Do you consider yourself far left/right ?

[El Cid]

My bold:

Yes we have.

 

Getting rid of CCTV and not banning smoking/drugs, and many more issue other than taxes?

[unbeliever]

No they don't:

 

socialism

 

 

/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/

 

 

noun

 

noun: socialism

 

 

 

 

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

It's an economic policy once again and nothing to do with who controls it. You can have communes with no leadership whatsoever which would be the almost perfect definition of libertarianism. You've done the same thing everyone seems to do and gets hung on up left/right wing and social policies when they are not the same.

 

Most people who are far left OR far right (actually far left and right, not just people who think they are by calling people on benefits scroungers) are libertarians. Most people who follow what are called extremist parties are actually terribly authoritarian, fascists you might say. Anyhoo, we are getting into a semantics war.

 

My bold.

Ergo everything should be the property of the state. That makes the state both big and powerful. QED.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2016 at 13:56 ----------

 

I can't really read your list, but as a massive generalisation I believe that people should be free to live their lives with minimal interference from anyone else, as long as they do not cause harm or unacceptable inconvenience to others. Ideally, I'd love a self-policing society that doesn't require a formal police force or for anyone to have a position of power over others. Sadly, I don't think that will ever be possible as there will always be people who differ so greatly that no middle ground can be found which leads to conflict and ultimately someone trying to take power through force. It's happened time and time again in history and I see no evidence that we've changed enough to try it again. A fully free market, bizarrely yes I do support that, but again what we have now isn't a free market at all, it's a heavily manipulated one.

 

This is what I mean, I am more a libertarian than I am a socialist as I believe a properly libertarian society would drift into socialism anyway.

 

I think you're describing Liberal, not Libertarian. Not to say that you're in line with the Lib Dems, but in a more literal sense.

A Liberal will often be attracted to a large powerful state with high regulation, high taxes and a big role in providing public service and wealth redistribution to achieve an idea of "fairness". They are concerned protecting people from the harsh realities of the world. Crucially, they want to empower the "weak" with entitlements to things they can't acquire from themselves and regulate to see that everybody gets justice.

A Libertarian cannot be a Socialist. A libertarian does not support high taxes, certainly not high regulation, not wealth redistribution. In general the idea of somebody else collecting by force from you, the product of your work and spending it for you is completely at odds with Libertarianism.

[I1L2T3]

My bold.

Ergo everything should be the property of the state. That makes the state both big and powerful. QED.

 

'owned OR regulated'

 

Some things can be owned by the state, others things not. It doesn't say to what level regulation should happen either. Regulation can be minimal but still good, or in other areas needs to be heavy and can still be good. It doesn't mean everything has to be regulated to the max, although there should be some form of regulation for everything, no matter how minimal.

 

'by the community as a whole.'

 

That is what happens now anyway. Regulation is introduced by the representatives that the whole community has the opportunity to elect.

 

You need to try and be less hung up by dictionary definitions of things, by labels, and by the unrealistic and impractical polar (often purely theoretical) examples of those labels.

[tzijlstra]

A very confusing discussion completely and utterly based on semantic differences in understanding. Like sgtkate I am a Libertarian, but the line highlighted by Unbeliever is where a semantic clarification is required. I believe that those means should be in control of corporations. However, there is a big progressive jump that is necessary for that to be feasible, which I think is what sgtkate is referring to (maybe unwittingly) and that is that corporations need to be under the control of ALL their stakeholders.

 

This is already becoming the norm in the States (in particular in new tech companies) where employees get share-options and as such have direct influence on the corporate governance. On a small and medium business level there should be a requirement for sociocratic corporate governance which dictates that all decisions are made by the collective work-force and every vote counts equal. This is something else that is seen more and more in new tech companies, fervent Scrum-style companies embrace flexibility and adapt to the circumstances much better than rigid hierarchical organisations, simply because the employees feel they have influence on their work-processes.

 

I believe these changes will come in force already as the 'new' generation is increasingly made familiar with these management techniques, so in my view government needs to back away from corporate control and simultaneously adopt a far more agile approach to governing - we need wholesale change in the way democracy works and actually go back to the true meaning of demos (people) kratos (power). The Swiss are heading the right way in this regard.

[I1L2T3]

My bold.

Ergo everything should be the property of the state. That makes the state both big and powerful. QED.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2016 at 13:56 ----------

 

 

I think you're describing Liberal, not Libertarian. Not to say that you're in line with the Lib Dems, but in a more literal sense.

