Libertarianism versus Anarchism

asdasd

If so, what is the difference between that certificate and a €20 note?

It isn't a tool of the capitalist hegemon?

Maybe they wont ever give people vouchers but instead do it all electronically.

Like electronic money.

Oh wait!

asdasd

I never really understood the term Wage Slavery. Debt slavery, yes. Wage slavery?

Surely the thing about slaves is that they dont get wages. That factor alone is enough to enslave them, because with accumulated wealth they can flee. A good slave-owner may well treat his older slaves better too, and feed everybody well, and clothe them equally. Asking the young slaves to work harder - according to ability - than the (needy) old.

Anarchism seems kinda like that, without the guy in the big house.

Soldie

In an anarcho-socialist world my neighbours could decide to have ten children. Each child, naturally, would want their 'fair share' - with their 'basic needs' looked after. Unfortunately, this is likely to affect my quality of life in that there would be less for me. This raises the question; what does freedom mean in an anaracho-socialist world if my pursuit of happiness can be affected so drastically by the whims of those in my community? What of those of us who want to have an element of self-determination?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

dont worry there wont be any big ticket items, the idea that mining or chip manufacture and the like could continue in this environment is absurd. A-S's better pray that a nano technology revolution breaks out sooner rather then later.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And how does the libertarian 14 year old sign a contract of employment if they're under 18? And if they are legally incapable of making an informed decision on their employment contract, aren't they ripe for exploitation? Wouldn't the employer then be essentially coopting their labour illegitimately?

The enormous difference between your position and mine, is that I don't want children to be either prostitutes or sweatshop workers. I'd like them to be children, and the system I advocate is specifically designed so that people would not have to make that kind of a "choice".

You advocate the kind of economic system that would rather have child prostitutes than have a social insurance fund because you object to being 'forced' to give away a small percent of your income to support the vulnerable.

In many countries, so-called "sweatshops" pay two or three times the average national wage. They have no problem attracting employees. So where does the anti-sweatshop movement come from? Not from the Third World, by a long stretch—it originates with Western labour unions, which are more concerned about the outsourcing of their own jobs than about the working or living conditions of the world's poor.

So you want us to be more like the slums in the 'developing world'?

Anyway, the wages they pay are Irrelevant because children in their early teens should not be forced to work, they should be in education, they should be developing social skills and learning about the world instead of making cheap clothes for wealthy europeans to wear once and then discard

Children can be named as beneficiaries in their parents' life insurance policies, which will provide for them financially in the eventuality of their parents' death. If a child were forced to run away from home due to intolerable circumstances such as domestic violence or sexual abuse, s/he would be able to apply to the courts for maintenance and support from the parent(s). In both instances, the child would be placed in the care of an alternative guardian—such as a trusted family member or friend—who would manage the child's legal affairs until he or she reached the age of 18.

So in libertarianism, life assurance would be mandatory then?

Of course not.
Please stop assuming that everyone will be ok, and at least admit that you have no preparations at all for the inevitable cases of neglect and abandonment that exist in every town and city in the world.

I would love for you to go to Sao Paulo and speak to the street children and tell them to go and stay with an uncle or to sue their parents for neglect. They would laugh you off the street

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

I find it laughable that people are grilling donegalfella over amputee fetishism and the above goes unquestioned. Are you genuinely serious...? It boggles my mind how anyone could think people who warm to such an approach voluntarily. The 'fair share' and 'everybody is equal' approach was tried coercively and still didn't work, what makes you think people will adopt it without the gun pointed at them? And we'll have no currency but we can spend points? Come off it... :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7945816.stm

How many points for a pizza? (Once we all gather in the townhall to make a democratic decision as to whether the factories should make pizza for the greater good, of course)

And I think it is laughable that DF can make a post where he says he is in favour of child labour, and you (and the 'neutral' asdasd) say nothing, but instantly feel the need to comment because I used the word 'points' as a method of exchange.

WinstonSmith

Hey all,
Am new here and haven't read all five pages that form the history of this discussion, but I am fairly interested in political theory and would call myself a libertarian socialist. I find a lot of what I have read thus far in this thread to be slightly extreme. The distribution of vouchers, for example, would be an effect of an unnecessary revolution. Stalinism has been shown in the past not to work and this particular proposition seems to border on such political systems (especially in its espousement of no private property). I would argue that the situation in England at the moment is not far from the best system. It is regressing further and further from it but it is, I think, a realistic vision one can easily have. Venezuala is another country which has shown signs of moving in the right direction. Just to quickly outline my own views: I support high levels of nationalisation with high state regulation and high taxes. Private property is of course allowed but services such as health care, electricity, education, transport are free.
I welcome debate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

And I think it is laughable that DF can make a post where he says he is in favour of child labour, and you (and the 'neutral' asdasd) say nothing, but instantly feel the need to comment because I used the word 'points' as a method of exchange.

Well, I'm not the one misinterpreting his posts. He says that in developing countries child labour in so-called 'sweatshops' is preferable to child prostitution. You interpret that as him saying that in a libertarian world, child labour is perfectly acceptable. *Shrug*

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

WinstonSmith

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is Socialism. I would be libertarian in my outlook on non-economic matters within society, such as those influencing the legislature.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That may be true, or not. What is true is that you have manifestly failed to demonstrate their irrelevance to me.

As for the question of competence to contract, it is a jurisprudential one, and has been amply argued in the courts over the centuries.

Again, an argument without any...argument...to it. Again, failure to demonstrate.

If we understand communication as being like unto a contract, and one party fails to reciprocate, what does that mean?
In a Repeated PD, you have failed to co-operate, behaved 'selfishly' rather than in a way which benefits all; approproately enough, given your espoused ideology.

WinstonSmith wrote:

Just to quickly outline my own views: I support high levels of nationalisation with high state regulation and high taxes. Private property is of course allowed but services such as health care, electricity, education, transport are free.

Welcome Winston! I am broadly of similar leanings; states and markets, with both private, state, and group ownership. Public good provision on a decommodified basis. To quote Esping-Andersen: "To understand the concept, de-commodification should not be confused with the complete eradication of labor as a commodity; it is not an issue of all or nothing. Rather, the concept refers to the degree to which individuals, or families, can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independently of market participation. [...] When work approaches free choice rather than necessity, de-commodification may amount to de-proletarianization." There is a strong historical argument for the success of this system, in terms of health and education outcomes, as a optimization of efficiency and equity within a state. As silverharp has rightly noticed, it is wrong to draw a causal relationship, but I have argued there to be a strong correlation between advanced welfare states, better health outcomes, and increased market competitiveness internationally.

donegalfella wrote:

But that's not remotely "libertarian."

For your value of libertarian, which is a narrow one. Libertarian socialism is not the libertarianism of the US Libertarian Party, but luckily in the 'free market' of ideas, there is no monopoly on the use of the word. The argument of a libertarian socialist is that market actions can decrease liberty for many, while decommodification programs increase liberty by providing access to goods such as health and education on a universalist basis.

I advocate free-market liberalism because it helps people lift themselves out of poverty. Socialism does the opposite.

Please cite comparative outcomes for poverty, child mortality, or any recognized indicator, using liberal and socialist regimes. A statement without supporting data is not an argument, it's cheap rhetoric.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was just an example of a means of dividing up resources. You take the resources available to a community, after the staple goods are provided, the surplus would be divided out amongst the community. The method for dividing this surplus would be democratically decided and would be different in each society.

What if Joe blows all his points on beer as soon as he receives them, while Jane saves up her points for a rainy day? Would they both be free to do that? What happens when Jane has points to buy clothes and books for her children, while Joe doesn't? Isn't that inegalitarian and unfair?

The allocation would be of the surplus after the staple needs had already been met. If someone had no self control and wasted all his allocation, he would still have his needs met just like everyone else.

Additionally, what physical incarnation would these "points" take? Am I to be issued with an official certificate that says that I have "20 points"? If so, what is the difference between that certificate and a €20 note?

The points could be in any incarnation at all, they could be tradable, or not tradable, they could have a maximum limit, they could be renewed by the day, or the week or the month, they could be physical tokens, or numbers on a spreadsheet. All of those options are available, and would be decided on by the community who implement them.
The key difference between the 'points' and currency in capitalism, is that they can not be used to oppress others.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

I never really understood the term Wage Slavery. Debt slavery, yes. Wage slavery?

Surely the thing about slaves is that they dont get wages. That factor alone is enough to enslave them, because with accumulated wealth they can flee. A good slave-owner may well treat his older slaves better too, and feed everybody well, and clothe them equally. Asking the young slaves to work harder - according to ability - than the (needy) old.

Anarchism seems kinda like that, without the guy in the big house.

Its not that hard to understand, if you are paid subsistance wages, you are no better than the slave. Subsistance wages allow you to provide for yourself enough food clothes and shelter to keep you alive and working. Slaves have this minimum provided for them by the slave owner.

The difference is that the slave has no choice about who the master is, where a wage slave can choose which master to work for, but he is no less a slave because if he doesn't work, he dies (or is forced into crime)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On the first page of this thread, the difference between property and posessions was explained to you, and it has been explained multiple times since then. Are you being deliberately deceptive now?

Kama

The key difference between the 'points' and currency in capitalism, is that they can not be used to oppress others.

The question is how can this be assured? If points can be accrued, and a level of inequality between actors can develop, is this inequality itself oppressive? If not, why? If we are against hierarchy, and we develop a reputation-based economy (I'm thinking here something like Charlie Stross, or 'Distraction' by Bruce Sterling, if anyone's read them), how is this not, strictly speaking, an elitist hierarchy? If I can gain more 'thanks' or 'points' or 'solidarity dollars', does this not directly contradict the 'flat' egalitarian claim made earlier?

To answer this question, imo, we need to interrogate the term of 'oppression', and perhaps foundationally to this discussion, 'liberty'. I'm not convinced the meaning is shared.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More waffle, how would your system 'encourage responsible parenting'? What specific element of your society would prevent parents from abandoning their children, or from becoming drug addicts and neglecting their children, or one measure built into the system that would help children in those terrible circumstances to escape and better themselves (other than "well, we wouldn't stop charities from helping... you've already said with delight that charities would be under resourced because otherwise would provide too much of a 'moral hazard')

When have I ever suggested such a thing? I advocate free-market liberalism because it helps people lift themselves out of poverty. Socialism does the opposite.

In the exact paragraph I quoted, you said

In many countries, so-called "sweatshops" pay two or three times the average national wage. They have no problem attracting employees. So where does the anti-sweatshop movement come from? Not from the Third World, by a long stretch—it originates with Western labour unions, which are more concerned about the outsourcing of their own jobs than about the working or living conditions of the world's poor.

You admire the slums for their lack of unions, and oppose the labour rights that workers have fought for in the west for generations so that we don't have to accept child labour in western society.

And there's a sizeable gulf between the way the world is and the way it should be. If Nike and other apparel manufacturers pulled out of the Third World tomorrow, do you think the peoples of the Third World would be better off? Do you think that schools would suddenly blossom all over the place?

you mean if the people of the developing world no longer gave away everything of value to international corporations for a pittance in return? Would they be better off?
I think so. (especially if they adopted libertarian socialist principles to recreate a just and equal society.

synd

Like Soldie, I'm confused. If the points are "shared amongst the community," how can an individual person save them for bigger-ticket items? Are the points owned by the community or by the individual? If the latter, doesn't that contradict your vision of a society that doesn't permit private property?

I don't advocate a direct move to communism, I think anrcho-syndicalism or a variation of collectivism would be a more appropriate intermediary. In response to your question, tokens would contain a use by date and be non-transferable. If you want to purchase a higher level good - you would have to work it's corresponding value. Tokens are the medium of labor value and as such are tied to the individual, although society would collectively negotiate a tax to invest in the maintenance and construction of public facilities.

Something that may not have been explained. Anarchists/socialists draw a dichotomy between personal possessions and private property. Socialists are opposed to the latter not the former. Concentration of real capital leads to the expropriation of social surplus via disparities in bargaining power.

What if Joe blows all his points on beer as soon as he receives them, while Jane saves up her points for a rainy day? Would they both be free to do that? What happens when Jane has points to buy clothes and books for her children, while Joe doesn't? Isn't that inegalitarian and unfair?

Under conditions of relative social equality in terms of wage, access to education and full employment, the degree of social alienation caused by class stratification would no longer exist. This would consequently lead to a ''reduction'' in many social disorders. The significance of the traditional nuclear household would be severely limited with the shift in economic relations.

Additionally, what physical incarnation would these "points" take? Am I to be issued with an official certificate that says that I have "20 points"? If so, what is the difference between that certificate and a €20 note?

So to re-cap - a €20 note is an individual currency and obscures value. Its subject to the instability of the financial market. Furthermore, it can be accumulated, transferred and stored for prolonged periods and be utilized to invest in real capital or buy other currencies. Labor notes - would be A. non-transferable B. lack duration C. can only be directly exchanged against consumer goods D. Entail an objective value - SNT.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

Well, I'm not the one misinterpreting his posts. He says that in developing countries child labour in so-called 'sweatshops' is preferable to child prostitution. You interpret that as him saying that in a libertarian world, child labour is perfectly acceptable. *Shrug*

Well it is, because in a libertarian world, DF would be using the same argument to justify child labour as the same (lack of) choices would exist

synd

I never really understood the term Wage Slavery. Debt slavery, yes. Wage slavery?Surely the thing about slaves is that they dont get wages. That factor alone is enough to enslave them, because with accumulated wealth they can flee. A good slave-owner may well treat his older slaves better too, and feed everybody well, and clothe them equally. Asking the young slaves to work harder - according to ability - than the (needy) old. Anarchism seems kinda like that, without the guy in the big house.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So children would be 'free' to work in a libertarian society when there were no other options available to them..


And you can't see any problem with this.

Sunn

Soldie wrote: »

In an anarcho-socialist world my neighbours could decide to have ten children. Each child, naturally, would want their 'fair share' - with their 'basic needs' looked after. Unfortunately, this is likely to affect my quality of life in that there would be less for me.

Why would you need the resources it takes to satisfy 12 people? Everyones needs vary, some require more than others some require less. Anyway who said your needs would be restricted or in fact where did you get that idea from? I still think you are comparing anarchism to state socialism where everyone just gets the same ration card and thats that!

This raises the question; what does freedom mean in an anaracho-socialist world if my pursuit of happiness can be affected so drastically by the whims of those in my community? What of those of us who want to have an element of self-determination?

Capitalism doesn't meet are material needs, much of our time is spent working doing utter nonsense having little or no say in the direction our life/community. Its at the "whims" of leaders, bosses etc. Its main aim is to make people submit to higher institutes of power, in fact its a complete myth that capitalism promotes individual freedom. Equating happiness to material wealth is a fallacy.

Under an anarchist society:

Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality. They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those involved the "social space" required to express themselves and develop their abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval notes in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution, "so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right to participate spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative to the full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty; it is nothingness."

Akrasia

Kama wrote: »

The question is how can this be assured? If points can be accrued, and a level of inequality between actors can develop, is this inequality itself oppressive? If not, why? If we are against hierarchy, and we develop a reputation-based economy (I'm thinking here something like Charlie Stross, or 'Distraction' by Bruce Sterling, if anyone's read them), how is this not, strictly speaking, an elitist hierarchy? If I can gain more 'thanks' or 'points' or 'solidarity dollars', does this not directly contradict the 'flat' egalitarian claim made earlier?

To answer this question, imo, we need to interrogate the term of 'oppression', and perhaps foundationally to this discussion, 'liberty'. I'm not convinced the meaning is shared.

There would need to be debate within each community about what level of personal posessions are deemed to be socially desirable, for example, nobody could claim to be oppressed because I choose to use some of my resource allocation to procure an electric toothbrush, while others are provided with normal non electric toothbrushes for free.

It would not be socially acceptable in an anarchist society for me to rent you the use of my posessions. (where mere posession of an item demanded by another would enable me to gain someone else's labour or posessions for temporary use of my 'property')

I would imagine that is where the line between posessions and property would be drawn. I could spend some of my ration/allocation to procure art, but I couldn't charge others to look at it. I could procure sports or musical equipment, but i could not charge others to rent it. (if there music was valued in the society, it is likely there would be a library of community instruments available for use by everyone, but musicians would still prefer to own their own guitars or whatever, merely because these are items that can be tailor made to each musicians preferences)

Ownership of personal transport, like bikes and cars and motorcycles would again, be dependent on the preferences of the community, a rural community might deem it as a necessity to have personal transport, and negotiate transport for the members of these syndicates ( a bit like company cars in capitalism) while an urban community might prefer to maintain a pool of vehicles for communal use including public transport infrastructure (operating as a public transport syndicate that services a geographic area)

WinstonSmith

Akrasia wrote: »

There would need to be debate within each community about what level of personal posessions are deemed to be socially desirable, for example, nobody could claim to be oppressed because I choose to use some of my resource allocation to procure an electric toothbrush, while others are provided with normal non electric toothbrushes for free.

It would not be socially acceptable in an anarchist society for me to rent you the use of my posessions. (where mere posession of an item demanded by another would enable me to gain someone else's labour or posessions for temporary use of my 'property')

I would imagine that is where the line between posessions and property would be drawn. I could spend some of my ration/allocation to procure art, but I couldn't charge others to look at it. I could procure sports or musical equipment, but i could not charge others to rent it. (if there music was valued in the society, it is likely there would be a library of community instruments available for use by everyone, but musicians would still prefer to own their own guitars or whatever, merely because these are items that can be tailor made to each musicians preferences)

Ownership of personal transport, like bikes and cars and motorcycles would again, be dependent on the preferences of the community, a rural community might deem it as a necessity to have personal transport, and negotiate transport for the members of these syndicates ( a bit like company cars in capitalism) while an urban community might prefer to maintain a pool of vehicles for communal use including public transport infrastructure (operating as a public transport syndicate that services a geographic area)

What incentive is there for an artist to produce work if (s)he does not have private ownership over it or can charge people to view/read it? What incentive is there for people to work hard and produce goods for others? What incentive is there for people to work extra and produce more than is what needed for themselves and their families alone?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

WinstonSmith wrote: »

What incentive is there for an artist to produce work if (s)he does not have private ownership over it or can charge people to view/read it? What incentive is there for people to work hard and produce goods for others? What incentive is there for people to work extra and produce more than is what needed for themselves and their families alone?

Artists are very very rarely motivated by profit alone (you can keep your damien hurst)

The motivation to work hard is because when the work is done, you can go home, and because you benefit from the output just as much as everyone else. I think there is much more incentive to work in this system the capitalist 'do as little as will not get you fired' for the worker drones... as indicated by the number of people who post here during office hours)

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

I think there is much more incentive to work in this system the capitalist 'do as little as will not get you fired' for the worker drones... as indicated by the number of people who post here during office hours)

As opposed to 'do whatever the hell you want as you'll still get your fair share'? Okay. You're honestly suggesting that people will have more incentive to work for nothing, than they'd have to work for something?