Andrew79

Not sure what we're supposed to get out of this...It seems like just another capitalism vs. socialism thing.And as far as I'm concerned it's already been comprehensively played out over the 20th century, in both theory and practice.Am I missing something?

+1You beat me to it.Libertarianism makes no claims, scientifically or philosophically, on exactly how the whole mind/body thing works.Self-ownership is simply the idea that no one has a higher claim to you than you do.So anyone wanting to refute it needs to explain why that's not the case.

Jeffrey Tucker takes the phrase on here.

You just need to be aware of their definition of capitalism:cap·i·tal·ismnoun ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-: anything socialists don't likeThis lets them freely criticize the inevitable results of their ideology while blaming the philosophy that stands in complete opposition to them.

Right back at ya: Non-capitalist systems are not about making profit. And without profit and loss there is no effective method to tell what is and isn't working. It is mathematically impossible to run an economy like this. The only possible result is poverty and starvation. And every time it's been tried that's what we've seen. For example, in Venezuela, where the government is "only" using various profit and price capping policies, we can see the resulting shortages. For the sake of the people living there I hope the politicians don't decide to further hamper the market... Attacking capitalism through "logic", or rather by trying to play on most people's ignorance of economics, is a deeply dishonest thing to do. Especially when, if logic is a concern for you, I demonstrated above that the non-capitalist systems fall at the very first hurdle. For you to advocate against capitalism, Mark Carolus, is for you to advocate for evil.

Wants to know about the initiation of psychological force... Ends his post shouting a demand. If you're interested in learning more about libertarianism, reading something like Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics Of Liberty" will give you a better foundation than asking questions on a forum. Or maybe read your own signature quote.

Private property's been around a lot longer than the 20th century. The system was named capitalism by its detractors to give it a label to attack.You're not giving specifics, you've demonstrated you've got absolutely nothing, so I'm done.

But you haven't, you've just made vague assertions with nothing to back them up. You claim the philosophies you like are logical/historical arguments yet you're shying away from both.That capitalism is private property is what differentiates it from other philosophies. And private property is liberty.If you're not going into specifics, there's no point in me continuing this.I'll finish with one of my favourite quotes, as it sums up your approach:"If you place yourself on this ground of myths, you are proof against any kind of critical refutation." Georges Sorel.

Yep, and as capitalism is owning the means of production, captialism is liberty.Trying to redefine the state as capitalism is laughable dishonesty. The state is not privately owned and it works through politics not markets, it's an example of a socialist institution. You don't have capitalism, you don't have the means to own property, you can't have liberty.Arguing against capitalism, against the ability to own private property, is the path to enslavement by the state. Again, where private property rights are strongest, people are better off, this has been logically and historically proven.If you want to claim that capitalism isn't the philosophy of private property, then what is?

So you're interested in logical/historical arguments but you couldn't care less about the millions of, to use your term "masters", the non-capitalist states have murdered. Ok. Well, you seem to have fallen for the "public servants" line... I don't care how "two dimensional" my thinking is. I only care if it's accurate.Capitalism is being able to own the means of production, socialism is not being able to.And from a logical and historical perspective, the closer a country is to capitalism (the less its government interferes) the better off its people. The closer to socialism, the worse off.Feel free to offer a definition or make an actual argument if you disagree, instead of just snide quips.

It's amusing you accuse me of rhetoric when you come out with this, at best, naive junk.Government is the servant... tell that to the millions of dead Jews, Chinese, Russians, and countless others who've been slaughtered by their "servant". Nope. Capitalism is individuals being able to own the means of production.Here's the opening paragraph from its Wikipedia page:"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."I'm not interested in socialists trying to re-define it as the cause of just about all the evil in the world.

Ok... but if people aren't forced to submit to it, is it still a government? Capitalism is simply the idea that people can own stuff. If they can't own stuff then I'm assuming you're advocating some sort of socialism?(I think I've got it, you're capitalising the philosophies you don't approve of and leaving the ideologies you do in lowercase.)

That's alright, but I think I'm missing something.If I've got this right, you don't think people should so much as be told how to live their lives, let alone be forced by someone else.But you support government. And government is all about forcing people to live how it wants them to. In other words, forcing them to submit. Which you don't think is a good thing.So I'm not sure exactly what principles you are advocating, or how it's better than libertarianism.

So someone can accept an argument while not believing in it? Right.Why not just give an example of what you define as a political philosophy?I've never come across anything more logical than libertarianism so I'd appreciate it if you could introduce me to superior options. You're on a libertarian forum, criticising libertarianism. That you mention a couple of other political philosophies doesn't mean your focus isn't on libertarianism.

So no specifics then, Dwain.And all political philosophies rely on submission and belief. Doing what the government tells you isn't voluntary, and they don't control the school system and spend money on propaganda just for fun.If this is something you're genuinely concerned about, why not focus on those philosophies that seek to exert the most control over people rather than one that seeks to minimise control?(Still capitalising libertarianism, but not Marxism or Maoism. Brilliant.)