A Liberal will often be attracted to a large powerful state with high regulation, high taxes and a big role in providing public service and wealth redistribution to achieve an idea of "fairness". They are concerned protecting people from the harsh realities of the world. Crucially, they want to empower the "weak" with entitlements to things they can't acquire from themselves and regulate to see that everybody gets justice.

A Libertarian cannot be a Socialist. A libertarian does not support high taxes, certainly not high regulation, not wealth redistribution. In general the idea of somebody else collecting by force from you, the product of your work and spending it for you is completely at odds with Libertarianism.

 

Some of that is manifestly incorrect.

 

I support the concept of a citizens income and basic universal support from the state. They could be considered quite socialist aims.

 

But I also see how the provision of those things, in the right way, could have outcomes that are totally compatible with a libertarian outlook.

 

At the same time I want there to be a state, just a smaller and more efficient one. I support taxation and I support (a form of) capitalism.

 

It might seem like a jumbled up incompatible mixture to you but it is possible to hold very mixed views where believing in elements of one thing does not preclude berlief in elements of another.

[unbeliever]

'owned OR regulated'

 

Some things can be owned by the state, others things not. It doesn't say to what level regulation should happen either. Regulation can be minimal but still good, or in other areas needs to be heavy and can still be good. It doesn't mean everything has to be regulated to the max, although there should be some form of regulation for everything, no matter how minimal.

 

'by the community as a whole.'

 

That is what happens now anyway. Regulation is introduced by the representatives that the whole community has the opportunity to elect.

 

You need to try and be less hung up by dictionary definitions of things, by labels, and by the unrealistic and impractical polar (often purely theoretical) examples of those labels.

 

If the term Libertarian doesn't mean a small/weak state, then it means nothing.

A small/weak state can't go around regulating things which didn't absolutely need regulating.

 

This is what the term Liberal meant before the Socialists pinched it. They can't have the term Libertarian as well.

[petemcewan]

Sgtkate,

 

My apologies for the jumbled list. It's not my list-it's from Wikiped ( I think that's it ).

 

I copied it and it pasted as you see. It's a rather large generalisation. It definitely incorporates categories that belong in the socialist camp. Consequently, I think it's possible to be a right-wing libertarian or a left -wing libertarian. So it goes.

[sgtkate]

A very confusing discussion completely and utterly based on semantic differences in understanding. Like sgtkate I am a Libertarian, but the line highlighted by Unbeliever is where a semantic clarification is required. I believe that those means should be in control of corporations. However, there is a big progressive jump that is necessary for that to be feasible, which I think is what sgtkate is referring to (maybe unwittingly) and that is that corporations need to be under the control of ALL their stakeholders.

 

This is already becoming the norm in the States (in particular in new tech companies) where employees get share-options and as such have direct influence on the corporate governance. On a small and medium business level there should be a requirement for sociocratic corporate governance which dictates that all decisions are made by the collective work-force and every vote counts equal. This is something else that is seen more and more in new tech companies, fervent Scrum-style companies embrace flexibility and adapt to the circumstances much better than rigid hierarchical organisations, simply because the employees feel they have influence on their work-processes.

 

I believe these changes will come in force already as the 'new' generation is increasingly made familiar with these management techniques, so in my view government needs to back away from corporate control and simultaneously adopt a far more agile approach to governing - we need wholesale change in the way democracy works and actually go back to the true meaning of demos (people) kratos (power). The Swiss are heading the right way in this regard.

 

Yes, I would agree with most of that. In particular with regards to corporations. The John Lewis model would be my poster pin-up boy.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2016 at 14:26 ----------

 

Sgtkate,

 

My apologies for the jumbled list. It's not my list-it's from Wikiped ( I think that's it ).

 

I copied it and it pasted as you see. It's a rather large generalisation. It definitely incorporates categories that belong in the socialist camp. Consequently, I think it's possible to be a right-wing libertarian or a left -wing libertarian. So it goes.

 

Yes Pete, that was EXACTLY the point I am making

[I1L2T3]

If the term Libertarian doesn't mean a small/weak state, then it means nothing.

A small/weak state can't go around regulating things which didn't absolutely need regulating.

 

This is what the term Liberal meant before the Socialists pinched it. They can't have the term Libertarian as well.

 

Again you are hung up with precise definitions. Nobody can be a pure socialist or a pure capitalist or a pure libertarian or a pure anything.

 

A smaller state can actually be quite strong if it focuses on the right things.

[unbeliever]

Again you are hung up with precise definitions. Nobody can be a pure socialist or a pure capitalist or a pure libertarian or a pure anything.

 

A smaller state can actually be quite strong if it focuses on the right things.

 

I'm not interested in purity, except that it tells you the direction of travel which the person in question advocated.