• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Basic question about being a "left libertarian"

Geoist said:
You would have to be nuts to believe most workers in the capitalist system think their work has meaning or that they are fairly compensated.
Click to expand...
No, I would just have to work in a capitalist society for the last 35 years ... which I have done.
 
Geoist said:
As much as feudalism is a contract between peasants and a lord.

If you got shipwrecked on Robinson Crusoe's island and he says you must agree to be his slave to receive his coconuts I don't care if the contract is in blood, that is not freedom.
Click to expand...
No, feudalism is not a voluntary system. Working for McDonalds or Boeing is.

Interesting example. Were I ship-wrecked on an island with others I'd be living in a society far closer to the one for which you advocate. And to my point, yes, in that model, the physically strong decide who gets the coconuts.
 
NatMorton said:
I understand you're confusing opinion with fact.
Click to expand...

It is verifiable the first documented use of the term 'libertarian' was by leftists.

Timeline of libertarian thinkers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Prove me wrong.

NatMorton said:
Hunter-gatherer societies are typically what the physically strongest members of the tribe wish them to be. If they ever are democracies they're not that for very long.
Click to expand...

You're wrong again.

Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos,[19] although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule.[20][21] Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.[22][23][24] For example, the San people or "Bushmen" of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods.[25] Karl Marx defined this socio-economic system as primitive communism.[26]

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total, but is striking[according to whom?] when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[27][28][29]

Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed. In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies, there is often, though not always, relative gender equality as well.

NatMorton said:
LL's may not oppose technology, but they seem to oppose virtually every aspect of modern society that makes technology possible. As I said above, you seem to think this stuff just appears and is not the result of some very important economic and political processes. We're back to pixie dust making it happen.
Click to expand...

What aspect do I oppose that makes tech possible?
 
NatMorton said:
No, I would just have to work in a capitalist society for the last 35 years ... which I have done.
Click to expand...

This is not a coherent response to my post.
 
Geoist said:
Why do they need to be traditionally run hierarchical businesses?
Click to expand...
Because a co-op of the kind you describe will sooner or later face an inherent conflict of interest. While it's generally true that what is good for workers is good for business, there are some very real instances where the precise opposite is true. During hard times businesses must often shed costs to survive, and that can mean layoffs. Good luck getting that decision made where the workers control 51% of the voting stock.
 
NatMorton said:
No, feudalism is not a voluntary system. Working for McDonalds or Boeing is.
Click to expand...

And you can just go work for another lord. :rolleyes:
NatMorton said:
Interesting example. Were I ship-wrecked on an island with others I'd be living in a society far closer to the one for which you advocate. And to my point, yes, in that model, the physically strong decide who gets the coconuts.
Click to expand...

According to your capitalistic/propertarian belief, Robinson Crusoe has rights to the island as he was the first to claim it. Therefore, if you shipwrecked on his island you would be a trespasser and would be justifiably killed or, if Crusoe is merciful, turned into a slave.

Left libertarianism rejects the idea of private ownership in the natural world so any attempt by Crusoe to enslave or harm you is in opposition to the ideology.
 
NatMorton said:
Because a co-op of the kind you describe will sooner or later face an inherent conflict of interest. While it's generally true that what is good for workers is good for business, there are some very real instances where the precise opposite is true. During hard times businesses must often shed costs to survive, and that can mean layoffs. Good luck getting that decision made where the workers control 51% of the voting stock.
Click to expand...

Traditional businesses fail all the time. In fact, most (65%) of businesses fail within the first ten years.
 
Geoist said:
And you can just go work for another lord. :rolleyes:


According to your capitalistic/propertarian belief, Robinson Crusoe has rights to the island as he was the first to claim it. Therefore, if you shipwrecked on his island you would be a trespasser and would be justifiably killed or, if Crusoe is merciful, turned into a slave.

Left libertarianism rejects the idea of private ownership in the natural world so any attempt by Crusoe to enslave or harm you is in opposition to the ideology.
Click to expand...
Okay, so as a left libertarian, if you were to wash up on Crusoe's island you would have a better chance of securing coconuts?

You're simply not making sense. Crusoe's island is far closer to a hunter-gatherer society than is a modern capitalist economy.
 
NatMorton said:
I never said every traditionally run business succeeds. I say that as a group they outperform co-opts.

Quick question, how many of the Global 1000 are worker owned co-ops?
Click to expand...

Co-ops are naturally decentralized. Why would they make up the Global 1000?
 
Geoist said:
Co-ops are naturally decentralized. Why would they make up the Global 1000?
Click to expand...
They would make the Global 1000 if they were productive over a long period of time. They almost never are. Their defining characteristic in this sense is to produce less for more.
 
You get the sense that with LLs, purity of purpose is far more important than actual results.
 
NatMorton said:
Okay, so as a left libertarian, if you were to wash up on Crusoe's island you would have a better chance of securing coconuts?

You're simply not making sense. Crusoe's island is far closer to a hunter-gatherer society than is a modern capitalist economy.
Click to expand...

The analogy is a point in the ethics of each of our ideologies. Your ideology embraces the idea that Crusoe gets to do whatever he wants to you. My ideology embraces the idea that it would be unethical of Crusoe to deny you coconuts or to force you to be his slave.

Obviously if Crusoe is stronger he'd win out. That does not make it ethical. Left libertarian societies would still have laws/rules for people to follow. Murder would still be punished, doesn't matter how strong the person is.
 
NatMorton said:
They would make the Global 1000 if they were productive over a long period of time. They almost never are. Their defining characteristic in this sense is to produce less for more.
Click to expand...

You can be a productive traditional company and not make the Global 1000. Banks almost never lend to co-ops. Try starting a business without a bank loan.
 
Geoist said:
The analogy is a point in the ethics of each of our ideologies. Your ideology embraces the idea that Crusoe gets to do whatever he wants to you. My ideology embraces the idea that it would be unethical of Crusoe to deny you coconuts or to force you to be his slave.

Obviously if Crusoe is stronger he'd win out. That does not make it ethical. Left libertarian societies would still have laws/rules for people to follow. Murder would still be punished, doesn't matter how strong the person is.
Click to expand...
No, it is clear you have absolutely no idea what my ideology is. Your Crusoe example does not describe it in any way, shape, or form.
 
NatMorton said:
I would consider that more right leaning libertarianism, yes?
Click to expand...
right leaning and left leaning liberals arent that different, the basic beliefs are the same
 
Here's a thought. Let us suppose there were two societies separated by a mountain range. Let us also stipulate that these two societies do not like each other. Why is immaterial, they just don't, and both can be prone to aggression. And while they start off as equal as they can be, let us also suppose the first society decides to model itself on the left libertarian economic model of small, decentralized co-ops to produce its needed goods and services Let us then suppose the second society organizes itself on the western capitalist model.

Now, given these two societies do not like or trust each other, after a few decades which is likely to have better weapons at its disposal?
 
NatMorton said:
This thread proves otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well, at the end of the day the solutions are as many as the people in the world, that's why we have ideologies: To agree on a direction. Liberal is one such direction. Conservatism another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom