Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Q: Are libertarianism and socialism mutually exclusive?

A: No. Libertarians believe liberty consists of personal autonomy, and they justify a strong distrust of the state upon this foundation. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Although socialism is commonly associated with the planned economies proffered by Marxism-Leninism and other "authoritarian socialists," libertarian socialism rejects economic direction from a central authority such as the state. Thus, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonyms since the 1890s, and other equivalents include libertarian socialism, socialist anarchism, and left-libertarianism. The libertarianism of the 19th century had two strong currents, social anarchism and individualist anarchism, both of which fall under the umbrella of libertarian socialism and were explicitly anti-capitalist.

In the 20th century, members of the Old Right in the United States such as Albert Jay Nock and H. L. Mencken began identifying as libertarians to declare their commitment to individualism and distance themselves from liberals who supported welfare capitalism. Some libertarians (e.g. Murray Rothbard, who popularized the libertarian philosophy anarcho-capitalism) were explicitly influenced by the American individualist anarchists, but most were "a rather automatic product of the American environment." This modern American libertarianism is also referred to as right-libertarianism.

Q: What is right-libertarianism? What is left-libertarianism?

A: Right-libertarianism refers to those libertarian ideologies that extoll private property without recompense paid by the owner to the local community, and includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism. This is contrasted with left-libertarianism, which either rejects private property, or accepts it only under the condition that the local community is compensated for the exclusionary effects thereof (e.g. a land value tax). Left-libertarianism includes libertarian socialism, left-wing market anarchism, and geolibertarianism.

Q: How are all these political philosophies related? Which ones are closely related or inclusive?

A: Some labels and qualifiers are typically used to group together multiple political movements or ideologies or distance them from others. Below is a rough and simplified visual representation of how many of the political camps described in the article (i.e. groups that have either identified or been described as libertarian) relate to one another, without any regard to their affinity for one another, their prominence or their significance.

Libertarian classification diagram

Why consider "left libertarianism" a subset of libertarianism at all? Its defining characteristic is, according to this article, specifically its opposition to (economic) libertarianism. It's not like being libertarian on some issues but not others is something new. Why not just say that?

It sounds like an attempt to usurp the term "libertarianism" the same way the term "liberalism" was usurped in the U.S., as mentioned above resulting in "economic liberalism" having completely opposite meanings depending on who is using the term. If this article is to be accepted, the word "libertarian" would suffer the same fate. A word is useless if it could have two mutually exclusive definitions in the same exact context, making it necessary to explicitly define the word with each use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And "Right Libertarianism" is usually used as a term by those people who are opposed to social/cultural Libertarianism. Unfortunately, such people rarely qualify their beliefs with "Right", but rather, lead the masses/media to believe that their anti-Libertarian beliefs on social/cultural issues are the Libertarian "norm", leading many to erroneously conclude that US Libertarianism is simply a more Right-Wing form of Conservatism, essentially co-opting the term. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard that one myself, but it would be just as fraudulent as someone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist". Even if someone is libertarian on most issues, they shouldn't use the term libertarian in conjunction with their non-libertarian views. And even if they do, the rest of us shouldn't refer to such beliefs as libertarian. It's just silly to use terms like "libertarian speech banner", "libertarian religion enforcer", "libertarian gun banner" or "libertarian socialist".

Should I start a section in this article about the "branch" of libertarianism that believes in banning speech, guns, short pants, hula hoops, and rock music? We could call it "libertarian fascism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.128.90 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And notably, the only reason libertarians in the U.S. call themselves libertarians instead of liberals is because the word liberal was usurped in the U.S. and now is commonly used to refer to (economic) anti-liberals. I wonder what libertarians will call themselves after the word libertarian suffers the same fate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The structural reality is that "libertarianism/libertarian" covers a very diverse set of ideologies, but they have a few important tenets in common, as well as the name. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, you have it the wrong way around - Rothbard and Nolan adopted the term "libertarian", which had already been used to describe what this article calls "left libertarianism." Furthermore, they claimed to be in the tradition of libertarianism, although they faulted that tradition for failing to support property rights. See for example Karl Hess's writings on Emma Goldman. TFD (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the word has been used fraudulently by some throughout history doesn't change the fact that it has always meant (in the political sense) "advocate of liberty". There is no legitimate reason to combine the word with another word that specifically refers to a belief in depriving people of their liberty in some way, even if not in other ways. Is someone who believes in banning speech, books, guns, hula hoops, and rock music a "libertarian fascist" just because he's libertarian on other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.129.93 (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot say the term has always meant something when it was coined by what we would call left libertarians. You still need to explain how we are supposed to distinguish between these two groups. Since liberal is a cognate word, similar issues arise. Yet liberalism has both a left and a right, and all have them have taken some rights away from some people. Hence few liberals have argued to abolish prisons. TFD (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We can't go saying that there is a burden of finding a really great way (great enough to avoid criticism) in order to avoid inserting/ using a really bad, problematic, lacking-any-consistent-definition and (in many places oxymoronic) term ("right libertarian"). And the most common form of libertarianism in the US (e.g. the 40-60 million people one) has a 1 sentence ideology that includes only the common tenets of all libertarianism. Probably the best term (which doesn't meet the "great way" criteria) is "common US type libertarianism. But the other alternative is to not try to give it a name. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

When used that way, it is not an ideology, but a view on economic policy and is "neo-classical liberalism." It actually has a much wider following but there is a dispute over how rigidly the doctrine should be applied. While that use of the term should be mentioned, there is also a group in the U.S. that self-identify as libertarians, have established a political party, think tanks and a body of literature, and developed an ideology that embraces social policies as well. Obviously it merits its own article. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you just said but I'm not sure what you are getting at. The small fraction of US libertarians that are in the USLP, or in libertarian think tanks generally do have philosophies/ ideologies/platforms/economic policies that weigh in in many more areas, and do not fall under the most prevalent "one sentence" form of libertarianism in the US that I was referring to. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We can easily distinguish between those two groups by saying one is libertarian on both social and economic issues while the other is libertarian on social issues but not on economic issues. Since the word means "advocate of liberty" in each case, it seems as easy as it is obvious. And the word itself meant "advocate of liberty" when coined, now, and at all times in between. It means that even if used fraudulently. Regardless, that's the dictionary definition of the word, so one would think that should settle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.10.142 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, the etymological approach to defining words doesn't work as well as you seem to think. For example, both liberal and libertarian are derived from the Latin liber, meaning free; however, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks these terms are synonymous. Reliable sources illustrate that libertarianism has traditionally been a socialist position, and Misplaced Pages ought to reflect that fact, even if you personally don't like it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

By "traditionally" do you mean "historically"?North8000 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically and outside of the US. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, North8000, I meant libertarianism qua political philosophy was socialist in nature up until ~1950, when figures like Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick popularized a capitalist interpretation. This is really tangential to my point though, which is that Misplaced Pages does not allow us to claim that, because libertarianism has the root liber, everything we as individuals associate with liberty is therefore necessarily associated with the philosophy; we have to rely on RSs, not our personal biases. In this specific case, the IP user is stating that libertarianism is a philosophy that upholds liberty, and that capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society. Now, some people might argue this (and they do), but it's also quite evident from our sources that people have criticized capitalism for being inherently coercive and uphold socialism as the economic system of a free society. Misplaced Pages, however, doesn't permit us to inject our own opinion on this matter as fact, regardless of our personal, economic bias; libertarianism has adherents of both capitalist and socialist persuasions, whether we like it or not. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. I haven't done slow reads of it but didn't notice / haven't found the "capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society" claim. Eith way I agree with 98% of what you last wrote. The 40,000,000+ person gorilla in the living room that you didn't mention is the renaming of classical liberalism in the US to libertarianism, coinciding with the changing of the meaning of "liberal" in the US to advocating a larger government. Also, the 40,000,000+ one sentence US libertarians probably mostly tacitly accept capitalism and even prefer it, but such does not make such a plank in their libertarian "platform". I think that non-US left-libertarians have a hard time understanding this. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I'm aware of the common values of US libertarians... what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In looking through the thread, I don't even know what the discussion at hand is. My first of the last two posts was asking for clarification of what you meant, because you were suggesting that the article be guided by it. And my last post was to mostly agree with your post, and to put a 40,000,000 person stake in the ground against mis-naming or constructing an overly long platform for the most common form of US libertarianism. And to say that for the short form libertarians, the one sentence platform is their entire libertarian platform, not just common values. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Then, to recapitulate, I'm not arguing any particular interpretation of libertarianism (or any subgroup therein), as you seem to think. I'm merely stating the fact that Misplaced Pages does not grant a forum for our personal convictions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think that you were, I was just conversing and I agree. We're cool. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, there seems to be great confusion about what I've said. The fact that a word has a specific definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with whether "I personally like it". The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. It's by definition anti-libertarian. That's according to the dictionary, not what I personally do or don't like. I'd be perfectly fine with any word having any definition, the problem I have is the perpetuation of fraud. Using the word "libertarian" to refer specifically to depriving individuals of liberty is fraud, and obviously so.

