No.62902
Seriously, what is the difference between the libertarian left and libertarian right? A "libertarian conservative" and "libertarian liberal" government are the same thing because the non-Authoritarian philosophy is inherently free of enforcing independent ideas. One can personally be libleft or libright but a government cannot.
Also mutualism is authoritarian because people are being forced to work for each other
Thoughts?
No.62907
>>62902
"Libertarian Leftism" isn't really libertarian at all, because it usually requires the government to assume power over the economy. I could be wrong, but that's how I've had it explained to me by LibSocs, unless this umbrella also includes types like Gary Johnson.
>That second picture
Please don't tell me that's what you guys believe here. I'm just getting off /pol/ for some fresh air and engagement.
No.62908
No.62922
>>62902
It's a long story, but pretty much the "Libertarian Left" has an obsession with social justice and the "Libertarian Right" has an obsession with protecting culture, so the two tend to hate each other over social values even if they get along (for the most part) economically.
No.62924
>Also mutualism is authoritarian because people are being forced to work for each other
That's a pretty blatant misrepresentation of mutualism, bro.
No.62928
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>62902
Left-libertarians tend to think non-aggression should be only test for morality; they think weed smokers, prostitutes, and so on, should not be condemned.
They are also pro-open borders and some of them believe in public access laws.
The main difference might be Christianity
No.62929
>>62922
That being said, a libertarian left and libertarian right government would function the same because the "libertarian" part keeps the government from enforcing social justice or tradition?
No.63003
>>62902
libertarian left want to tax property
No.63006
left libs dont exist as far as I can tell
No.63019
>>62902
Okay let me get this straight
You focus on phenomena which makes people identify them as libertarian(Opinion on Gov) and ignore the part which makes them left/right(Economics)? At that rate I could also say that Right Wing Authoritarianism is the same as Anarcho-Capitalist because they all like non-leftist economies and stuff.
This is why horseshoe theory is shit by the way. Just focus on what is different, everyone will fall for it.
No.63048
"Left" libertarians still believe in coersive redistribution of wealth and market interventionism.
Or not have a market and just have an entity, or entities, telling you what to do.
But it's, like, totally not statism if they're commu-, uh collectives?
No.63054
What is the best political ideology for a Christian?
I was thinking Libertarianism or paleo-conservative.
No.63061
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>63054
Considering that there are still people who think that Jesus was a scoialist, you can interpret Christianity anyway you want.
For a libertarian catholic, check out Tom Woods.
No.63072
>>63054
As a Christian you're gonna struggle with the ideals of the community with those of the individual. You can make the two work together but you're always gonna have infighting to some extent. This can be seen with so many turning back to the Orthodox church as the Catholic pope shows his socialist colors all the time. The level of socialism you're willing to tolerate is almost entirely dependent on the denomination you happen to follow. The Greek Orthodox church is very heavy on community, but they generally consider it the responsibility of individuals to enforce this idea that the "community is the church" in their everyday lives rather than by the force of the state.
All I can recommend is you read Tolstoy, MLK, and some of Gandhi's works.
No.63086
>>62902
Positive Rights are disgusting and should be thrown in the trash
No.63133
>>62902
>Mutualism is authoritarian because people are being forced to work for each other
Lmao what?
No.63137
Basically what this anon said >>63048
In reality there's no libertarian left the same way unicorns don't exist. Just because you can "imagine" something it doesn't mean it will work that way. The "libertarian right" is more attached to reality and human nature while "libertarian left" is simply an utopia based on fucking nothing where they expect humans creating "commie communes" out of fucking nowhere without any kind of authority taking over while at the same time everyone share everything with everyone because yeah, unicorns.
Basically we agree on "getting rid of the state" and taking out authority, but the differences come from our understanding of human nature.
Libertarian right believe in humans doing the best for themselves and their groups, and through competition and the market stability is created in a natural way. This freedom is not perfect and is not always "just", but it's not like a putting a state on something makes things "just" so it's better to leave justice and organization to each individual, community, group, etc…
The NAP and the protection of private property happens due to human nature too, while for the left there's no private property, everything is from everyone again because unicorns.
No.63141
>>63133
Every society with specialization (division of labour) is authoritarian because you are forced to work for each other if you want to be part of the society. This is why anarcho-primitivism is the only way to freedom.
No.63149
>>62907
>"Libertarian Leftism" isn't really libertarian at all, because it usually requires the government to assume power over the economy. I could be wrong, but that's how I've had it explained to me by LibSocs, unless this umbrella also includes types like Gary Johnson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
No.63156
>>63141
Funny how you posted a pic of a wolf, one of the most capitalistic animal in the world.
No.63159
>>63156
Yes, wolves are well known for voluntarily engaging in trade, or whatever the fuck you retards think capitalism is.
No.63179
there's no libertarian left because that insinuates that an individual minority is entitled to arbitrary rights
libertarian leftism is just anarchism
anarcho capitalism is just liberalism
I'm willing to back up this statement with history if you ask nicely
No.63182
>>63179
Willing to give us liberalism back, at least?
No.63183
>>63180
you image proves me right though?
No.63185
>>63182
I mean it's the right wing media that swapped the definitions of "liberal" and "libertarian" in the first place.
sure, take it.
No.63192
>>63159
They exploit the memes of reproduction of the animals that live on their territory, so they are capitalists from a Socialist's point of view.
No.63201
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>63155
>It's literally just the idea to put the surplus in a centralized location and then share what it there, or in modern times, create a computer algorithm and simply redistribute resources based on supply/demand of the goods/service automatically.
If the group has access to all resources since everything is centralized, how do you determine supply and demand? How do you determine value?
Read Ludwing von Mises, vid related.
>Got something for ya, 'pal.
Can't handle those refutals from the faggot who thinks humans will simply share everything with no issues because who cares about basic economics and value.
No.63205
>>63201
>How do you determine value?
What value are you talking about? Marx originally recognised two (and even three, although the third kind was invented ad hoc by him to be more consistent and not fall for the same traps Ricardo did fell) types of value - one was the use value, the other was exchange value. He then equated use value with socially necessary labor time that was required to produce a given commodity A whereas exchange value was inherent to the process of exchange where two traders would exchange some amount of A for some amount of B - exchange value being the relation between commodities A and B. If (as you've assumed) all resources are owned by the state, there is no trade and consequently there is no need to determine exchange value for there is no exchange whatsoever.
>bud egonomig galgulacion broblem :-DDDD
There is no economic calculation problem. The whole premise of market socialism is that you can have an economy which could be effective in terms of allocation like a market economy without relying on a gang of usurpers and surplus value extractors - namely capitalists. The point of a market economy is that when (say) demand for commodity X increases the price must increase in consequence, thereby giving capitalists the incentive to move the factors of production into the production process of this particular commodity and produce bigger quantities of X. This could work equally well in socialism, as Lange explained - if demand for X raises, state-owned buisnesses will see a temporary shortage of X for there is not enough supply to cover the increased demand. Lange assumed that there is a natural quantity of reserves that firms hold in order to meet an unexpected demand for a certain good. If the market was at equilibrium then these reserves would remain constant and untouched. However, if reserves were smaller then the natural amount, it would mean that there is a shortage and in order to overcome it the planners would increase the price and contact the factory that produces X telling them to increase production. Analogical process would take place in conditions of surplus. So yeah, market socialism would solve these problems equally well.
>Read Ludwig von Mises
>"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." - L. von Mises, "Liberalism"
Umm, how about I say no?
You're a fucking retard. Read a book.
No.63206
>>63205
>points out an intentionally out of context meme excerpt
Keep meming. It's all you have.
No.63207
>>63206
How nice of you that you didn't make a slightest reference to what I've written. Does that mean Socialists 1000001 : 0 Capitalists?
No.63209
>>62902
your graphs theories are absolutely retarded man
No.63210
>>63207
I'm not going to discuss debunked 19th century garbage for the billionth time. There is no "debating" happening. Award yourself as many autism points as you wish. Repeating previously debunked theory doesn't make it worth addressing anew every single time.
