Right. But two wrongs don't make a right. People here own private land now. A government taking it back through coercion and force is just as evil as the Europeans who initially took it by coercion and force.
You and Kindness are communists, I get it.
Why the need to try to disguise it with newfangled terms?
I don't believe in the government taking the land. But I also believe that land is not property the same way goods are. I happen to believe that true property derives from the fruits of labor. Land has never derived from the fruits of anyone's labor.
I do not consider myself a communist.
As already pointed out, libertarian socialist is not a "newfangled term." Look up its history.
This whole country was private property of native Americans that Europeans took by force and coercion. That doesn't make it right.
About the closest that socialism can come to being anarchistic is syndicalism
They're the ones that socialists want dead, enslaved, or robbed - in true authoritarian measure.
Then you haven't done your research:
Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[20] and mutualism[21]) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[22] and some versions of "utopian socialism"[23] and individualist anarchism.[24][25][26]
Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is certainly true of certain state socialists, whom I abhor as much as any other totalitarians.
You're right. I haven't done my research...on wikipedia...
Then prove its wrong. Its a fact that individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Kevin Carson consider(d) themselves libertarian socialists.
Oh I know a bunch of people who consider themselves libertarian socialists. I also know a bunch of people who think that man never walked on the moon.
The confusion is inevitable, because the word "libertarian" was used in Europe primarily to describe non-totalitarian socialists and anarchists: as in, "We are socialists, but it's that not what you think - we do appreciate individual liberty".
In America, classical liberals could not call themselves "liberals" anymore - the word was hijacked by social-democrats somewhere in the 1930s, while American conservatism had at the time mostly classical liberal content ("conserving" something quite different from what they "conserve" in Europe).
As conservatism started changing its nature, trending Burkean and "socially conservative", the classical liberals had to split - and they've started calling themsleves "libertarians".
What about the poem in Romeo and Juliet, "O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;"Then prove its wrong. Its a fact that individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Kevin Carson consider(d) themselves libertarian socialists.
I do not consider myself a communist.
Point is, socialism was not always a term for those who supported the State. I will repost what Cyrylek said because he summarized it well:
Because it would be agreed upon before any revolution.
So what difference does that name mean? If you are a socialist, call yourself a socialist, to make it easier for everyone to know what you mean.
How do you know if you are a socialist? If you want central control of production and distribution you are a socialist.
Me, I am a classic liberal, a moderate democrat who decries all extremes of politics. Call me a Blue Dog if you wish, but I am still me.
But yet your views, as stated by you, say that you are.
Point is, socialism was not always a term for those who supported the State. I will repost what Cyrylek said because he summarized it well:
What views? Please be specific.
"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least, because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism.
Because it would be agreed upon before any revolution.
My question will always be, what do you do if socialism erodes itself under a purely libertarian society? Which are you willing to give up first?
Every one of them that you've stated thus far in this thread. Read the thread.
I know what I have stated and nothing I've stated is 'communist.' In case you missed it, I believe in keeping the fruits of one's own labor. Does that sound communist?
I am pro-volunteer and anti-coercion, so whatever society evolves from that I support.
Yet, calling yourself classical liberal I bet would get many folks chanting: "You're a liberal that supports private property and free market?! Thats an oxy-moron!" Thats exactly what were seeing with some of the comments in this thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?