And I notice that I haven't read too much about what is it about socialism that is even regarded as libertarian? What liberties are being advocated? Power over others is being advocated, using the word "libertarian" fraudulently because it's such a nice sounding word and they want to sound nice.

I would note that capitalism being the only system "compatible" with a free society sounds a little odd. Obviously capitalism will exist in any society that permits it. It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition. (Obviously that doesn't apply to voluntary communes within a free society, but ironically, that's not what is referred to by "libertarian socialism") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.36 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the libertarian writers who inspired Nolan, Rothbard and Hess. Their theory was that individuals should have freedom. They were expelled from the Socialist movement. See for example Statism and Anarchy. They saw the remaining socialists as statist, no different from the elites they planned to replace.

“The theory of statism as well as that of so-called ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ is based on the idea that a ‘privileged elite,’ consisting of those scientists and ‘doctrinaire revolutionists’ who believe that ‘theory is prior to social experience,’ should impose their preconceived scheme of social organization on the people. The dictatorial power of this learned minority is concealed by the fiction of a pseudo-representative government which presumes to express the will of the people.”

While American libertarians may not agree with their views entirely, you can see where they get many of their views.

TFD (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, you have some strong misconceptions about capitalism and socialism that are not supported by reliable sources and therefore do not deserve a voice in Misplaced Pages. I would suggest learning about libertarian socialism instead of arguing your interpretation here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first couple of paragraphs make my case, ie that libertarianism means advocation of liberty, even if much of it is off point, and tells me what I "need to read" instead of trying to make your case legitimately. Your last paragraph is simply wrong. You have massively underestimated my understanding of this issue, but that's pretty irrelevant except to the extent that you offer advice for me to "learn about" things instead of explaining your case. You didn't, for example, name a single aspect of capitalism or socialism that I have a "strong misconception" about, much less explain how anything I said was incorrect in any way.

But this article is about libertarianism, not capitalism or socialism. The fact remains that using force against others to impose and maintain a monopoly over the means of production is anti-libertarian by definition. That fact won't just go away because nobody wants to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.12.181 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though I partially agree with you on the principles (I'd don't understand how libertarian & socialism could be successfully combined/reconciled) that is not what is relevant here. This article covers the highly varied (but related by common tenets) significant forms of libertarianism, as identified in sources, and it is our duty here to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article, but to me it seems that any practical implementation of socialism involves larger amounts of power and control by the government. Sincerely, (North8000) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the government represents monopoly capitalism, it must be smashed, and power returned to the people. In the U.K. for example that means that there will no longer be "Her Majesty's government." The most radical anarchists assassinated state leaders, such as an American president and the Austrian Archduke, and blew up symbols of the state. Their anti-statism was the inspiration for Nolan, Rothbard, Hess and the other American "libertarians."

The big difference is that left libertarians thought the masses would seize the means of production, while Rothbard believed that freed from government they would rally to protect private corporations, which under statism were threatened in the U.S., the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

TFD (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, while I agree with your first statement, your last sentence just isn't correct in my view. It's true that recovering stolen property from a thief does not constitute depriving the thief of his property, it constitutes depriving the thief of someone else's property. (Ditto for freeing slaves.) But the same was true of the King. He was not deprived of "his" property, he was deprived of political power over the property of others.

I think it's safe to say that most (real) libertarians determine "rightful ownership" of property in the same way described by John Locke during The Enlightenment, so there is no need to repeat it here, except to point out that it logically precludes socialism. And one can't help but notice the irony in using the term "progressive" to refer to people with a pre-Enlightenment view of property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.33 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Locke said that England had lawful ownership of the American colonies through settlement and planters had lawful owership of slaves, so your reading of Locke is selective. Left libertarians go farther than you rejected Locke's view that land could be alienated from common ownership.

So really your only dispute with them is whether the means of production are rightly owned by capitalists or stolen from the people.

TFD (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

IP and TFD, could you please take this discussion to an User_Talk page? It may be an interesting conversation, but Misplaced Pages is not a forum and this talk page should be reserved for discussion of article improvements. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At issue is whether the term "right libertarianism" makes sense, with the claim made that "left libertarianism" is something else entirely. And my point is that "right libertarianism" consciously drew on the (left) libertarianian tradition, adopting their literature, arguments and even their name. TFD (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I apologize, TFD. I think the IP user just wants to debate ("Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article..."), and I assumed you were knowingly participating in this. My bad. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I apologize for off-topic discussion. Still just want to understand how using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production isn't directly contradictory to libertarianism. That seemed to lead to unnecessary discussion of the issue. I'll try to stay on-topic in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.44 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, TFD. My dispute with them is that I disagree that whether property is used for production or not is a legitimate factor at all in determining its rightful ownership, or that the "means of production" should be owned by anyone in particular in the monolithic sense used by socialists, or should be monopolized by anyone or any entity. Anyone should be free to build "means of production" and produce goods and services. That's the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.26 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for responding off-topic again, but yes, TFD, my agreement with Locke is selective. I agree with much but not everything he wrote, and will leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.29 (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a quick question: Are there any traditional encyclopedias (not that "anyone can edit") that have articles or a section of their libertarianism article that mentions anything resembling "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism"? Other than within articles on Chomski and the like, where it is mentioned only as "self-identification"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.1.181 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Stanford Encyc of Phil gives it equal time. — goethean 13:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read their (very good IMO) article on libertarianism, but it defines "left-libertarianism" in the normal, traditional way, having nothing to do with socialism or "libertarian socialism" or anything resembling what Misplaced Pages is calling "left-libertarianism". Then it has a footnote about the term "left-libertarianism" being "also used to refer to political views, such as those of Noam Chomsky or Roderick Long, that are suspicious of concentrations of power in general (in government, in corporations, in social institutions, etc.)", which is still a far cry from Misplaced Pages's definition.

It seems to treat the subject in the same way it's treated in any other legitimate source, instead of the way it's treated in Misplaced Pages. Not trying to slam Misplaced Pages, but what purpose is there to define terms differently than they are defined in all other legitimate sources?. (self-identification of self-serving groups aside). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.19 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like socialism to me. Incidentally, "left-libertarianism" is generally just called "libertarianism." "Right libertarianism" is a comparatively recent phenomenon. TFD (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What "sounds like socialism"? Something in the Stanford Encyc of Phil article on libertarianism? It says nothing of socialism or anything similar. What it calls "left-libertarianism" is more like traditional libertarianism, not "libertarian socialism" or anything resembling it. Is that the confusion here, that you're confusing traditional "left-libertarianism", as defined by Stanford, with what Misplaced Pages calls "left-libertarianism"? That would explain a lot, incidentally, but they are not even close to the same thing. It's beyond the scope of this talk page to explain it, but it's obvious to anyone who bothers to read the articles.

Also, incidentally, the term "left" historically just meant anti-authoritarianism, or anti-monarchy, a very different meaning than how it is used today, especially with economic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.19 (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this ongoing discussion about article improvement? If not, please take this discussion to a User_Talk page; if so, please create a proposal so the rest of us know what you're suggesting. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's about improving article accuracy, yes. But my proposal would be a complete rewrite. It looks like such attempts have been made in the past only to be reverted, but I'll be working on it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.8.3 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you would suggest rewriting it. For now, it seems like you have some misconceptions about socialism (e.g. your claim that it is "using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production"), and I, for one, would definitely argue against including any such errors in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, that claim is not a misconception. Socialism, in the normal sense, is exactly that, despite their refusal to word it that way. They just use words that sound "nicer" but mean exactly the same thing. Is it not obvious that when socialists use the phrase "ownership of the means of production", they mean exclusive ownership of all of them, at least in a particular area? An exclusive right to produce goods and services? That's what the word "monopoly" means.