This is your last (you).
No.63215
>>63141
wtf wolves are hierarchial
>>63183
how does a quote out of context prove you right?
>>63205
>one was the use value, the other was exchange value
I never understood this as two separate values. I only exchange something that I value to be put to use or assume that others value to be put to use.
>surplus value
Where is this surplus coming from if profits from most businesses are low? The majority of businesses fail within 5 years.
No.63229
>>63205
I love when commies get triggered by the ECP. How are those theories working out in real life? Oh, they don't work, yeah.
>He then equated use value with socially necessary labor time that was required to produce […]
This and the entire concept of surplus value has been debunked millions of times and anyone not living in the 19th century would realize how fucking retarded it is.
What determines the value of that labour? What is risk? What is time preference? What is the subjective and changing inclinations of value according to culture or personal preference?
Exchange is just a consequence of supply and demand, eliminating exchange through taking all the means of productions would only create a black market (as it has happened in every try of communism) that would allow that exchange and therefore value to be created.
>This could work equally well in socialism, as Lange explained […]
Good job giving examples that never worked. Now if you have a society where consuption is "free" and supply and demand goes along with "planners" that work considering how much is consumed, what let's you make sure people is simply consuming no-stop since there's no personal responsability created through value?
Do I need you to remind you of the Aral Sea for example? Or even Norilsk.
Salaries would be based out of nothing since all labour would need to be considered the same or be divided by tiers that would randomly be generated by your all oh-powerful state. Any kind of currency under this model would have no value whatsoever apart from what the state decides, again, randomly generated because the market is not only essential goods, but also services or even fucking nothing if people decide to give their money to literally scammers that the state can't control (and let's not forget the black market).
So you basically can't stop people consuming that X you were talking about since their money is basically paper and the state is giving their resources for whatever value they decide, creating the abuse of a good or service while at the same time creating a burocratic system that makes harder to create alternatives or allowing any kind of competition to arise while making sure the planned value goes up because there's more labour involved in this process that shouldn't even exist.
Since there's no competition and the state would make sure the black market is shut down to let their shit system to work people would be forced to use whatever the state gives instead of any other kind of invention they could create or alternative. Corruption would surely come out since the political power (or your "planners") would decide everything and make sure some people takes advantages of any kind, let it be over resources or businesses, since after all what we have is a huge monopoly of the state and state-owned business that would decide everything for you.
Now is where I wait for an example where any kind of monoly didn't turn out in a shitfest with high prices, abuse and fraud, that I will never get an answer because of course all your bullshit is only theory that never has worked and never will work.
What is cuba? What is Venezuela? What was Zimbabwe? What was the Soviet Union? What was la Commune de Paris? What was the Revolutionary Catalonia?
inb4 "but real Communism has never been tried"
>Taking Von Mises out of context to strawman
Good job
No.63246
>>63205
> He then equated use value with socially necessary labor time
No he didn't try actually reading Marx
No.63270
>>63229
>hohoho only autist… pardon, austrian egonomigz
>literally believes that empirical evidence cannot disprove an a priori conjecture
>tries to argue that market socialist economies will always fall apart on the basis of empirical evidence
areyouretarded.mp4
>>63210
>hahaha kid you're literally not my level, your theories have been debunked 2000 B.C. even though I am not going to mention any argument that was used to debunk it - it would surely cause cognitive dissonance on your side, wouldn't it? XDDD
Pic rel is a protip for you, retarded cappie.
>>63215
It's not like Marx hadn't forseen that - he clearly made a conjecture that any form of market economy would become more and more monopolized as time would proceed. And surprise - it turned out to be true. The fall of small enterprises simply proves that we are in a predatory stage of capitalism where none small firm can prevail. And low profits? Well, that was also one of Marx's conclusions - the law of falling rate of profit.
No.63273
>>63270
>>literally believes that empirical evidence cannot disprove an a priori conjecture
So you think that it would be conceivable to disprove arithmetics or Pythagoras Theorem, or do you want to qualify that statement?
