Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people [Archive]

IcarusAngel

27th July 2008, 01:11

Disagree. The guy on the left probably wants the government to patent his "inventions" and protect his corporate and "private" property.

Capitalism = big government tyranny:

"'Capital'... in the political field is analogous to 'government'... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

So the consistent anarchist would oppose hierarchical religion, property, and state.

"In writing this memoir against property, I bring against universal society an action petitoire [a legal claim to title]: I prove that those who do not possess to-day are proprietors by the same title as those who do possess; but, instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition."

Study more anarchist theory.

IcarusAngel

27th July 2008, 01:19

"No good to the community, of any sort or kind, results from the private ownership of land. If men were reasonable they would decree that it should cease tomorrow..." --Bertrand Russell, Mathematician and anarchist, quoted in Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell.

Anarchism is the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is, the abolition of private property and government; Anarchism is the destruction of misery, of superstitions, of hatred. Therefore, every blow given to the institutions of private property and to the government, every exaltation of the conscience of man, every disruption of the present conditions, every lie unmasked, every part of human activity taken away from the control of the authorities, every augmentation of the spirit of solidarity and initiative, is a step towards Anarchism.

"Capital is the source of all slavery." -- Bakunin

""What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on."--proudhon

GPDP

27th July 2008, 01:41

Killfacer

27th July 2008, 01:44

Anarchism demands the destruction of all state/state functions. Libertarianism, or my understanding of it, demans the minimisation of state intervention.

Isnt that the difference?

Schrödinger's Cat

27th July 2008, 02:23

No, libertarianism is anarchy for middle class ideologues. Real capitalists (i.e. rich people) do not take libertarianism seriously. They demand a strong, powerful state to protect and further their interests.

If they like any aspect of libertarianism, it is its call to end all social welfare programs that place a tax burden on them. In this manner, libertarianism is not an ideal, but a weapon to be used against those who demand the redistribution of wealth along more egalitarian lines.

Indeed. The monopolies Tucker maps out, and the ones existing today (intellectual property, corporate personhood, force, currency, etc.) are only feasible with a state. The billionaires of our day are direct benefactors of the state; although, I have seen anarcho-capitalists on anti-state.com defend copyrights and corporations. Rothbard in particular, after he lost all sense and shifted right in defense of Buchanan, elaborated on how corporations would still exist under his ideal of anarchism.

Right-libertarians are very convenient with where they leave off. Obviously the state is exploitative. But so can barbarism.

Bud Struggle

27th July 2008, 12:52

No, libertarianism is anarchy for middle class ideologues. Real capitalists (i.e. rich people) do not take libertarianism seriously. They demand a strong, powerful state to protect and further their interests.

True!

If they like any aspect of libertarianism, it is its call to end all social welfare programs that place a tax burden on them. In this manner, libertarianism is not an ideal, but a weapon to be used against those who demand the redistribution of wealth along more egalitarian lines.

Not so true. Social welfare programs keep people on subsistance living which for some reason most people in that category find acceptable. While they're not "happy" they become afraid that any alternative will deprive them of the few dollars they do receive.

There never will be a Revolution as long as people recieve Welfare checks. :)

spartan

27th July 2008, 22:01

There never will be a Revolution as long as people recieve Welfare checks.

I hate to say it but i think you might be right.

Social Democracy (though better then free market capitalism) is probably the reason why capitalism survived the twentieth century in western Europe.

GPDP

27th July 2008, 22:09

I agree as well, to an extent. My point, however, is that the ruling class has in libertarianism a wealth of pro-capitalist propaganda that can be used to justify the current order, even if libertarians themselves object to the way certain things are set up.

Plus, it tends to draw potential leftists away from socialism. :mellow:

Aurelia

27th July 2008, 22:39

No, libertarianism is anarchy for middle class ideologues. Real capitalists (i.e. rich people) do not take libertarianism seriously. They demand a strong, powerful state to protect and further their interests.

Exactly, which is why people who really own capital and exploit labor do not support libertarianism, because they know a big repressive state is needed to protect private property and the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

Bud Struggle

27th July 2008, 23:00

Exactly, which is why people who really own capital and exploit labor do not support libertarianism, because they know a big repressive state is needed to protect private property and the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

On the other hand--the state also protects the "little people". It won't let the corporations get so invasive in people's life that they revolt. People win lawsuits againsts big corporations all the time--it keeps the companies on their toes and gives the people the idea that they have some say in the governance of the country. The companies just charge higher prices to pay for loosing the law suits--so they really loose nothing. But it keeps the people happy.

And that's is reason #2 the people won't revolt.

It's a pretty good system.

Welcome to RevLeft, Aurelia--I hope you stay and learn and contribute. It's a wonderful place. If you haven't guessed, I'm one of the "bad guys", but pay no mind to that--we are all here to learn and have fun--each in our own way. Enjoy. :)

Demogorgon

27th July 2008, 23:10

On the other hand--the state also protects the "little people". It won't let the corporations get so invasive in people's life that they revolt. People win lawsuits againsts big corporations all the time--it keeps the companies on their toes and gives the people the idea that they have some say in the governance of the country. The companies just charge higher prices to pay for loosing the law suits--so they really loose nothing. But it keeps the people happy.

And that's is reason #2 the people won't revolt.

It's a pretty good system.

Welcome to RevLeft, Aurelia--I hope you stay and learn and contribute. It's a wonderful place. If you haven't guessed, I'm one of the "bad guys", but pay no mind to that--we are all here to learn and have fun--each in our own way. Enjoy. :)
Most of the big capitalists would love to get rid of Government protection for consumers and workers while keeping protection for their corporations though.

Pogue

27th July 2008, 23:11

Libertarianism is where you let the rich people do whatever they want. It sucks big time. It's not freedom, its oppression.

trivas7

28th July 2008, 00:03

Aurelia

28th July 2008, 00:07

Libertarianism: the freedom is starve.

Bud Struggle

28th July 2008, 00:17

Libertarianism: the freedom is starve. Seperately.

Communism: the freedom to starve together. :)

[Edit: 1,500th post. Sigh.]

nuisance

28th July 2008, 00:20

Seperately.

Communism: the freedom to starve together. :)

[Edit: 1,500th post. Sigh.]
Jeez I hope you're joking!

Bud Struggle

28th July 2008, 01:19

Jeez I hope you're joking!

Of course! If we can't laugh at ourselves how can we be trusted to see the humor in others. :lol:

Malakangga

28th July 2008, 14:16

No,hell fucking no

disobey

28th July 2008, 23:04

Am I a libertarian then?

I'd be probably considered part of the petit-bourgoisie by many for having a mortgage. But that doesn't mean I own property, especially considering it's leasehold and thus can be ultimately reclaimed by the state in the forseeable future, since the land on which my house sits is effectively leased from the local council for a limited time. Also, it's a loan, and I pay interest to the capitalists on that loan, so they profit from my debt. They can seize my "assets" at any time if I cannot pay them. This implies that I have capital in my home; however capital only exists when it is created by the market. I do not decide the "value" of capital nor can I directly control the "perceived" value of my property on the market, even though supposedly I "own" it.

It is for this reason I consider myself part of the proletariat, and not of the bourgeosie. And to clarify my stance, I personally don't believe property ownership is a right, nor should it be a priveledge to be enjoyed by the few at the expense of the many. On an individual basis, I "own" property because in the current economic climate it is cheaper than renting!

"Anarchist in mind, socialist in body, capitalist in practice."

So am I still a libertarian? And if I am, do such distinctions matter?

Bud Struggle

28th July 2008, 23:15

i'd be probably considered part of the petit-bourgoisie by many for having a mortgage.

Restricted!

Tho' would you mind if I steal this for my sig line? I kind of like it:

"Anarchist in mind, socialist in body, capitalist in practice."

Trystan

28th July 2008, 23:28

Libertarianism is the government shitting on the poor and kissing the asses of the rich. Thatcherite Britain is a case in point.

IcarusAngel

28th July 2008, 23:52

Which is why it's not anarchist. In anarchism there is "no government."

And I disagree that Libertarianism is even "minimal government." A true minimal government would put far more power into the hands of the people, rather than into the hands of elite instutitions.

Libertarianism is "small government" in the same way colonial slave societies were small government, who had no protection for the workers, or the slaves, except very minor protections.

You saw that when protections for the slaves increased, slavery was weakened, until finally it was even eliminated through rebellion (the slaves were more powerful, and thus had more means to fight back).

