Aruging with Libertarians

[Ocean Seal]

I don't really understand how to argue with the hardcore who always seem bent on reducing everything to semantics. Is there a way to avoid it? Or reduces everything to human nature is selfish. Especially when they assume that every exchange is given upon selfish desires. I told him that it didn't matter why they did it, just the context under which they did it was always socially constructed.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You shouldn't argue with them. People who have hardcore anti-socialist beliefs are not the ones that communists and socialists should be trying to introduce our ideas onto. Rather, focus your efforts on those workers who are open to our ideas. That vanguard of workers is who we should focus on, not on middle class libertarians. You can tell them every possible argument in favour of Marxism, but chances are it's not going to help and you have just wasted much time and effort on them rather than on actual work to help our cause.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Yeah, take it from someone who used to be in this camp....

Until they end up facing some kind of hardship like losing their job, or having their house foreclosed on, they will continue to think they are bullet proof. You should instead focus on those who are actually open to what you have to say.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Just to clarify, I think skilled Marxists should still argue against the ideas of libertarians (and of other bourgeois ideologies) in the form of literature like articles, books, pamphlets, etc. Exposing and criticising bourgeois beliefs, and sharing these criticisms with advanced workers is a step forward in combatting capitalist ideas and of building a vanguard party of the working class.

[Radical Rambler]

One hysterical thing you can do is tell them about the labor aristocracy. Lenin said the labor aristocracy was absolutely vital to the functioning of capitalism, and that without them, it would all collapse. Lenin also says that the workers who follow the opportunist (labor aristocratic) line are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the capitalists are.

Libertarians almost never encounter this idea, and when they hear it the first time, they are usually completely silent, as if all their readings of Ayn Rand and Mises never equipped them to deal with the concept.

[Ocean Seal]

Just to clarify, I think skilled Marxists should still argue against the ideas of libertarians (and of other bourgeois ideologies) in the form of literature like articles, books, pamphlets, etc. Exposing and criticising bourgeois beliefs, and sharing these criticisms with advanced workers is a step forward in combatting capitalist ideas and of building a vanguard party of the working class.
Ok but in a real situation, how do I avoid it, or simply shut down libertarians with obvious contradictions in their logic.

[tachosomoza]

Simple. Don't talk politics with them. They're some of the most narrow minded assholes you could ever hope not to meet.

[IBleedRed]

I have to agree with what's been said so far. I used to be a Ron Paul-type libertarian and I would probably never have listened to even "reasonable" liberal ideas, let alone evil red socialism! Then again, I've also always been working class (grew up in a blue collar family), so I was no stranger to hardship. I'd say don't bother arguing with libertarians, unless they're working-class. We should definitely rebuke their arguments through official channels, such as pamphlets, literature, etc, but random spontaneous debates usually lead nowhere. Lolbertarians will toss out some buzz words like "freedom" and "liberty" and then that's that.

[Queen Mab]

I don't really understand how to argue with the hardcore who always seem bent on reducing everything to semantics. Is there a way to avoid it? Or reduces everything to human nature is selfish. Especially when they assume that every exchange is given upon selfish desires. I told him that it didn't matter why they did it, just the context under which they did it was always socially constructed.

What do you mean exactly?

If they assume that humans are naturally selfish that should be absolutely trivial to disprove. Right now I'm spending a minute of my time to help you debate libertarians for no material reward. And that's the most immediate example possible!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Ok but in a real situation, how do I avoid it, or simply shut down libertarians with obvious contradictions in their logic.

It depends. Where is it that you are encountering and debating libertarians? If it can simply be avoided, avoid it. Don't talk to them about politics. Otherwise, you can use arguments against their ideas, but don't debate them for hours. If it comes to it, exchange a few words and let them be. They won't change. If they keep harping on for a debate, you can tell them you have better things to do (because, well, debating those fools is a waste of time). I bet one can probably look up some good anti-libertarian arguments, or even use the search function, there's bound to be a thread on here about libertarianism. Otherwise, we could create ask to create a stick thread and compile anti-libertarian arguments. Maybe there's a sticky in the learning section that could help?

[Tolstoy]

I briefly saw myself as a left liberterian of some stripe, reading Rothbard, Von Mises and SEK3 but it lost its appeal when it dawned on me just how awful the problem with homelessness is in this country

[Radio Spartacus]

I agree that you're wasting your time arguing with libertarians, but I love to point out the failure of the human nature argument...