No.63277
>>63273
Shame on (you) for replying to that. He's bored and desperate for attention and you just gave it to him.
No.63278
>>63270
People tend to think markets are becoming monopolised, but I'm not sure it's true. Empires rise and fall tbh
No.63279
>>63270
>increased regulations unsurprisingly benefit those who write and lobby for them, protecting them from the competition they could otherwise be receiving
>this is the free markets fault
No.63283
>>63273
What I was adressing was the ultimate retardation of practitioners and cultists of austrian economics when they simply cherrypick the empirical examples that support they doctrine and regard all that disprove it as unimportant. At no point did I say that I myself favor extreme empiricism, my point was that you are dishonest to the bones.
>to disprove arithmetics or Pythagoras Theorem
They are based on axioms that seem to be resonable and reflect our reality, but they are just it - sets of statements based upon other statements up until the core which cannot be proved in any way. Marx's doctrine also was an a priori one - he did start from the premise of homo oeconomicus which seems to be an axiom of most mainstream economics. It just happens that (unlike austrians) he correctly predicted and described the dynamics of capitalist economies.
>>63279
Are you an idiot? Well, I know you are, but this is like the next level. USA started to impose mild regulations on businesses around 1890. Monopolies and cartels like Standard Oil Trust or railroad companies did exist before that. Marx predicted this to happen on the basis that some companies will accumulate more capital and engage in price wars with others to drive out the unwanted competition thereby monopolizing the industry.
No.63284
>>63279
You can be 100% sure none of this is getting through him.
No.63285
>>63277
The worst shitposting is over. Can we please go back to not having every single post reviewed?
No.63289
>>63285
Seems like pretty standard shitposting to me. Someone comes over, decides he's correct if nobody says otherwise and gets instant guaranteed replies. Nothing new is being said as always. The discussion, again, as always continues regardless of any argumentation as the poster skips over it and picks the parts he likes. Repeat infinitely. All completely avoidable by not feeding the lonely neet.
No.63290
>>63283
See? That was a qualification.
>cherrypicking
We have always been honest that empirical evidence only demonstrates what is already proven a priori. You would've gotten the disclaimer if you had bothered to lurk.
>Marx' predictions
Yeah, no. This won't be the hundredth time that I list all the ways in which he was full of shit. Neither am I going to tell you how Austrian Economics work, because I've also done that a hundred times and there's tons of resources for you to check out.
>Standard Oil
>Monopoly
https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil
No.63292
>>63290
We seriously need to create a /leftypol/ sticky for the most common arguments they raise, so that we are not wasting time on repeating things with each weekly raid.
No.63293
>>63292
I can already see it. They get told to read the sticky. Refuse, and demand someone answers them now because if they don't it means they can't personally defend their reasoning and only repeat what they're told.
Everyone gets baited into replying for a good day to a shitpost and nothing changes.
No.63294
>>63290
>(That is, predatory pricing costs the supposed predator far more than it costs the prey, who can further expand the cost difference by temporarily shutting down. Unless the predator is allowed to buy up a victim driven to bankruptcy, others can buy up those assets cheaply, thus allowing them to again compete with the predator and reenter effective competition. Without the ability to prevent entry once monopoly pricing is attempted, the monopoly payoff disappears. Because it requires monopoly power to finance predation, predation cannot be the source of monopoly power.)
What if the predator himself buys the assets? He then owns the whole industry, that's what happens. The ability to prevent entry? Is this some fucking 19th century? The biggest barrier to entry today is the minimum amount of capital that is required to make profits. Only lolbertarians are so stupid to think that if a monopolist has been accumulating surplus value for years and expanding his capital stock then others will enter the industry and establish new enterprises when he finally raises the price. They won't because costs of entry will be so high that noone can prevail, no matter the market price and profit rate. That is the merit of Marx's argument - if the greatest barrier to entry is the amount of capital that has to be accumulated in order to make profits, then the only ones who can live up to the market expectations are those ones who have already been in the market. Therefore, inequalities will be bigger and bigger given the centralization.