So, protecting the workers over the corporations would be a better, non-interfering government, that only interferes when it is more necessary (such as breaking up monopolies, not busting in the heads of workers and corporations in the 1920s, where Libertarians want to take us, back to the Coolidge society).

freakazoid

29th July 2008, 08:54

I hate to say it but i think you might be right.

Social Democracy (though better then free market capitalism) is probably the reason why capitalism survived the twentieth century in western Europe.

On the other hand--the state also protects the "little people". It won't let the corporations get so invasive in people's life that they revolt. People win lawsuits againsts big corporations all the time--it keeps the companies on their toes and gives the people the idea that they have some say in the governance of the country. The companies just charge higher prices to pay for loosing the law suits--so they really loose nothing. But it keeps the people happy.

And that's is reason #2 the people won't revolt.

Yup, and I bring you to, my idea thread, http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-my-ideas-t83188/index.html :D

disobey

29th July 2008, 10:21

"Anarchist in mind, socialist in body, capitalist in practice."

That's my intellectual property, that is. ;)

All theft is property they say! :D

nuisance

29th July 2008, 11:19

I'd be probably considered part of the petit-bourgoisie by many for having a mortgage. But that doesn't mean I own property,
A house is not a means of production, therefore it isn't 'property' in that sense and does not make you petit bourgeois.

Schrödinger's Cat

29th July 2008, 16:23

In the last episode an anarcho-capitalist yelled at me for making fun of his defense for war as a means of destroying a private protection agency consisting of rapists.

Now I'm being called authoritarian for not - get this - supporting the construction of a Meth lab next to my house. :laugh:

My 'authoritarian' self doesn't want a Meth lab right next door, for example. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

wut right do u have to tell me wut i can and cannot do in my own home?

Why do you use chat room lingo?

Why can I tell you not to turn your house into a Meth laboratory? http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Foremost, private ownership over land and natural resources is authoritarian, so everyone interested in the use of these materials has a say. Secondly, Meth labs create toxic environments which can affect my air supply, home value, or life.

Being "radical" without any thought doesn't make you cool, by the way.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2918655#2918655

Schrödinger's Cat

29th July 2008, 16:27

A house is not a means of production, therefore it isn't 'property' in that sense and does not make you petit bourgeois.

Having a mortgage doesn't constitute anything, if you ask me. Although you're entitled to use, the bankers are clearing out your wallet - just so you can have shelter. Apparently land was made by someone's toil.

Debt is meant to make the rich richer. Having debt doesn't make you petit-bourgeoisie.

freakazoid

29th July 2008, 21:26

Now I'm being called authoritarian for not - get this - supporting the construction of a Meth lab next to my house.

Why can't someone who lives next to you have a meth lab?

Dean

29th July 2008, 21:52

Why can't someone who lives next to you have a meth lab?
[/font]

The risk of explosion?

Decolonize The Left

29th July 2008, 21:53

I've read two arguments for 'why the revolution won't happen':
1) People receive welfare. The extension of this argument is that so long as the impoverished working class receive benefits from the state they will not take up arms against it.
2) The state protects the 'little people.' The extension here is that by allowing smaller businesses, and some groups, the recognition of dissent, the state is feeding their desire for change while keeping said change at a minimum.

Is my understanding of these arguments correct?

- August

freakazoid

29th July 2008, 22:10

Is my understanding of these arguments correct?

I would say so.

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 00:20

spartan

30th July 2008, 00:36

Since I penned those two arguments, I believe so.

I work with a good sized group of prolatarians--and to me at least, they don't want responsibility and change--they want a little more than the next guy.
Sad but true in most cases.

The first world working class has lost alot of class conciousness since the end of the cold war, which i find odd seeing how free market capitalism has been doing far worse for the majority of people then our old social democratic welfare states.

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 01:01

Sad but true in most cases.

The first world working class has lost alot of class conciousness since the end of the cold war, which i find odd seeing how free market capitalism has been doing far worse for the majority of people then our old social democratic welfare states.

A large part of this has to do with the changing personality of Capitalism. When my dad worked in a factory--the piece of crap boss above him that make $2 more an hour was "Mr." XYZ. He did the entire--lording-over-the-worker posture--wore his shirt and tie, ate in a separate lunch room, and never said anything other than, "get back to work" to my father.

Now a days, I'm "Tom". My door is alway open--to discuss business, to discuss their personal problems. My workers have been to my house, I've been to their houses. If I meet their moms, I treat them like royalty. I barbecue for them at the plant. They know my kids--my kids play with their kids. We horse around and we get down to business. I'm there for an extral $20 every now and then.