Most of what people refer to as Human nature is socially constructed. People around the world have vastly different attitudes and customs, and these correlate with where they are raised. It's really an issue of political socialization, values have shifted dramatically over the course of human history. Even if human nature were problematic, why have a society designed to encourage the worst elements? If human nature is selfishness, surely murder by selfishness should not be allowed as a result? So if we're alright with structuring society to prevent selfishness in that regard, why not tackle the problems of capitalism? Why not prevent the murder associated with this mode of production?

Whatever your opinion on Emma Goldman may be, you'll probably enjoy this quote:

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?"-Emma Goldman

[ColossalButtwipe]

Just point out that they aren't really libertarians, that they are just hardcore liberals that stole the name because of the connotation with freedom. It gets them riled up and you don't have to waste time explaining why Rothbard was wrong about everything.

[argeiphontes]

I don't really understand how to argue with the hardcore who always seem bent on reducing everything to semantics. Is there a way to avoid it? Or reduces everything to human nature is selfish. Especially when they assume that every exchange is given upon selfish desires. I told him that it didn't matter why they did it, just the context under which they did it was always socially constructed.

You could tell them that socialism doesn't have anything to do with altruism or eliminating selfish behavior. It's about changing a system of exploitation and securing real freedom. Individual actions can be just as selfish as they are currently.

[tuwix]

I don't really understand how to argue with the hardcore who always seem bent on reducing everything to semantics. Is there a way to avoid it? Or reduces everything to human nature is selfish. Especially when they assume that every exchange is given upon selfish desires. I told him that it didn't matter why they did it, just the context under which they did it was always socially constructed.

I think you should attack their bases. Read some definitions of free market because free market is base of their beliefs. When you read them, you will know that it's just impossible. For example:

"Where buyers and sellers can make the deals they wish to make without any interference, except by the forces of demand and supply."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/free-market.html

It's just impossible to be dependent only on supply and demand. There can interfere many things from gangsters and state officials to war and natural disasters.

But when you show that their ideology is baseless, they will attack you personally. There is no discussion with religion as argeiphontes used to say. :)

[Remus Bleys]

There is no point of it, no. The most you can do is help them with their independent studying.

[liberlict]

I always ask them, 'so wait you really think beaches should be privatized? How about a company buying up all the worlds oxygen?' Reductio ad absurdum, their ideas are farcical.

I also think that any idea of a 'stateless' society is silly, but you guys are with them on that one.

[adipocere]

Go after the roots of their ideology. They think themselves very clever and free thinking but once you can illustrate how heavily their opinions have been shaped by astroturfing and corporate PR, it begins to undermine their entire concept of being an individual.

Really, their ideas hinge on the concept that they are making a choice - show them the illusion behind that choice and they fall apart before your eyes. The movie, Koch Brothers Exposed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2347411/) is a great place to start with a stubborn Ron Paul 2012! libertarian. Give them a week to ruminate on it, then start bombarding them with real hard information - not theories. You have to lay the groundwork for that.

There is nothing more rewarding than a former libertarian coming to you with leftist literature. It's like a child's first words or something.

[liberlict]

There are a lot of ex-leftists over at the Mises forums and Stormfront. I think there is a personality type that is attracted to radical politics.

[Lowtech]

In a lot of cases, libertarian is a fancy word for conformist and their opinion doesn't amount to more than a philosophical shrug. They tout the philosophy of indifference. Not a very intelligent or thought out notion.

On to your question however, I have encountered the same thing, especially on this board. Often someone believes themselves to be a good debater when they use whats refereed to as the chewbacca defense. When they cannot successfully defend their position, they spout nonsensical anecdotes that they assert as "facts" they believe support their point of view.

In the long run, this does help us better formulate concepts in a way that is quickly and clearly explained.

When it comes to debate regarding economics its important to separate sociology from economics. They will keep pulling you into a sociological mess and hope you won't be able to get yourself out of it. Knowing the difference will help you respond much more sharply.

examples of terms:

Business "owner" = sociological
Value = economic
Labor = economic
Job = sociological
Market = sociological
Ownership = sociological
production = economical

often times they will make five or six different absurd assumptions all in one statement, unravel them systematically.

[IBleedRed]

Another tactic: point out to them that they aren't capitalists since they own no capital:laugh:

Most libertarians I worked with or talked to were actually working-class.

[Queen Mab]

Another tactic: point out to them that they aren't capitalists since they own no capital:laugh:

Most libertarians I worked with or talked to were actually working-class.