No.63296
>>63292
>>63293
We could also create some OC to respond with, or screenshot good replies and then post them to the next guy who asks the same question. I do that sometimes. I now have a standard-reply for when someone wants to know why ethics is a matter of abstract principles, for example. Someone also made a screenshot of Roderick Longs essay on healthcare. I've also considered assembling quotes and so on to prove that the Nazis were socialists without having to repost it every single time. There's lots of possibilities.
No.63298
>>63296
>repost it
I meant, without rewriting it every single time.
No.63306
>>63296
Anything is better than discussing Subjective value and calculation for the gorillionth time. Might as well make some FAQs.
No.63307
>>63061
>Jesus was a scoialist,
Makes me laugh every time I see this.
No.63311
>>63306
We should just screenshot something from Mises. the calculation-problem is not easy to represent accurately. On subjective value, I found a great page that listed all the reasons why it's the way to go and not the LTV.
No.63312
>>63307
Just tell them The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, and that should shut up most of the people who say that Jesus was a socialist.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20
No.63374
>hurr durr a stateless society can only be organized in one way
anyone that agrees with OP hasn't thought about the political compass enough
I T ' S A B O U T H I E R A R C H I E S
No.63585
No.63601
>>63312
Funnily enough, socialists actually use that passage as an example of him being a socialist.
No.63607
>>63601
I would like further explanation with some examples of its usage if possible.
No.63610
>>63607
What don't you get? It says that in heaven everyone gets the same, regardless of their actual work. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs…
The metaphor using wage-labour means very little if anything.
No.63611
>>63610
It reaffirms property rights and freedom of contract. Your interpretation is a long stretch. There was nothing "to each according to his needs…" and assorted faggotry in it, least of all because the passage doesn't even deal with redistribution.
No.63614
>>63601
Oh hi Orthobro, did you see the Google employee thread? What is your take on that whole "debate" between the ancap atheist and the no-flag theist that took place there?
>>63610
So wage""""slavery"""" is wealth redistribution now. I think even /leftypol/ would laugh at these people.
No.63619
>>63610
Now I was confused since this seemed to be a prime case of "THE BOURGEOISIE EXPLOITS THE PROLETARIAT", but now looking at it, everyone got the same pay, which wasn't because Jesus said people should receive the same but because Jesus agreed on that in his contract with the workers, oh well I guess you can ignore that somehow
No.63629
>>63611
>>63614
>>63619
It's a metaphor you dense faggots, obviously nobody is going to work in heaven, since working is hell on earth.
No.63630
> Hey guys let's take a parable (that outright says it's a parable in the fucking title) literally!
And you faggots still wonder why others call you hopelessly autistic.
No.63666
>>63614
I read about it on /tech/ I've been browsing there more and more lately as I teach myself how to code… Shittily… but I didn't really read the /liberty/ thread. I'll take a look if I have some spare time tomorrow or Friday.
No.63670
>>63630
No one here took it literally. I at least didn't, but I also think no one else did. You might wanna take a brainscan or something, because there's something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension.
>>63629
That it's a metaphor doesn't change the fact that it reaffirms property rights. Don't you think that the message would be lost on Jesus' audience if they didn't all accept the notion of property rights? Obviously, he intended for them to see that the employer was within his rights to use his property as he wishes, and then to extend that reasoning to God.
No.63673
>>63629
>working is hell on earth
Some of us desire productivity. Sitting on my ass all day? Now that is hell on earth.
No.63677
>>63670
Yes and The Fox and the Crow reaffirms that animals can talk.
>>63673
false dilemma
No.63678
>>63677
>Yes and The Fox and the Crow reaffirms that animals can talk.
Honest question: Are you retarded? The Parable of the Workers doesn't work if we interpret it in the light of property not being legitimate. The parable of the fox and the crow would work even if we replaced the animals with humans or with beings of pure light. So, again, are you retarded?
