Left Libertarianism?

[Havet]

So you are opposed to wage labour?

I'm opposed to the current wage labour in most societies because workers are artificially restricted from competing with capitalists and are not allowed to create alternative enterprises such as communes and cooperatives.

[Steve_j]

How can wage labour equate to the employee owning the products of their labour.

How does this combined with inheritance not equate to accumulation of wealth in which a class based system of inequality is further perpetuated?

[Havet]

How can wage labour equate to the employee owning the products of their labour.

It can't. But I do not see anything wrong with wage labor provided people have a choice to choose otherwise, which they currently don't.

How does this combined with inheritance not equate to accumulation of wealth in which a class based system of inequality is further perpetuated?

I already explained that there is no rational argument to suggest that inheritance in a equal opportunity society will lead to such an accumulation of wealth that inequality appears and is perpetuated.

[Left-Reasoning]

How can wage labour equate to the employee owning the products of their labour.

How does this combined with inheritance not equate to accumulation of wealth in which a class based system of inequality is further perpetuated?

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Courier New]Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product." - Mutualist.org[/FONT][/FONT]

[Steve_j]

But inheritance leads to accumulation of wealth, therefore in a capitalist society, the funds to purchace the means of production and employ people for profit whilst not producing anything themselves, recreating an unequal society wheres others may never have that same opportunity despite their potential.

[Havet]

But inheritance leads to accumulation of wealth, therefore in a capitalist society, the funds to purchace the means of production and employ people for profit whilst not producing anything themselves, recreating an unequal society wheres others may never have that same opportunity despite their potential.

But we are NOT talking about a capitalist society.

[Steve_j]

No? But i thought you were talking about about a system in which the means of production are privatley owned..... ie a capitalist one

[gorillafuck]

Is left libertarianism basically standard anarchism with aspects of geoism inserted into it? That's what I gather from it.

[Left-Reasoning]

From the Alliance of the Libertarian left website.

"[FONT=Arial][Left-Libertarians are] united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation" [/FONT]

[RGacky3]

"[FONT=Arial][Left-Libertarians are] united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation" [/FONT]

Just like regular American Libertarians only with a different strategy, or anarcho-capitalists. The corporatist Capitalism you oppose, is the same one anrcho-capitalists oppose, you just call it something different.

One time vote, then it becomes intersubjective consensus. If a new generation wants to contest it, they can call in another vote.

Ok, so lets say a guy owns a farm, that he was allowed to have, some people in the community arn't getting enough food, the community, could, in your system, just take the guys farm in order to fulfill the peoples needs? Correct? As long as it was done democratically?

When i talk of equality of opportunity I talk of equal ability for an individual to start his own enterprise, bound only by natural market factors. Such enterprise can be communistic, cooperative or a regular trade business. Equality of opportunity is kept by making sure that no entity or institution carry their will by force in a way to grant them privilege.

You say bound ONLY by natural Market factors? THose are huge factors, thats pretty much the way equality is destroyed now, by market factors, sure there are sprinkles of state intervention for the companies, there are alos sprinkles to protect the people, but what makes inequality nower ddays in th market. THats my point, equality of opportunity is not guranteed, or even likely under natural market forces.

[Havet]

Ok, so lets say a guy owns a farm, that he was allowed to have, some people in the community arn't getting enough food, the community, could, in your system, just take the guys farm in order to fulfill the peoples needs? Correct? As long as it was done democratically?

Yes. Now i'd still think it would be a bad idea (to steal the products of one's labor, even if democratically decided), but I would not oppose it.

You say bound ONLY by natural Market factors? THose are huge factors, thats pretty much the way equality is destroyed now, by market factors, sure there are sprinkles of state intervention for the companies, there are alos sprinkles to protect the people, but what makes inequality nower ddays in th market. THats my point, equality of opportunity is not guranteed, or even likely under natural market forces.

Can you provide evidence that it is the market which breeds inequality? The only reason why there is inequality in the current mixed economy is because not everyone has equal opportunity to compete with the capitalists, who got where they are and solidified their position through special privilege.

[RGacky3]

Yes. Now i'd still think it would be a bad idea (to steal the products of one's labor, even if democratically decided), but I would not oppose it.

Ok and I pressume, they could NOT give away private property too and just keep it public.

Can you provide evidence that it is the market which breeds inequality? The only reason why there is inequality in the current mixed economy is because not everyone has equal opportunity to compete with the capitalists, who got where they are and solidified their position through special privilege.

We've gone (are going) over this in other threads, this one is I made just to clear somethings up, but I started it, so I appologise.

[Havet]

Ok and I pressume, they could NOT give away private property too and just keep it public.

I don't understand. Why would in a democratic society people turn private property into public property if they had already agreed upon in making it private in the first place? They would lose competitiveness imo.

[RGacky3]

I don't understand. Why would in a democratic society people turn private property into public property if they had already agreed upon in making it private in the first place? They would lose competitiveness imo.

Well one reason would be they see that private property creates a class society.

But my question was, if in your society, they could just not agree to making it private and instead have it public?

[Havet]

Well one reason would be they see that private property creates a class society.

But my question was, if in your society, they could just not agree to making it private and instead have it public?

I guess so

[RGacky3]

THats a big I guess so, in a society where they can not have property rights, and can take them away at any time, what makes you think there would be property rights?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I did not know there was such a thing as Left Libertarianism.

[IcarusAngel]

I did not know there was such a thing as Left Libertarianism.

Yep, it's hard to believe, given that "American Libertarians" have made Libertarianism into something more totalitarian than fascism. There's a Libertarian on Youtube named "stroodles" who's now talking about the fact that Western countries need to round up all muslims and deport them, failing that, we should execute them.

This is because this "state of affairs," A, is less tyrannical than if muslims destroyed Western culture, would be state of affairs B. Since A's tyranny is < B's tyranny, we should kill all muslims.

(Miseans like to pretend they're being mathematical when they advocate tyranny.)

Interestingly, Stroodles or Confederalsocialist is the leading free-market proponent on the scene today.

[Left-Reasoning]

There's a Libertarian on Youtube named "stroodles" who's now talking about the fact that Western countries need to round up all muslims and deport them, failing that, we should execute them.

Do you mean stodles? If so, I'm quite certain he no longer holds this position and did not consider himself a libertarian when he was a White Nationalist. He later became a libertarian but no longer considers himself to be one.

Also, he used to have an Asian boyfriend. This proves that he is not a racist. :P

Interestingly, Stroodles or Confederalsocialist is the leading free-market proponent on the scene today.

I believe his newest channel is "fringeelements".