Yeah, people referring to themselves as capitalists because they support capitalism always annoys me.

[Orange Juche]

Don't waste your time - you won't change their mind and they wont change yours, and it'll just piss you off in the process.

[#FF0000]

There are a lot of ex-leftists over at the Mises forums and Stormfront. I think there is a personality type that is attracted to radical politics.

Yeah -- dorks, basically (sup).

But yeah I dunno about "tactics" for arguing with libertarians -- or anyone, really. I just sorta point out what they're wrong about and why. :mellow: I always found it pretty easy because their ideas are hella contradictory. For example, being against aggression as a principle while establishing property in the first place is only possible through violence. I also enjoy talking to the really economically minded ones whose opinions are based on models that are internally consistent but simply don't reflect reality in any way or shape.

Y'know, I've spoken to hella people with all sorts of different political views, but I never got a libertarian to ever tell me straight out whether a private party is capable of oppressing people or groups of people like the state can/does.

[Comrade #138672]

Although it is often impossible to talk with these people, sometimes they do actually listen. The least you can do is disarm them.

You can use their favorite "selfishness" argument against them, if you wish to do so. This usually confuses / surprises them, because they expect you to defend what they consider "altruism". This is because idealistic leftists usually fall into their traps, because they talk about morals, responsibilities, ideals, etc., which is nice, but is not going to make you win an argument against philosophical "selfishness".

You can easily re-define "selfishness" to your advantage, because in itself "selfishness" is completely meaningless. Go ahead and explain that socialism is in the workers' own best ("selfish") interests instead of capitalism. Use their own weapon against them!

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't really understand how to argue with the hardcore who always seem bent on reducing everything to semantics. Is there a way to avoid it? Or reduces everything to human nature is selfish. Especially when they assume that every exchange is given upon selfish desires. I told him that it didn't matter why they did it, just the context under which they did it was always socially constructed.

Other than liberals, libertarians are the easiest to debate/argue with over political philosophy. But before you can dialogue with them, you need to understand the fundamental problem of libertarianism:
Libertarianism is a coupling of two, distinct, ideas. The first is political: total individual autonomy. The second is economic: total free market capitalism. Libertarians believe that the only way to achieve total individual autonomy (i.e. personal freedom) is via a completely unhindered market economy.

The problem which they do not see is that a free market economy fundamentally limits individual autonomy by creating immense economic inequality (i.e. a poor person doesn't have freedom to travel as they can't afford it, they don't have freedom of speech as the rich person can put them in jail, etc...). This is the crux of the dialogue and how you will win. You must concede immediately that you agree with the political aim of their ideology (personal freedom). When you sympathize with their political aim you gain the upper hand because their economic aim is rooted in a faulty understanding of capitalism.

Hence your argument against libertarianism has nothing to do with the ideology at all: it is merely an explanation of why free market capitalism fundamentally limits individual autonomy. Once you argue this point home, their ideology collapses as it is self-contradictory.

[RedWaves]

Why even waste your time? Libertarians are the new fascists.


You're not going to get anywhere arguing with idiots that worship Ron Paul and Ayn Rand and think of them as super heroes.


Look they piss me off too, I absolutely cannot stand them cause they are so fucking stupid, but you're not going to get anywhere arguing with them. Their mind is made up, you can't change it. That's end of the story. Just let them live in their false reality of perception. The past 300 years of American history has been ran on Libertarianism. You cannot get anymore capitalist than this.

[#FF0000]

i am generally all for the "don't argue on the internet" strategy (it's the right one 100% of the time) but this "naw don't argue with them there stupid!!!!!" stuff is kinda childish imo

[Petrol Bomb]

i am generally all for the "don't argue on the internet" strategy (it's the right one 100% of the time) but this "naw don't argue with them there stupid!!!!!" stuff is kinda childish imo
If you are all for it why are you on an Internet discussion forum, then?

[Eleutheromaniac]

Point out that they argue nothing but the status quo. How can their views be considered "revolutionary" if they advocate electing officials who are just listening to their constituents? They're not advocating any real change! These officials are supported by PACs and corporations, whereas "Libertarians" claim to be against the intermingling of government and the "free market" (whatever that even means), something they call "cronyism."

As far as "Anarcho-capitalism," it's a farce. I'm sorry, there is nothing anarchistic about the fetishizing of private property. Anarchism doesn't advocate furthering the advantages of the 1%. Anarchism doesn't advocate giving the owners of capital the right to determine how everyone else lives their life, despite claims that the wage-slaves have made a choice. It's naïvety at best, and elitism at its worst. It's extremely right-wing, even though they claim that they fall on no political spectra because their premises are supposedly based entirely on economic principles. /rant

[#FF0000]

If you are all for it why are you on an Internet discussion forum, then?

Self destructive habit.

[IBleedRed]

Other than liberals, libertarians are the easiest to debate/argue with over political philosophy. But before you can dialogue with them, you need to understand the fundamental problem of libertarianism:
Libertarianism is a coupling of two, distinct, ideas. The first is political: total individual autonomy. The second is economic: total free market capitalism. Libertarians believe that the only way to achieve total individual autonomy (i.e. personal freedom) is via a completely unhindered market economy.

The problem which they do not see is that a free market economy fundamentally limits individual autonomy by creating immense economic inequality (i.e. a poor person doesn't have freedom to travel as they can't afford it, they don't have freedom of speech as the rich person can put them in jail, etc...). This is the crux of the dialogue and how you will win. You must concede immediately that you agree with the political aim of their ideology (personal freedom). When you sympathize with their political aim you gain the upper hand because their economic aim is rooted in a faulty understanding of capitalism.

Hence your argument against libertarianism has nothing to do with the ideology at all: it is merely an explanation of why free market capitalism fundamentally limits individual autonomy. Once you argue this point home, their ideology collapses as it is self-contradictory.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here since I used to be a libertarian.

If you had made this argument to me, I would have said that although poverty does limit personal autonomy, it is not the fault of anybody else that you are poor and therefore not the responsibility of anybody else to use their property to bring you out of poverty.

That is to say, "it's not my problem".

I might have also distinguished between negative and positive freedom and argued that the only thing you are owed is negative freedom, i.e, freedom from interference from others but not the right to any material good.

Thoughts? I am genuinely curious as to how you would reply to these points, since I still encounter them even when I suggest that capitalism doesn't permit individual freedom since poverty restricts autonomy.

[#FF0000]

If you had made this argument to me, I would have said that although poverty does limit personal autonomy, it is not the fault of anybody else that you are poor and therefore not the responsibility of anybody else to use their property to bring you out of poverty.

That is to say, "it's not my problem".

I'd say that right here the libertarian is hitting the real core of libertarian thought. Are they for freedom and personal autonomy, or are they for privileges for property owners, including the privilege to extort the disenfranchised for their time and labor?

Then I'd point out the reality of the situation -- that property and the accumulation of capital both only exist because of initiated aggression. How could someone say, at the dawn of human civilization, "this is my lake, and no one can touch my lake" without force or the threat of force?


I might have also distinguished between negative and positive freedom and argued that the only thing you are owed is negative freedom, i.e, freedom from interference from others but not the right to any material good.

Negative and positive freedom are purely semantic though -- the freedom "from" something can just as easily be expressed as a freedom "to" something.

[the debater]

i am generally all for the "don't argue on the internet" strategy (it's the right one 100% of the time) but this "naw don't argue with them there stupid!!!!!" stuff is kinda childish imo

Ahhh. I want to respond to this. But something tells me I shouldn't.

[Decolonize The Left]

If you had made this argument to me, I would have said that although poverty does limit personal autonomy, it is not the fault of anybody else that you are poor and therefore not the responsibility of anybody else to use their property to bring you out of poverty.

That assumes that you are not in poverty. I have never once met a dead broke libertarian. Have you? ;)

But seriously, that comment aside (which I meant honestly, find me a poor libertarian... if you can), a libertarian isn't prepared to follow that train of thought all the way through. You can see where that logic falters:
Claim 1: I'm for 100% personal autonomy.
Claim 2: I'm for a free market capitalist system.
Claim 2 contradicts claim 1. Hence you are forced to concede that you're either a) not entirely for personal autonomy, in which case you're ok with free market capitalism, or b) not entirely for free market capitalism, in which case you'd need an economic system which supported full autonomy.

Your argument doesn't refute mine. You merely added in the notion of responsibility, something which I said nothing about. And it "is your problem" if you want to be philosophical coherent, something most libertarians pride themselves on.


I might have also distinguished between negative and positive freedom and argued that the only thing you are owed is negative freedom, i.e, freedom from interference from others but not the right to any material good.

Semantics. Observe:
Positive freedom: Freedom to a sufficient standard of living.
Negative freedom: Freedom from a non-sufficient standard of living.

Those are the exact same freedoms, merely phrased differently.


Thoughts? I am genuinely curious as to how you would reply to these points, since I still encounter them even when I suggest that capitalism doesn't permit individual freedom since poverty restricts autonomy.

Capitalism restricts freedom because capitalism, by definition, consolidates capital, thereby restricting individual's access to the mechanisms of wealth production. It is fundamentally impossible to achieve individual freedom under capitalism as freedom is predicated upon possession of capital and capital is, by definition under capitalism, private property. Hence individual freedom cannot be a universal but only a conditional and the condition is the possession of capital.

[IBleedRed]

Let's carry this through, shall we? I'm going to respond to the following post since both of you (including #FF0000) make the same arguments.


... a libertarian isn't prepared to follow that train of thought all the way through. You can see where that logic falters:
Claim 1: I'm for 100% personal autonomy.
Claim 2: I'm for a free market capitalist system.
Claim 2 contradicts claim 1. Hence you are forced to concede that you're either a) not entirely for personal autonomy, in which case you're ok with free market capitalism, or b) not entirely for free market capitalism, in which case you'd need an economic system which supported full autonomy.

The restriction on autonomy that occurs under capitalism is caused by poverty, not by other people. Real capitalism(™) would not place any legal inhibitions on anybody to acquire capital, so there is nobody else limiting your freedom.


Your argument doesn't refute mine. You merely added in the notion of responsibility, something which I said nothing about. And it "is your problem" if you want to be philosophical coherent, something most libertarians pride themselves on.

As many libertarians have said, my responsibility is to fulfill my self-interest without treading on others(™).



Semantics. Observe:
Positive freedom: Freedom to a sufficient standard of living.
Negative freedom: Freedom from a non-sufficient standard of living.

Those are the exact same freedoms, merely phrased differently.

"Freedom to" a sufficient standard of living makes no sense. I think you mean to say right to a sufficient standard of living (the notion of positive or negative applies to freedoms and rights).

In that case, the problem is that somebody has to produce the material wealth that enables a sufficient standard of living. So, you are saying you have a right to the labor of others...and that's slavery.



Capitalism restricts freedom because capitalism, by definition, consolidates capital, thereby restricting individual's access to the mechanisms of wealth production. It is fundamentally impossible to achieve individual freedom under capitalism as freedom is predicated upon possession of capital and capital is, by definition under capitalism, private property. Hence individual freedom cannot be a universal but only a conditional and the condition is the possession of capital.
But wealth isn't a zero-sum game.

[Decolonize The Left]

The restriction on autonomy that occurs under capitalism is caused by poverty, not by other people. Real capitalism(™) would not place any legal inhibitions on anybody to acquire capital, so there is nobody else limiting your freedom.

Your argument is incoherent. Poverty doesn't emerge out of thin air; it is created, created by people. So people are responsible for poverty. You wouldn't say that rocks and tin cans are responsible for poverty, would you?

"Real capitalism" ignores this responsibility as it is written by people who are not poor and hence it is not in their (class) interest to write it into their philosophy.


As many libertarians have said, my responsibility is to fulfill my self-interest without treading on others(™).

Capitalism, by definition, treads on others. As I've been saying, 'your' philosophy is self-contradictory.


"Freedom to" a sufficient standard of living makes no sense. I think you mean to say right to a sufficient standard of living (the notion of positive or negative applies to freedoms and rights).

In that case, the problem is that somebody has to produce the material wealth that enables a sufficient standard of living. So, you are saying you have a right to the labor of others...and that's slavery.

Freedom is an ideal, like rights. They are interchangeable in terms of the argument. You have refuted nothing. I am saying that my labor is my own. I don't have a "right" to it, it's written into the sentence itself: my labor. Not a capitalist's labor. Mine. If I want to put it to work with others for a common good then I will, but only so long as it remains mine.


But wealth isn't a zero-sum game.

Yes, under capitalism it most certainly is.

[Future]

Debating with right-wing "libertarians" is a futile exercise. Reason, logic, science, and history mean nothing to them. They care nothing for truth, only hedonistic reward no matter the cost. As Chomsky puts it, American Libertarianism is the "extreme advocation of total tyranny" and "the extreme opposite of what's been called libertarian in every other part of the world since the Enlightenment." People that hold onto such philosophies can't be reasoned with. I find arguing with these dolts to be very similar to arguing with creationists. Truth doesn't matter, and never will. All that matters is their freedom at the expense of others. That's what these monsters value.

[IBleedRed]

Your argument is incoherent. Poverty doesn't emerge out of thin air; it is created, created by people. So people are responsible for poverty. You wouldn't say that rocks and tin cans are responsible for poverty, would you?

I'm afraid you're thinking about this all wrong (and I say this as a leftist, too).

It is not that capitalism always impoverishes workers, but that it impoverishes them relative to capital. Poor people today did not "fall from grace", as if people lived luxuriously in pre-capitalist societies and suddenly lost all that bounty after capitalism. It's just that poor people today are poor despite the extreme abundance and wealth generated by the economy (which is definitely a problem, no doubt)

If a company constructs a factory in some village in the Third World, and employs people and pays them shit, has it impoverished them? No, they were already poor.

That being the case, the libertarian argument would end there: the company did not take anything from them, so what responsibility does it have to resolve their poverty?



Freedom is an ideal, like rights. They are interchangeable in terms of the argument. You have refuted nothing. They are not interchangeable since they are two different kinds of words. That's what I was getting at. I admit, I was being somewhat of a grammar Nazi (should I say that?)


I am saying that my labor is my own. I don't have a "right" to it, it's written into the sentence itself: my labor. Not a capitalist's labor. Mine. If I want to put it to work with others for a common good then I will, but only so long as it remains mine.A libertarian would agree with you. Your labor is yours, but my capital is mine, so if you want to use it, don't I deserve something in exchange?


Yes, under capitalism it most certainly is.I have to disagree again here, and as a leftist, too. Wealth creation under capitalism has never been a zero-sum game. The problem is that it isn't distributed to the people who produce it and need it.

[Marshal of the People]

Debating with right-wing "libertarians" is a futile exercise. Reason, logic, science, and history mean nothing to them. They care nothing for truth, only hedonistic reward no matter the cost. As Chomsky puts it, American Libertarianism is the "extreme advocation of total tyranny" and "the extreme opposite of what's been called libertarian in every other part of the world since the Enlightenment." People that hold onto such philosophies can't be reasoned with. I find arguing with these dolts to be very similar to arguing with creationists. Truth doesn't matter, and never will. All that matters is their freedom at the expense of others. That's what these monsters value.

That is exactly my thought upon the subject as well. There is a really annoying youtuber who calls himself 'Scotty M: The Lassiez-Fair Capitalist" and he really can't be reasoned with for example he said the nazi's never existed.

[celticnachos]

The preconceived notion that capitalism is the utmost expression of freedom is erroneous. The deductions libertarians make that justify this "capitalist freedom" materialize from their theory of subjective value. If the operations of the market are the results of our desires then why do we notice direct interference with the market? Subjectivity is developed through social relations with the objective world. Objects are therefore meaningless without social relations. Modes of production throughout history have changed, we only understand our subjectivity once we understand the modes by which we work. Libertarians make ideal abstractions, not real ones.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm afraid you're thinking about this all wrong (and I say this as a leftist, too).

It is not that capitalism always impoverishes workers, but that it impoverishes them relative to capital. Poor people today did not "fall from grace", as if people lived luxuriously in pre-capitalist societies and suddenly lost all that bounty after capitalism. It's just that poor people today are poor despite the extreme abundance and wealth generated by the economy (which is definitely a problem, no doubt)

If a company constructs a factory in some village in the Third World, and employs people and pays them shit, has it impoverished them? No, they were already poor.

That being the case, the libertarian argument would end there: the company did not take anything from them, so what responsibility does it have to resolve their poverty?

Yes, the company did take something from them. By capitalist definition the company took labor power in the form of profit. There ought not be argument on that note; the argument is whether or not that theft is legitimate.


They are not interchangeable since they are two different kinds of words. That's what I was getting at. I admit, I was being somewhat of a grammar Nazi (should I say that?)

They are different words, but in the terms of our argument they are interchangeable as they are both ideals.


A libertarian would agree with you. Your labor is yours, but my capital is mine, so if you want to use it, don't I deserve something in exchange?

No. Labor built capital, not vice versa. Hence, unless you built your capital all on your own, it isn't really yours now is it?


I have to disagree again here, and as a leftist, too. Wealth creation under capitalism has never been a zero-sum game. The problem is that it isn't distributed to the people who produce it and need it.

It is a zero-sum game. All wealth creation is dependent upon labor power. All labor power is dependent upon energy. The first law of thermodynamics states that all energy within a system is finite: zero-sum game.

[Sabot Cat]

gree with you. Your labor is yours, but my capital is mine, so if you want to use it, don't I deserve something in exchange

I shall quote the noted radical Marxist and Republican President Abraham Lincoln on this matter:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

[Comrade #138672]

I shall quote the noted radical Marxist and Republican President Abraham Lincoln on this matter:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."Lincoln was a (radical) Marxist? I thought he was a bourgeois revolutionary.

[tallguy]

The easiest way to argue against right wing libertarians is to point out that a liberty of the kind they espouse is always gained at the loss of liberty of someone or something else. In other words, their so-called "libertarianism" is nothing more than a plea to be allowed to do what they like and not have to face the consequences of their actions. A true libertarian philosophy would seek to increase, or at least optimise, the liberty of everyone. Otherwise, it's not libertarianism. It's just a form of fascism under a libertarianism guise.

[Sabot Cat]

Lincoln was a (radical) Marxist? I thought he was a bourgeois revolutionary.

That was sarcasm, although I would say that he clearly favored the Labor Theory of Value as an explanation of economic mechanisms and prone to saying things like "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people" and "It has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."

Karl Marx himself seemed to view him at least somewhat positively if his letter on behalf of the International Working Men's Association is anything to go by (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm), or his coverage of the American Civil War.

[Baseball]

That was sarcasm, although I would say that he clearly favored the Labor Theory of Value as an explanation of economic mechanisms and prone to saying things like "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people" and "It has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."

Karl Marx himself seemed to view him at least somewhat positively if his letter on behalf of the International Working Men's Association is anything to go by (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm), or his coverage of the American Civil War.

Many of the early founders of the Republican Party knew, knew of, and many were influenced, by Karl Marx. Many had fled the Germanies after the Revolutions of 1848 (Carl Shurz).

[AnaRchic]

I won't bother debating 'libertarians' as they are statists. We have no common ground. I will however debate with 'anarcho-capitalists', in an attempt to either draw them to real anarchism or get them to abandon their weird self-contradictory title.

The first thing to understand is that some ancaps are really just confused individualist anarchists. Many of these people are a lot closer to Benjamin Tucker than Milton Friedman. In this case it is useful to distinguish between private property in the sense of things occupied/used and "private property" in the capitalist sense which is a state-sanctioned title to land or a productive resource. Point out that the state is absolutely necessary to 'defend' this second type of property, for without such a state the masses of people would never submit to someone claiming 'ownership' of the land upon which they live. I use an island analogy to distinguish capitalism from individualist anarchism.

A bunch of people shipwreck on an island. They all come across a field of coconut trees. They are all relieved that they've found food and set out to harvest. However, one of these individuals, the one who first saw the field, adamantly claims that this field is his and his alone because he found it. Further, since its his, if anyone wants to eat from his field they have to pick ten coconuts for him if they want any for themselves. How likely are the other people to obey his absurdity? They will laugh at him and harvest the food they all need, and if he tries to use violence they will overpower him with ease. The only way a guy like this can make his absurdities carry any weight is if he had a bunch of other guys with machine guns guarding 'his' field, ready to gun down anyone who sets foot on it.

Likewise, to claim individual ownership of a socially-necessary resource requires an apparatus of violence (the state) to defend this title. In this way you can show ancaps that capitalist private property is inherently hierarchical; it is rooted in the denial of others the right to the use of a socially-necessary resource, thereby dis-empowering the non-owners and making them reliant on the owner. For this very reason it requires a state, to enforce this rule of a minority.

Then I would explain how Anarchists do not just oppose the state, we oppose hierarchy. Anarchy means without rulers, and capitalist private property entails rulership by definition. Having gone through all this the ancap can either come over to individualist anarchism (which IS anti-capitalist) or can abandon the use of the word "Anarchist".

[tallguy]

Very nicely argued

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Yeah, take it from someone who used to be in this camp....

Until they end up facing some kind of hardship like losing their job, or having their house foreclosed on, they will continue to think they are bullet proof. You should instead focus on those who are actually open to what you have to say.

This.
Every time I hear right-wing libers complain about the very existence of government with all the 'hand outs' and 'suckling on the teet' of the state, I always think of how they'd feel if they found themselves suddenly without a job or any means of supporting themselves. Whilst the capitalist system remains, they would have to rely on charities or friends / family. If they have no friends or family who can help them and no charities that have the resources, you can bet their hands would be raised sky-ward with mouths eagerly open crying 'pleeeease, please help me, I am a citizen of this country, I deserve your help nanny State, please'

So yeah, whilst they are comfortable and coddled, no chance.