Secondly, any rewrite of this article I would propose would not mention socialism at all, for the same obvious reason that other legitimate encyclopedias do not discuss socialism in their articles on libertarianism. Even when they mention "left-libertarianism", they are not referring to any form of socialism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.8.3 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 December 2013

No, that is not what socialism means, and a perusal of any libertarian socialist or Marxist literature would set this straight. In fact, the "ownership of the means of production," in the sense you mean it, is called state capitalism, not socialism (the state is the private entity that owns the means of production). As to your second point, the article to which TFD referred you states that left-libertarians (aka libertarian socialists) " that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner", and then discusses three different ways in which this egalitarianism can operate (joint-ownership, equal share, and equal opportunity left-libertarianism). Gary Chartier says that, "hile rejecting capitalism, left-libertarians share with other libertarians an enthusiastic recognition of the value of markets" (Chartier 2012). Matt Zwolinski states in the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "Left-libertarians, such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, and Michael Otsuka, grant the self-ownership principle but deny that it can yield full private property rights in external goods, especially land (Steiner 1994; Vallentyne 2000; Otsuka 2003)" (emphasis added, Zwolinski 2008). So, yes, it is quite clear that they are talking about libertarian socialism, and not the authoritarian socialism of which you speak (i.e. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

State capitalism and socialism are both monopolies, just different kinds. Both claim an exclusive right to produce goods and services. According to Misplaced Pages itself, a monopoly exists when a specific enterprise is the only supplier of a commodity, and is characterized by a lack of competition in the production of that commodity. Since we are referring to all commodities, a term like "mega-monopoly" might be more accurate here. As I mentioned before, an exception might be a voluntary commune that did not claim an exclusive right to produce, but that's not what we're talking about here.

And I have no idea why you would call a state a "private entity". And "natural resources" and "means of production" are not the same thing. It seems obvious that disagreeing about how natural resources should be appropriated does not constitute socialism.

Am I a socialist because I don't think a river, or any other scarce natural resource, can legitimately be claimed as private property by whoever sees it first? Are you going to claim next that "caring about people" constitutes socialism? Are we done with the silly and nonsensical sidetracking? Perhaps I should restrain myself from taking the bait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.14.78 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, Misplaced Pages is not a forum, it's an encyclopaedia. Debating this with you could be entertaining, but it would be in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you would like to learn more about libertarian socialism, I would suggest reading some anarchist literature or starting a discussion on a forum for political philosophy. I could give you some recommended reading material if you'd like, otherwise I'm going to abstain from further discussion until there's a proposed edit supported by reliable sources. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If the editor is not knowledgeable on the subject (Libertarian Socialism), then it's likely he/she needs to become so before suggesting edits, rather than engaging in a debate. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that MisterDub is saying that libertarian socialism is not socialism. And 70.196.... is sort of say that socialism is not libertarianism. So with that clarification maybe no disagreement. So, 70.196, (and on to article content, and if nobody says that I heard that wrong), with that clarification, would you agree that we don't have a reason to exclude libertarian socialism from the article? North8000 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not even remotely close to what I said. -- MisterDub (talk |contribs) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Who defined socialism as state capitalism? I merely pointed out they they have in common their claim to an exclusive right to produce, ie that they are both examples of monopolies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.193.157 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2013

You did. You defined it as "using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production." That is state capitalism. What do you think legislators, judges, soldiers and policemen do? PS - sign your posts. TFD (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't, you just made an obvious logical blunder. I did say that both state capitalism and socialism "use force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production." The fact that two different things have something in common does not mean those two things are the same thing. If I point out that a basketball is "spherical", would you claim that I defined a basketball as the moon, since the moon is also "spherical"?

To violate WP:NOTAFORUM for a moment (since everyone else is), the stumbling block that conservatives seem to have with understanding libertarian socialism is an assumption regarding property rights. To American conservatives, property rights and the status quo regarding current property claims are inalienable/sacrosanct and everything else is negotiable/negligible. This is not the case for libertarian socialists, who begin with philosophical first principles which question both property rights and the status quo regarding current property claims. Thus conservatives assume that the only way for equality to arise is for an external entity (government) to take things from the haves and to give them to the have-nots. This of course, is impossible in a libertarian context, so the conclusion is that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. But libertarian socialism's questioning of the status quo regarding current property claims means that equality could theoretically be achieved without any external force, simply by agreement - by the public taking control (or by private groups releasing control) of the means of production. I'm no expert but this is my understanding. — goethean 22:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(added later)@ Goethean, using government to "to take things from the haves and to give them to the have-nots" in order for "equality to arise" does not sound like conservationism, at least not by the US meaning of the term conservative. Possibly it means that elsewhere? North8000 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your understanding of conservatives is deeply flawed, certainly that's not the philosophy of ("right-") libertarianism, nor is there a "stumbling block" with understanding "libertarian socialism". Failure to agree with a philosophy does not indicate ignorance of it.

The point I was making is that other legitimate encyclopedic sources describe the difference between "left" and "right" libertarianism as merely a difference in how scarce natural resources may be appropriated, not who can or does "own the means of production". It's the same (legitimate) disagreement among libertarians that has always existed, and has nothing to do with socialism of any kind. According to every encylopedic source I can find, as well as many sources even linked here, both "right" and "left" libertarians agree that anyone should be free to produce goods and services, and own "means of production". In other words, "Chomskyism" is not a legitimate example of "left-libertarianism", it's merely a less socially authoritarian form of socialism, but still has the same economically anti-libertarian features of prohibiting private production of goods and services, prohibiting private employment contracts between citizens (wage-labor), etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.193.157 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2013

It says all not scarce resources. Since the means of production are created out of resources, the legitimacy of the appropriation of those resources draws into question the legitimacy of ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you use the same logic to question the legitimacy of self-ownership of one's own body, since each human body is also composed of those same natural resources? Lockean One (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything, just explaining what the sources say. There are always conflicts. For example, when you are sentenced to the electric chair in your home state, does the right to self defense justify your killing the executioner? TFD (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Many would agree with you, but that's not what "left-libertarian" means according to other legitimate encyclopedias. They do not "draw into question the legitimacy of ownership of the means of production", they only draw into question whether appropriating a natural resource is a basis for requiring payment to others (taxation) for its appropriation (regardless of whether it is used to build a "means of production" or not, since no such distinction exists in libertarianism).

Also, "means of production" do not exist prior to their ownership, and their ownership by someone or some entity or group (or "collective") is a prerequisite to their being built at all. So the only question is who is "permitted" or free to own, and therefore might build, a "means of production". The libertarian (left and right) answer is "anyone", according to every other legitimate encyclopedia I can find.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.136 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 December 2013

You need to sign your posts. We can all read John Birch Society websites, you need to provide reliable sources for you views. TFD (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I should and will create a user account, thank you. Edit: Done, my username is now, appropriately, Lockean One. As far as sources for my statements above (about various views, some of which are my own, some aren't, just to clarify), here are a few:

Encyclopedia Britannica

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

My question that seemed to stir up so much angst was if anyone knew of any legitimate encyclopedias that discuss what Misplaced Pages calls "left-libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism" in their articles on libertarianism, or in separate articles. The only answer I got was Stanford's, linked above, but while it talks about "left-libertarianism", it defines it in the traditional way as I described above, not having anything relevant to do with socialist ideology, or who should be permitted to own property used as "means of production" or not, etc. The poster formerly known as "IP"...... Lockean One (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You again did not sign your post. Editors have patiently replied to your queries. The article is sourced and if you want to change it you need to provide sources supporting your views. Believe it or not, there are countless editors like you from places like Texas who pick up views from fringe sources and valiantly try to persuade others to adopt their views. I noticed your user name. Locke made valuable contributions to philosophy although some are outdated. His support of slavery, for example. TFD (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made no edits to this article and will not propose any without sourcing, but thank you for the reminder, anyway. I did provide 3 sources above for my claims regarding other encyclopedias. Which one are you referring to as a "fringe source picked up by people from Texas"? Or was that just a general statement unrelated to this discussion, just to take up more space on this page?

Regardless, my recent query got one answer (that turned out not to be an answer, through no fault of the provider), but lots and lots of sidetracking with illogical nonsense, insulting non-answer replies, and assumptions of ignorance on my part as apparently the only possible reason for my refusal to adopt the language of socialism. Is that what "patiently replied to my queries" means? Lockean One (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)