George Michael -- Marxist Libertarian?

[benjamindees]

All we have to see
Is that I don't belong to you
And you don't belong to me

Freedom! '90
(warning: contains Linda Evangelista)
("Top hairdresser Julien Dy's then cut her hair into what she described as 'a bowl cut with sideburns'. She cried during the haircut but it turned out to be the defining moment of her career." -wikipedia)

Libertarianism - Self Ownership

Do you enjoy what you do if not just stop
Don't stay there and rot.

I said d.h.s.s. - man
The rhythm that they're givin' is the very best.
I said b-one b-two - make the claims on your names all you have to do.

Wham Rap! (Enjoy What You Do)

The Right To Be Lazy, by Paul Lafargue

[herzmeister]

what gives?

[MoonShadow]

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

[cbeast]

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

Marxism has to do mostly with economics and property. Libertarianism is more about personal freedom. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[MoonShadow]

Marxism has to do mostly with economics and property. Libertarianism is more about personal freedom. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Personal freedom is about economics & property.  No matter how many times you say it, a collectivist cannot be a libertarian.  The two worldviews are mutually exclusive by nature.

[herzmeister]

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

nah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism was earlier

and it is *not* mutually exclusive, look at the anarchists in spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_spain

[kokjo]

Marxism has to do mostly with economics and property. Libertarianism is more about personal freedom. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Personal freedom is about economics & property.  No matter how many times you say it, a collectivist cannot be a libertarian.  The two worldviews are mutually exclusive by nature.

no its not.

[MoonShadow]

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

nah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism was earlier

and it is *not* mutually exclusive, look at the anarchists in spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_spain

European Anarchists aren't libertarians, primarily they are marxists.  Marx himself regarded the destruction of the capitalist order a necessary step towards communism.  Libertarians who can rationally be considered anarchists (in the literal, 'no ruler' root meaning) don't have a further political goal.

The problem with you guys is not that you don't understand collectivism, you all seem to.  You guys don't understand libertarianism.  The ideology requires economic liberty of individuals; which in turn requires a community standard for private property rights.  The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems.  No matter how I feel about the effectiveness of such an economic system, central planning of anything is invariablely opposed by some minority group.  The smallest minority is the individual.  Follow out the implications of your thought patterns and you will reach a different end than any that a libertarian can support.

[herzmeister]

all fine, the synthesis is that a collective has to be voluntary. then it's just a local community which is not any different to a special form of organization in the eyes of american libertarianism.

[kokjo]

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 

no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

[MoonShadow]

all fine, the synthesis is that a collective has to be voluntary. then it's just a local community which is not any different to a special form of organization in the eyes of american libertarianism.

Okay, but a voluntary collective must also respect the right of members to leave the collective at will.  This also means that such collectives are not stable social constructs lacking the force of law.  Thus, although a libertarian society can coexist with a collectivist sub-culture; a collectivist society cannot coexist with a libertarian sub-culture; because the growth of the libertarian ideals are destructive to the collectivist social order.  So, in the end, a society that is libertarian with minority collectivist population is still a libertarian society; not a communist society.  Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

Therefore one cannot be a marxist and a libertarian at the same time.

[herzmeister]

I think you're right with Marxism, but I believe OP didn't necessarily mean Marxist-Libertarian, but Social-Libertarian.

[MoonShadow]

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 

no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

[MoonShadow]

I think you're right with Marxism, but I believe OP didn't necessarily mean Marxist-Libertarian, but Social-Libertarian.

Maybe, but then I'd require a definition of "social-libertarian" to know if there were fundamental differences.

[Hawker]

...snip... 
Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature. 

...snip...

I'm guessing that its things like personal freedom and property rights that get enforced?  So you have police, courts, taxes, etc.

[MoonShadow]

...snip... 
Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature. 

...snip...

I'm guessing that its things like personal freedom and property rights that get enforced?  So you have police, courts, taxes, etc.

Yes, generally speaking.  Libertarianism does not equal anarchism.  To a lib, there are certain "natural" laws, which can be summed up with Maybury's two laws.

1)  Do all that you have agreed to do and..

2) Do not encroach upon another person or their property.

Property is not defined here, because it's a difficult meme to plainly define.  However, most of the time the simple, 2 year old type of 'possesion equals ownership' is somewhat accurate.  As in the idea, the car in my driveway for which I alone have keys for belongs to me, because I paid for it.