No.63679
>>63678
I guess we shouldn't tell our kinds folk tales about princesses and dragons because they no longer exist…
No.63680
>>63679
>Say that fables work as moral tales even without speaking animals involved, therefore they don't affirm that speaking animals exist
>"WTF WE CANT HAVE SPEAKING ANIMALS IN MY FAIRYTALES XD"
Okay, that answers my question, you are retarded.
No.63828
>>62907
No it does not
Mutualism and syndicalism do not need a governemnt to assume control.
No.63829
>>62902
>being forced to work
>implying capitalism is not authoritarian by the same principles
You can choose not to work, well you will starve and die. But you have a choice.
Same in capitalism
No.63830
>>63829
Same in nature. Oh, teh oppression!
No.63832
>>63829
>You can choose not to work, well you will starve and die. But you have a choice.
I guess Anarcho-Primitivism isn't anarchism as well.
No.63836
>>63830
>>63832
Retards he's talking about OP:
>Also mutualism is authoritarian because people are being forced to work for each other
No.63838
>>63830
>>63832
ALL I WANTED TO DO IS SIT ON MY ASS AND GET GIBZ
I AM OPPRESSED
No.63879
leftist libertarian wants open borders
he is idealistic like that, and will get rekt in the real world
right libertarian may compromise a bit of the ideals, but its for the sake of results
closing and manning the national borders for example, may not be libertarian policy, but you gotta be more.. strategic, operational and tactical about your libertarianism, while everyone should have freedom of movement and so on, you cant reasonably expect flee bitten radical kebabs to follow the nap
No.63882
>>63879
Not all left libertarians support immigration
Same as many right wing libertarians support mass immigration and open borders
It isn't a defined libertarian policy.
No.63883
>>63882
>right wing
>mass immigration
what? listen, the main distinction of the left and the right is the equality question: leftists thing equality is either true or desirable, while right wingers do not think equality is true or desirable
screw american definitions or ahistorical/provincial bullshit, stick to the whole which side of the french parliament you were sitting on, aristocratic (right) or peasant (left)
if you are a leftist, you think equality is true and possible, and you want the immigration cos we are all equal and you have no reason to prevent it
No.63884
>>62902
Look Horseshoe theory is bullshit. From what i have seen more of the collective ideologies listed under egoism (Nazism, Facism) are pretty Altruism, it is usually compassion for your country that leads to this.
And for the record, Ancap/Libertarianism should be maxed out for Egoism, not in the middle.
No.63885
>>63884
This. National socialism and fascism are more forms of socialism and weren't taken for anything else by their supporters.
No.63886
>>63885
Almost, Facism is so far away from the core idea of socialism that it is hard to even throw it under the umbrella.
Facism is more of just ultra-nationalist authoritarian with a heavily manipulated and regulated market.
And the people aren't 100% owned by the state, since the means of production weren't sized.
I'd still rather live under Facism than Communism tho.
No.63905
>>62902
Those political compasses do not reflect the meaningful content of political positions. Here, have a better one.
No.63907
>>63905
That one's just as bad, sorry. Racialism is an identitarian (universalist) trait, not a particularist one [spoiler][/spoiler]. Nationalism even more so. The Nazis were highly identitarian and they were both racialist and nationalist.
Racialism reduces people to their race, and while it will probably lead to different castes when implemented, within each case, people will be treated equally and they won't have much room for developing themselves and shaping their destiny. Allegiance to their race takes the highest priority (or one of the highest) and is strictly enforced.
Nationalism mirrors the same with regards to the nation. It seeks to destroy regional differences and puts servitude to the nation before loyalty to your actual home and your family. It is, therefore, identitarian. Patriotism, in a way, is its opposite. Patriotism intends to preserve your homeland, nationalism intends to mold it and to expand it. Patriotism is defensive, nationalism is aggressive.
The dichotomy of skepticism and idealism is completely messed up and looks like someone made it up as he went along. Capitalism, if anything, is traditional compared to socialism. Socialists tend to be future-oriented and highly materialistic.
No.63990
>>63905
nationalist is more collectivism so universalism than particularism imo