’t fond of women’s rights, broad brush notwithstanding?

Hard to say. According to a few political tests I found online I should call myself a libertarian, and I know two women who identify themselves as such. I know it’s just anecdotal evidence but in my case I know more female libertarians than male. And I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t be fond of women’s rights, so yes, as the best president in the galaxy, and a “very stable genius” says, it’s “fake news”

Yes it’s anecdotal, and you may not know anyone who isn’t fond of women’s rights, but that’s also anecdotal. Not to mention most people like that won’t admit it, even to themselves. They frame it in different ways in order to justify it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

So is it just fake news that Libertarians tend to be men and aren’t fond of women’s rights, broad brush notwithstanding?

I don’t know what this means or what it’s in reference to, but Libertarians aren’t very fond of anyone’s rights. Without a strong government to guarantee people’s rights and protections, all minorities (whether racial, gender, intellectual, or whatever) are at the mercy of the collective. So in that sense, in a Libertarian system, if a society or culture doesn’t value women’s rights, for example, there is no feasible way to guarantee those rights in a Libertarian system.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

So is it just fake news that Libertarians tend to be men and aren’t fond of women’s rights, broad brush notwithstanding?

I don’t know what this means or what it’s in reference to, but Libertarians aren’t very fond of anyone’s rights. Without a strong government to guarantee people’s rights and protections, all minorities (whether racial, gender, intellectual, or whatever) are at the mercy of the collective. So in that sense, in a Libertarian system, if a society or culture doesn’t value women’s rights, for example, there is no feasible way to guarantee those rights in a Libertarian system.

I mean (and granted it’s also anecdotal) it seems like a lot of libertarians don’t want women making decisions or telling them what to do. I’m not saying that’s necessarily true though. Dunno the truth of the matter.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Most libertarians, from what I see, tend to basically be Republican-style conservatives just going by a different name so they appeal to people outside of the Republican base. I’m guessing that’s why there’s a gender disparity. Real (and I don’t like to use that word when describing political positions, but in this case it’s applicable) libertarians have no interest or desire to ban abortion, for example; that would be antithetical to their ideology. However, without government protection of the right to abortion––or birth control or equal pay for equal work––a society that doesn’t believe in the importance of those things could deprive women of those rights even without enacting laws to do so. If there is no federally-funded outlet for that service, like Planned Parenthood, in a society that is by-and-large opposed to abortion or birth control, then most likely there will just be no way for a woman to get those things because no one in that society will be interested in providing that service so, in effect, women’s “right” to such a thing would be meaningless because that particular libertarian society wouldn’t provide. This can be applied to any person’s access to any particular right and is especially easy to apply to racial minorities in America. In an especially libertarian society without something like the Civil Rights Act, business-owners could discriminate or segregate on racial grounds without consequence. The whole ideology is primarily predicated on the idea that only the government can infringe upon people’s rights when in reality it’s almost always the government that has to guarantee rights for people. There’s nothing anti-woman or anti-any other group inherent in the libertarian ideology, though.

EDIT: I guess one could make the argument that libertarianism is inherently anti-poor and anti-working or middle class since they would be guaranteed to lack any kind of protection from workplace exploitation.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Most libertarians, from what I see, tend to basically be Republican-style conservatives just going by a different name so they appeal to people outside of the Republican base.

I have no clue what Republican-style conservatives are, but libertarians are by definition the opposite of conservatives. Libertarians are practically identical to what used to be (and in a huge chunk of Europe still IS) called liberals.

I’m guessing that’s why there’s a gender disparity. Real (and I don’t like to use that word when describing political positions, but in this case it’s applicable) libertarians have no interest or desire to ban abortion, for example; that would be antithetical to their ideology.

I agree. Libertarians value personal freedoms including freedom of choice above anything else.

However, without government protection of the right to abortion––or birth control or equal pay for equal work––a society that doesn’t believe in the importance of those things could deprive women of those rights even without enacting laws to do so.

I don’t agree. Why would anybody want to do any of these things? Do you believe that people are inherently evil and need a good “leader” who will tell them what is wrong and what is right? Maybe that’s just the anarchist part of my personality speaking but I honestly don’t see a reason for a “big brother” protecting us from ourselves.

If there is no federally-funded outlet for that service, like Planned Parenthood, in a society that is by-and-large opposed to abortion or birth control,

A libertarian society is not opposed to abortions or birth control unless you’re talking about some “sub-branch”

then most likely there will just be no way for a woman to get those things because no one in that society will be interested in providing that service so,

Money talks. If there is interest in service X, there will always be somebody who will provide service X. The government can make providing service X illegal of course, but if we talk about a libertarian society, all of the different branches have a common thing - they want as little governmental intervention as possible. Which is a direct opposite of a society which has a government which makes service X illegal.

This can be applied to any person’s access to any particular right and is especially easy to apply to racial minorities in America. In an especially libertarian society without something like the Civil Rights Act, business-owners could discriminate or segregate on racial grounds without consequence.

Yes, that could realistically happen. And such businesses would go out of business very easily, negative word of mouth is the best business killer in existence right now. A few years ago we had here a “small” incident - a small hotel owner refused to rent rooms to a few (non-white) tourists, they did the best thing they could - they recorded him and posted it on facebook. The hotel went out of business within a few months, long before the case got to trial.

The whole ideology is primarily predicated on the idea that only the government can infringe upon people’s rights when in reality it’s almost always the government that has to guarantee rights for people.

Oh, I would LOVE to live in a country where the government does not infringe on people’s rights but instead guarantee them. If the USA is such a country, I seriously envy you guys (and gals).

There’s nothing anti-woman or anti-any other group inherent in the libertarian ideology, though.

I agree.