They've danced with my wife and I've danced with their wives. I've been there for the births of their children.

Now they have their soviets. I'm a 21st century Capitalist. :)

Joe Hill's Ghost

30th July 2008, 01:09

Since I penned those two arguments, I believe so.

I work with a good sized group of prolatarians--and to me at least, they don't want responsibility and change--they want a little more than the next guy.

Says the capitalist, who employs them. Don't talk for them you scumbag. First its a 60 thousand dollar horse, now its talking for your workers. Really just crawl into a hole somewhere. We would all be better off.

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 01:13

Says the capitalist, who employs them. Don't talk for them you scumbag. First its a 60 thousand dollar horse, now its talking for your workers. Really just crawl into a hole somewhere. We would all be better off.

My problem is trying to get to NOT to talk for them and getting them to talk for themselves. :(

I am actually interested in what they have to say, just like I'm intereted in what you and the other Communists here have to say, Joe. :)

Chapter 24

30th July 2008, 01:29

Says the capitalist, who employs them. Don't talk for them you scumbag. First its a 60 thousand dollar horse, now its talking for your workers. Really just crawl into a hole somewhere. We would all be better off.

Why do you always have to be a prick? Yeah it's fucked up that while some people in the world are going to sleep hungry others can purchase grand expensive things, but the terminology you use and how you treat friendly ol' Tom here is unnecessary. And no, that doesn't make me a defender of capitalism, it's just lame how you're always labeling him as a scumbag and a nit when you yourself constantly reply to him with pretentious posts. I think you're an intelligent poster sometimes, but all in all that doesn't matter much when you act like a prick.

Schrödinger's Cat

30th July 2008, 04:17

Why can't someone who lives next to you have a meth lab?
[/font]

Akin to asking: why can't someone who lives next to you not pollute the air with smog?

nuisance

30th July 2008, 13:44

Why do you always have to be a prick? Yeah it's fucked up that while some people in the world are going to sleep hungry others can purchase grand expensive things, but the terminology you use and how you treat friendly ol' Tom here is unnecessary. And no, that doesn't make me a defender of capitalism, it's just lame how you're always labeling him as a scumbag and a nit when you yourself constantly reply to him with pretentious posts. I think you're an intelligent poster sometimes, but all in all that doesn't matter much when you act like a prick.
:rolleyes:
Do you propose sympathy to fascists aswell?

Chapter 24

30th July 2008, 15:50

:rolleyes:
Do you propose sympathy to fascists aswell?

"If you are sympathetic to one capitalist, you must be sympathetic to all capitalists and fascists, as well." What a non-sequitur. Of course I oppose capitalism and fascism. But if it's true what Tom's saying - about his worker's soviets and all - then I'm not going to call him a scumbag. He's a cool guy on the board and that's what matters to me. His workers don't fully operate the means of production, true, but then again that's not really happening right now. That's what a revolution is for.
All I'm trying to say here is that Joe Hill's Ghost just needs to back the fuck off of him. Capitalism sucks, but TomK certainly doesn't represent every capitalist out there.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 01:06

Anyways this is pretty off-topic, so could someone trash the derailment or split it?

Killfacer

31st July 2008, 01:10

shut up and get on with the debate

nuisance

31st July 2008, 01:11

shut up and get on with the debate
Which debate?

freakazoid

2nd August 2008, 06:02

The risk of explosion?

There are a few different ways to create meth, not all of which have the risk of explosion. Also besides that, so what if there is a risk of explosion? Am I not able to create explosives either? And what if I live out in the middle of nowhere?

Akin to asking: why can't someone who lives next to you not pollute the air with smog?

Do you realise how many things are out there that create foul particles in the air? Are we not allowed to own cars anymore? How about smoke? Also the living in the middle of nowhere example.

Socialismo_Libertario

2nd August 2008, 07:40

yes and no! As mentioned by others capitalists need a strong government to protect their interests and keep the working classes under control. At the same time they want a government unwilling to nationalise their industries or impose checks and restrictions. These people are also in support of several seemingly "liberal" ideas in order to keep the masses under control and satisfied with what they have got. This is stronger in times of no real "danger" (post-cold war). Again, there needs to be a distinction between anarcho-capitalists/right wing libertarians and libertarian socialists!