snip
It's not founded within the article, it's founded within the title; I am making the assumption that his democratic socialism is the same type of democratic socialist that's spreading today, which is a person who believes the state should use its powers the democratic socialist is sending its way to do acts of justifiable good, e.g., the end justifies the means at its fullest extent (such as "force the rich to give their business to government so we can help the poor" and whatnot.)
So, let's explain the differences between libertarian and the modern social democrat (a type of authoritarian position, I will presume, for the type of social democrat that operates in anarchy doesn't seem to be this fellow's flavor) by making ourselves a nice hierarchy of law, from the building blocks which create the foundation to the philosophical maturity of ethics on a grand scale:
Morality: How a person feels what is good or evil.
Ethics: A collection of the moral codes a person lives by.
Rights: Ethics which people agree should be upheld.
Law: Rights which we agree are important enough to protect with punishment.
Justice: The collection of laws that allow society to function.
With these terms out of the way, let's test the waters on a problem; I'm going to assume the counter of the authoritarian position is also in belief that socialism is the correct answer, so we can see clear similarities and differences and how one is mindful of morality, while the other accepts that morality should be ignored to reach the end goal.
PovertyLibertarian Socialism: Through rejecting the methods corporations use to gain unfair advantages over smaller businesses (i.e. the various abuses of the state), coupled with rejecting hierarchies in business to ensure the working class, that is the majority, will have more than enough wealth to live happy and fruitful lives, we can end poverty at its source and allow every man the opportunity to better himself. In this way, we solve several problems: the divide between power structures and individuals becomes flattened, thereby eliminating many of the opportunities a person or entity would have to avoid or supersede the law, ergo justice, the philosophical maturity of morality on a grand scale, is upheld.
Now, let's run it through the grinder:
Justice: When all laws are upheld.
Law: Do not steal, neither directly nor through power structures.
Rights: All men should have the right to health and security.
Ethics: I should have the right to health and security.
Moral: Stealing is detrimental to my health; therefore, I will not steal.
As we can see, the law is in total compliance with all preceding steps.
Democratic Socialism: Through increasing taxation of the wealthy and allowing the state to own any business it deems as necessary to prevent from failing to ensure the individual is not discomforted, as well as developing systems to ensure all man's living conditions and health are protected through social systems, e.g. welfare and social security etc., we can ensure people are given the basic necessities of what they need to live, thereby ending poverty.
The problem here is the state of injustice: consider the steps we laid out earlier.
Justice: When all laws are upheld.
Law: Taxation, i.e. the involuntary movement of wealth from the individual to the state, is granted to the correct institutions, i.e. the IRS, and should be used to keep us healthy.
Rights: All men should have the right to health and security.
Ethics: I should have the right to health and security.
Moral: Stealing is detrimental to my health; therefore, I will not steal.The foundation of this chain is in direct violation of the law; because we know stealing causes poverty in working men, whether it's from big government or big business, we cannot believe that we will both uphold a state of justice while wishing to cause injustices, and this is only considering one moral being discarded. If morals are the basis of ethics and ethics are the basis of law, what happens when the moral foundation of law is discarded? To make it visual:
The corrosion of your rights, sped up 1000xTo be a social democrat is to believe immoral acts can develop into justice. I don't believe this is the right direction to head. It doesn't matter what the fellow says in the article if his actions align with my assertion: he is morally ignorant, and in no position to believe he can influence others if he cannot even follow the basics of law. Thus, he becomes a hypocrite, and asserts that all others should be moral, except when it gets in his way, even if it's for a "good cause". Every villain believes himself a hero; the difference is whether he can grant others the very rights he grants himself.
