Is Libertarianism a Good Idea? - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431948]well guess who is going to respect your right to property in a system in which rights can be trodden upon because the government doesnt exist to protect your rights?[/QUOTE] Name some rights the government actually protects. Free speech (and variants) is a no because sedition exists, radio is censored up the ass, etc.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431990]It's called social democracy, not socialism. Social democracies are a mix of capitalism and socialism, (mixed market) which means they still promote innovation. I was arguing against full socialism, not social democracy.[/QUOTE] a completely socialist state has never existed so why are you arguing against it in practice it's never happened

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432028]Name some rights the government actually protects. Free speech (and variants) is a no because sedition exists, radio is censored up the ass, etc.[/QUOTE] you have to be joking

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431987]So, the difference between Libertarianism and Socialism is choosing to live in a volatile economy where dog eats dog or living in an authoritarian police state? Even if Socialism is an economic doctrine and not political, and just has the disadvantage of being paired with authoritarian states. Because the government has a monopoly on a majority of the economy doesn't mean that people can't elect who runs the government.[/QUOTE] No, libertarianism isn't dog eat dog. People can and still will cooperate. The only difference is that they choose who to cooperate with, instead of being forced to cooperate. And a socialist state requires the government to own the means of production, which will most likely lead to authoritarianism, just like I showed. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KaIibos;37432035]a completely socialist state has never existed so why are you arguing against it in practice it's never happened[/QUOTE] yes, it has.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431990]It's called social democracy, not socialism. Social democracies are a mix of capitalism and socialism, (mixed market) which means they still promote innovation. I was arguing against full socialism, not social democracy. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] No, because they weren't socialist. yeah that was his point. sticking feathers up your butt don't make you a chicken Russia was socialist, because the means of production were owned by the government, and therefore the public. How hard is it to understand?[/QUOTE] the government and the public do NOT equate (though they should) and russia is a perfect example of that [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432057]yes, it has.[/QUOTE] no it hasn't but go on

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432049]you have to be joking[/QUOTE] Are you going to debate or just sit on your ass deflecting everything with bullshit?

[QUOTE=KaIibos;37432067]the government and the public do NOT equate (though they should) and russia is a perfect example of that[/QUOTE] but the public owns the government (democracy) so the public does own the means of production. Are you seriously arguing that the USSR was not socialist?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431990]It's called social democracy, not socialism. Social democracies are a mix of capitalism and socialism, (mixed market) which means they still promote innovation. I was arguing against full socialism, not social democracy. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] No, because they weren't socialist. Russia was socialist, because the means of production were owned by the government, and therefore the public. How hard is it to understand?[/QUOTE] michael bay's latest film, [I]FULL SOCIALISM[/I] [QUOTE=Wikipedia on Socialism] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4][/QUOTE] you are confusing communism with socialism. maoism and stalinism is economic socialism, that is where it ends.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37432084]michael bay's latest film, [I]FULL SOCIALISM[/I][/QUOTE] yes, there are many different types. But Stalinism is one, and so far has done a horrible job.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432057]No, libertarianism isn't dog eat dog. People can and still will cooperate. The only difference is that they choose who to cooperate with, instead of being forced to cooperate. And a socialist state requires the government to own the means of production, which will most likely lead to authoritarianism, just like I showed.[/quote] And it will always lead to authoritarianism because when people are given a place of power, they abuse it. This is why the people should keep the government in check.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431948]well guess who is going to respect your right to property in a system in which rights can be trodden upon because the government doesnt exist to protect your rights?[/QUOTE] because the current system works so well when they already are breaking property rights by taking 33% of my income and obviously, there is absolutely no way property rights can exist in a private way, right?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432057]yes, it has.[/QUOTE] its never happened because in the marxist theory of history, the actual socialism stage (a prerequisite for the communism stage) hasn't popped up yet

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432110]its never happened because in the marxist theory of history, the actual socialism stage (a prerequisite for the communism stage) hasn't popped up yet[/QUOTE] And it likely never will because of the reasons I have mentioned a couple of posts above.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432079]but the public owns the government (democracy) so the public does own the means of production. [/QUOTE] that's a joke right? in theory, yes, the public controls the government. in practice, that's rarely the case. it's not the case in america, it's not the case in china, it wasn't the case in the USSR [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432079]Are you seriously arguing that the USSR was not socialist?[/QUOTE] it wasn't socialist [I]as you're defining it[/I] - that is, the textbook socialist system as defined by a dictionary or w/e

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432110]its never happened because in the marxist theory of history, the actual socialism stage (a prerequisite for the communism stage) hasn't popped up yet[/QUOTE] Yes it has. Socialism is the stage where capitalism is gone, but the government still exists.