[benjamindees]

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

[herzmeister]

actually, without formal property rights protected by a central state, the dispute between socialist libertarians (who want equality) and capitalist libertarians (who want individual freedom) dissolves. that's because the more property someone claims, the harder they will find it to protect, especially if they are unpopular. they'll have to hire more mercenaries and guards, or, in a more civilized society, this will be reflected in higher insurance costs.

[kokjo]

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 

no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

[Hawker]

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

[MoonShadow]

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 

no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average.  You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.

[MoonShadow]

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Their social welfare system?  Really?

[kokjo]

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 

no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average.  You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.

I reject your argument, because its based on a guess.
your worldview says, that people are egoistic assholes. In a world full of egoistic assholes, its true that a free market/liberalism would work best, as everyone would pull equally hard to get their share.
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

[bb113]

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems.

no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average.  You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.

I reject your argument, because its based on a guess.
your worldview says, that people are egoistic assholes. In a world full of egoistic assholes, its true that a free market/liberalism would work best, as everyone would pull equally hard to get their share.
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

My thoughts are along the same lines as Moonshadow's. Collectivism will only work for groups smaller than some size. Maybe it is around 150, maybe it is higher... but there is some number beyond which the human brain must stereotype. Collectivist groups can function within capitalist frameworks but not vice versa. Voluntary collectivism is unstable at large scales over multiple generations. However, I have my doubts that Lib/ancap societies could out-compete statist neighbors in the short term. It is likely that the ideal society is situation-dependent; the most robust solution is a system that can mutate to meet whatever current challenges it faces.

but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

Having some central group decide who gets what sounds more inefficient. It is relative.

[Hawker]

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Their social welfare system?  Really?

Yes really.  Why - what would you call a system that is based on private enterprise?

[kokjo]

but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

Having some central group decide who gets what sounds more inefficient. It is relative.

sure it is, but in some situations it could be useful, in a moment of crisis its way better to have a dictator, then a democracy, but right not im not suggesting that we should centralize control.
im only suggesting that we should share and be nice to each other, that's all.

[bb113]

but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

Having some central group decide who gets what sounds more inefficient. It is relative.

sure it is, but in some situations it could be useful, in a moment of crisis its way better to have a dictator, then a democracy, but right not im not suggesting that we should centralize control.
im only suggesting that we should share and be nice to each other, that's all.

Don't you know people who are constantly being shared with and never share back? It is not even necessarily that they don't wish to share back, they just never have anything to share back because they repeatedly misuse the resources/opportunities that were shared with them and don't respond to social signals that they should change their ways. They need to "keep it real" or believe it is bad to "let other people change you".

[Dutch Merganser]

.

[MoonShadow]

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Their social welfare system?  Really?

Yes really.  Why - what would you call a system that is based on private enterprise?

Britain's social welfare system is based upon taxation, not private enterprise.  So I wouldn't call it that.  I wouldn't call anything capitalism, because the term is as tainted as "communism", and so is the economic systems that people tend to refer to them with that term.  There is no such thing as a free market in this modern world, so it's not accurate in an economic sense to call Britain (or the US) capitalist nations.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Britain's social welfare system is based upon taxation, not private enterprise.  So I wouldn't call it that.  I wouldn't call anything capitalism, because the term is as tainted as "communism", and so is the economic systems that people tend to refer to them with that term.  There is no such thing as a free market in this modern world, so it's not accurate in an economic sense to call Britain (or the US) capitalist nations.

You can't have private enterprise or a free market without taxation to pay for infrastructure.  If taxation means the system isn't capitalist in your book, then there will never be a capitalist system for you. For the sake of clear communication, why not use the word with the same meaning as everyone else?

[benjamindees]

You can't have private enterprise or a free market without taxation to pay for infrastructure.

How would you say that Bitcoin works, then?  Inflation tax?  Do you think it will fail when the block reward drops?

[cbeast]

.

It even has the upside down satanic stars the same as the new GOP logo.

[Hawker]

You can't have private enterprise or a free market without taxation to pay for infrastructure.

How would you say that Bitcoin works, then?  Inflation tax?  Do you think it will fail when the block reward drops?

Bitcoin is is not private enterprise or a free market.  Its a cryptocurrency.