Author
Time

pittrek said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Most libertarians, from what I see, tend to basically be Republican-style conservatives just going by a different name so they appeal to people outside of the Republican base.

I have no clue what Republican-style conservatives are, but libertarians are by definition the opposite of conservatives. Libertarians are practically identical to what used to be (and in a huge chunk of Europe still IS) called liberals.

In America, Republicans are right-wingers typified by fundamentalist Christian worldviews and big government so long as it isn’t a welfare state. It’s nothing like a real libertarian philosophy so that’s why I accused them of not really being libertarians.

I’m guessing that’s why there’s a gender disparity. Real (and I don’t like to use that word when describing political positions, but in this case it’s applicable) libertarians have no interest or desire to ban abortion, for example; that would be antithetical to their ideology.

I agree. Libertarians value personal freedoms including freedom of choice above anything else.

However, without government protection of the right to abortion––or birth control or equal pay for equal work––a society that doesn’t believe in the importance of those things could deprive women of those rights even without enacting laws to do so.

I don’t agree. Why would anybody want to do any of these things? Do you believe that people are inherently evil and need a good “leader” who will tell them what is wrong and what is right? Maybe that’s just the anarchist part of my personality speaking but I honestly don’t see a reason for a “big brother” protecting us from ourselves.

People are more or less inherently dumb and unhelpful, I’d say. In America I can tell you that people here definitely want to deprive others of their rights. There’s a long history of black people in America getting lynched and being violently denied their right to vote by ordinary citizens. It took the federal government to put an end to that.

If there is no federally-funded outlet for that service, like Planned Parenthood, in a society that is by-and-large opposed to abortion or birth control,

A libertarian society is not opposed to abortions or birth control unless you’re talking about some “sub-branch”

If the libertarian society is full of people that have a moral opposition to abortion, then there’s a strong likelihood that that society wouldn’t bother to provide abortion services.

then most likely there will just be no way for a woman to get those things because no one in that society will be interested in providing that service so,

Money talks. If there is interest in service X, there will always be somebody who will provide service X. The government can make providing service X illegal of course, but if we talk about a libertarian society, all of the different branches have a common thing - they want as little governmental intervention as possible. Which is a direct opposite of a society which has a government which makes service X illegal.

And without government interference or regulation, there’s no way to protect consumers’ rights from the people monopolizing service X. Plus, there’s a market for abortion everywhere, so why isn’t it everywhere by your logic?

This can be applied to any person’s access to any particular right and is especially easy to apply to racial minorities in America. In an especially libertarian society without something like the Civil Rights Act, business-owners could discriminate or segregate on racial grounds without consequence.

Yes, that could realistically happen. And such businesses would go out of business very easily, negative word of mouth is the best business killer in existence right now.

Not true. Study history. Why would that business go under if the society that it’s in largely doesn’t value the rights of the person it discriminated against? All exploitative or questionable businesses don’t just magically disappear because of their misdeeds. A ton of people in America hate Walmart and mock it at every turn, but it’s never going out of business. Look at how Amazon treats its workers. Negative word of mouth won’t stop that. Amazon is too big and they have a near monopoly on online shopping. The only way to protect those workers is for their respective governments to either establish or enforce labor laws.

A few years ago we had here a “small” incident - a small hotel owner refused to rent rooms to a few (non-white) tourists, they did the best thing they could - they recorded him and posted it on facebook. The hotel went out of business within a few months, long before the case got to trial.

Cold comfort to the people that have already been denied service.

The whole ideology is primarily predicated on the idea that only the government can infringe upon people’s rights when in reality it’s almost always the government that has to guarantee rights for people.

Oh, I would LOVE to live in a country where the government does not infringe on people’s rights but instead guarantee them. If the USA is such a country, I seriously envy you guys (and gals).

Most of the western world is that way. I didn’t say that government can’t infringe on people’s rights, but it’s more utopian than even communism is to expect a totally free market to work without any kind of substantial government regulation.

There’s nothing anti-woman or anti-any other group inherent in the libertarian ideology, though.

I agree.

I amended this to say that an argument can be made for libertarianism being anti-consumer and anti-poor and working class.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

Full disclosure - have not read the article. It may well be bunk. But I’m busy and lazy.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bn33ym/why-libertarians-and-mens-right-activists-sound-the-same-when-they-talk-about-feminism-398

I didn’t read it either but what it basically said is that libertarians and anti-feminists both view the world through a lens of total individualism. Anti-feminism is basically just the libertarian idea of “pulling yourself up by your boostraps” being erroneously applied to gender (in addition to being erroneously applied to economics 😉).

Author
Time

Didn’t MLK say something like the world is a Libertarian paradise for the poor, and a Socialist paradise for the rich?

After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. ~ Spock

Author
Time

Words are crazy. If I’ve got this right:

Communism is largely anti-capitalist, and is a classless and moneyless society.

Marxist-Leninism is an extremely statist and authoritarian form of Communism.

Socialism can be stateless or not, being the social ownership of aspects of the economy.

Libertarianism is a largely stateless, free market approach to capitalism.

Anarchy is the most extreme form of a stateless society.

So Socialism and Libertarianism aren’t that far apart in theory. However, most practical versions of Socialism operate via a centralized government, hence the confusion.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite THE SHATTERED SWORD (Complete!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V3 Released!) and The Starlight Project (WORKPRINT RELEASED!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’m a libertarian socialist myself — anarcho-communist, to be precise. Didn’t identify as one when I first posted in this thread years ago; figured at the time that the best we could hope for was a socialist state with reined-in capitalism. But now I believe it is possible to achieve a classless, stateless, moneyless society, provided enough class consciousness is spread and dual power structures built to combat capitalism.

And just FYI, anarchism and libertarianism began as leftist movements. Rightists co-opted the terms for their own purposes later on.