[QUOTE=Kentz;37432107]because the current system works so well when they already are breaking property rights by taking 33% of my income and obviously, there is absolutely no way property rights can exist in a private way, right?[/QUOTE] well if there was no government theres actually very little to stop somebody just walking into your house, killing you, and then moving in plus some people think property rights aren't needed [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432142]Yes it has. Socialism is the stage where capitalism is gone, but the government still exists.[/QUOTE] no country has reached this stage

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431987]So, the difference between Libertarianism and Socialism is choosing to live in a volatile economy where dog eats dog or living in an authoritarian police state? Even if Socialism is an economic doctrine and not political, and just has the disadvantage of being paired with authoritarian states. Because the government has a monopoly on a majority of the economy doesn't mean that people can't elect who runs the government.[/QUOTE] You need an organization with a LOT of power to run an entire business, let alone an entire country's economy. You really think the people at the top (even "elected") wouldn't abuse that power?

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432154]You need an organization with a LOT of power to run an entire business, let alone an entire country's economy. You really think the people at the top (even "elected") wouldn't abuse that power?[/QUOTE] there's a reason we have police forces and legal systems they arrest corrupt people and give them a trial

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432151]well if there was no government theres actually very little to stop somebody just walking into your house, killing you, and then moving in[/QUOTE] So without the government to protect you, you'd just sit there and let them kill you? Also, governments do the above example all the time. The whole Native American situation, "eminent domain" (excluding the killing), etc.

[QUOTE=KaIibos;37432138]that's a joke right? in theory, yes, the public controls the government. in practice, that's rarely the case. it's not the case in america, it's not the case in china, it wasn't the case in the USSR it wasn't socialist [I]as you're defining it[/I] - that is, the textbook socialist system as defined by a dictionary or w/e[/QUOTE] It was a joke and it wasn't. The public did control the government in the USSR, but as we all know, the Party controlled the public. [QUOTE=Wikipedia page on Socialism]The most prominent example of a planned economy is the economic system of the Soviet Union[/QUOTE] According to Wikipedia, the USSR was a socialist system.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432167]there's a reason we have police forces and legal systems[/QUOTE] Yeah, and controlled by the same people.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432151]well if there was no government theres actually very little to stop somebody just walking into your house, killing you, and then moving in plus some people think property rights aren't needed no country has reached this stage[/QUOTE] if there is a demand for defense forces or whatever there will be a market for it different defense forces will compete for business if some people dont think property rights are needed then i hope they have no lock on their house and always a key inside their car. you know so everyone can use those?

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432173]So without the government to protect you, you'd just sit there and let them kill you? Also, governments do the above example all the time. The whole Native American situation, "eminent domain" (excluding the killing), etc.[/QUOTE] western colonialism hasn't existed for quite a while now buddy [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432182]It was a joke and it wasn't. The public did control the government in the USSR, but as we all know, the Party controlled the public. According to Wikipedia, the USSR was a socialist system.[/QUOTE] stalin's USSR was a fascist state with a planned economy

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432173]So without the government to protect you, you'd just sit there and let them kill you?[/QUOTE] well you would have to if there was more of them than you [QUOTE=Kentz;37432193]if there is a demand for defense forces or whatever there will be a market for it different defense forces will compete for business [/QUOTE] mercenaries aren't restricted by geneva conventions they fight for the highest bidder, as soon as they get a higher bidder, they abandon the old i.e if somebody is richer than you, they could probably pay somebody to kill you

[QUOTE=Bobie;37432196]western colonialism hasn't existed for quite a while now buddy[/QUOTE] It's called an example. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432204]well you would have to if there was more of them than you[/QUOTE] This is exactly why you'd have a private police force.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432151]well if there was no government theres actually very little to stop somebody just walking into your house, killing you, and then moving in plus some people think property rights aren't needed no country has reached this stage[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]North Korea has an industrialised, near-autarkic, highly centralized command economy. North Korea is one of only two states (along with Cuba) with an almost entirely government-planned, state-owned economy. The Central Planning Committee prepares, supervises and implements economic plans, while a General Bureau of Provincial Industry in each region is responsible for the management of local manufacturing facilities, production, resource allocation and sales.[/QUOTE] Okay, I guess you can argue that because it has slight traces of capitalism, it isn't socialism. Though I doubt getting rid of the few free trade zones would somehow make North Korea more innovative and less authoritarian.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37432209]This is exactly why you'd have a private police force.[/QUOTE] what do you do if a rich dude pays them to kill you? [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432247]Okay, I guess you can argue that because it has slight traces of capitalism, it isn't socialism. Though I doubt getting rid of the few free trade zones would somehow make North Korea more innovative and less authoritarian.[/QUOTE] free market =/= free people

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37432262]what do you do if a rich dude pays them to kill you?[/QUOTE] Same thing you do if a rich dude pays them to kill you with a public police force.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37432196]western colonialism hasn't existed for quite a while now buddy stalin's USSR was a fascist state with a planned economy[/QUOTE] a planned economy is a form of socialism. You can be fascist and socialist at the same time.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432182]It was a joke and it wasn't. The public did control the government in the USSR, but as we all know, the Party controlled the public. [/QUOTE] if the public didn't actually FEEL in control of its government (and I guarantee you they didn't) then they didn't control it. you said it yourself. the government controlled them. it was a gross imbalance of power [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432182]According to Wikipedia, the USSR was a socialist system.[/QUOTE] a) how does that quote support the claim that it was a socialist system b) is a planned economy your only criteria for what you'd call a socialist state?