[Baseball]

A bunch of people shipwreck on an island. They all come across a field of coconut trees. They are all relieved that they've found food and set out to harvest. However, one of these individuals, the one who first saw the field, adamantly claims that this field is his and his alone because he found it. Further, since its his, if anyone wants to eat from his field they have to pick ten coconuts for him if they want any for themselves. How likely are the other people to obey his absurdity? They will laugh at him and harvest the food they all need, and if he tries to use violence they will overpower him with ease. The only way a guy like this can make his absurdities carry any weight is if he had a bunch of other guys with machine guns guarding 'his' field, ready to gun down anyone who sets foot on it.

However, the issue is not a bunch of people shipwrecked on an island finding a single coconut tree.
Its billions of people with different interests and desires, and billions of different types of resources, all of which needs managing in some fashion.
The analogy has no relevence.

[Rafiq]

"We have rendered the validity of language obsolete, all that remains is violence."

[Bourgeois]

The easiest way to argue against right wing libertarians is to point out that a liberty of the kind they espouse is always gained at the loss of liberty of someone or something else. In other words, their so-called "libertarianism" is nothing more than a plea to be allowed to do what they like and not have to face the consequences of their actions. A true libertarian philosophy would seek to increase, or at least optimise, the liberty of everyone. Otherwise, it's not libertarianism. It's just a form of fascism under a libertarianism guise.

How is the libertarian stance arguing for the loss of liberty for others? Does it come down to your beliefs of property being violated?

Note that the libertarian stance does not promote freedom from nature or circumstance.

[tallguy]

How is the libertarian stance arguing for the loss of liberty for others? Does it come down to your beliefs of property being violated?

Note that the libertarian stance does not promote freedom from nature or circumstance.
If you kill a someone with a machete slash. Another with a bullet from your gun. Or, your pockets bursting with grain, you leave a third to starve to death because there is no profit to be had.

Which of these is not the taking of liberties?

[Sythan]

I won't bother debating 'libertarians' as they are statists.

Interesting. Normally it's the libertarians who accuse everyone other than the people who agree with them to be a "statist". Can you elaborate?

[helot]

Interesting. Normally it's the libertarians who accuse everyone other than the people who agree with them to be a "statist". Can you elaborate?


Class society, obviously including capitalism, necessitates the existence of the state for the protection and maintenance of the dominant class as a whole. That is why they're statists it's just they fail to realise this as they lack a materialist analysis of society.

[M00nbeamz]

I used to be really good friends with a Libertarian guy. He was actually the one who got me interested in politics. But when I started reading on my own, and decided that Marxism was for me. he got furious about it, he refused to even be my friend anymore because of the "evils" of Marxism and Socialism. Everywhere I look I see Libertarians getting really irate during political debate, and I really wonder if it's because of the ideology itself, or simply the people whom ascribe to it.

[Rafiq]

How is the libertarian stance arguing for the loss of liberty for others? Does it come down to your beliefs of property being violated?

Note that the libertarian stance does not promote freedom from nature or circumstance.

The "libertarian stance" argues for the complete liberty, and autonomy for the master to do as he pleases. The libertarian stance argues for the complete liberty of capital, just as the Optimates, those oh-so heroic defenders of Republicanism (ironically, the Cato institute is named after the scoundrel and reactionary, Cato the younger), defended the liberty of the senetorial aristocracy to do as they pleased with the republic. It is not our "beliefs" about property, but the state of being from which property actually exists, you know, as a real phenomena. That is what we attack. The Communists will, if merciful, give the propertied, the masters, the patriarchs of the world the freedom to die quickly and painlessly. Or suppose we crucify libertarians specifically, so that they may retain the liberty to enjoy the last moments of their life in pain and agony, suffering and helpless, as they would have the proletariat live out their last days before the complete degeneration into catastrophic barbarism that would logically follow any attempt to retain capitalist relations without a "state" (An impossibility, to the fortune of our species).

[AnaRchic]

Even in its most abstract, hazy, and theoretical form, "libertarianism" at best simply proposes the free pursuit of power. Meaning it is still hierarchical and stratified, it just proposes a mythic 'equal opportunity' to seize and wield economic power. This IS NOT real libertarianism.

Real libertarianism seeks the end of stratification and hierarchy through the empowering of all people to live their lives as they choose. This kind of freedom, real freedom, can only be grounded in free and voluntary cooperation; not in competition for power.