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.)

You mean the Libertarian Party? They're only one part of the libertarian world, plenty of other libertarians want nothing to do with the political process and do not support them. Such as this forum, as FDR is an anarchist libertarian movement.And telling people how they should live their lives is what politics is all about.So why you're complaining about the LP, especially when they want significantly less control over you than the other parties, I don't know. I've got no idea what economic policies the LP advocates - I think you probably need a different forum if they're specifically what you want to discuss.Does "strict set" mean the current economic policies aren't strict? Or that a political philosophy focused on minimising (if not eliminating) government control would actually be more controlling?Does "pseudo-economic dictums" include massive debt, constant inflation, and regular recessions?And do you think using smear words without providing the slightest bit of substance is enough to fool people?You're not preaching to the choir here.Why not try turning off your propaganda mode and have an honest conversation about your concerns...

I haven't defended libertarian philosophy because you haven't attacked it... (and below you claim you're not going to)I pointed out the nonsense of trying to claim one set of ideas is an ideology, and another - usually the current politically trendy one - isn't. Interesting choice of language.I don't have a problem with anyone "telling me what I should believe and how I should believe it". In fact I enjoy the debate, whereas you're making it sound like you want to shut it down.But if you take upon yourself the task of imposing your beliefs on me, then we've got a problem...

Sounds like you haven't got a rebuttal so you're trying to play the victim (with a little innuendo thrown in as well).Your approach may be obvious to the disingenuous, but it's not a valid one. You're trying to take advantage of people who aren't aware of the games political propagandists (or trolls) play.And the best way to counter it, is to shine a torch on it. To make the bullshit obvious to anyone who cares to look.

It's just another form of a standard attack on anyone who wants to lessen the leviathan: "You're driven by ideology, whereas I only want the best for people". And no matter how it's dressed up, it's still just sophism.

Just pointing out some nonsense.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

I took it from the opening quote, but you nailed it more accurately with the quote below: Value is subjective. Everything free, public ownership, and no money is socialism no matter how you want to dress it up. The zeitgeisters use computers as their hook. This guy seems to be using aliens. But it's all the same. They grab you with an emotional story of how terrible things are now and how wonderful they'll be under their system (it's fairly common for them also to have a story of how wonderful things were hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago). Even laughable bullshit like consumerism is a socialist story: throughout the first half of the 20th century socialists claimed socialism would produce more wealth than capitalism. When it didn't, the story changed from capitalism not producing enough, to it producing too much. That people take it as a serious critique is astonishing and shows the power of story over reality. And they won't give you any concrete details. Because they can't. Even Marx advocated to his followers not to try to explain how socialism would actually work. And to quote a founder of the socialist movement known as syndicalism, Georges Sorel, "If you place yourself on this ground of myths, you are proof against any kind of critical refutation." And that's all this contributionism is. Just another rebranding of an ideology that's cost tens of millions of lives and left millions more in grinding poverty.

"Consumerism" is only a problem in non-capitalist economic systems because people have to struggle just to stay alive and so their entire focus is on getting the material goods necessary to do so.But in capitalist economies, these basic goods are abundant and cheap meaning people can spend time discussing political philosophy, going to opera, or fiddling with the latest iPhone if that's what they want.So, as usual, a critique of capitalism that actually only applies to non-capitalist systems. And even then it's only if you're snobbish enough to decide for other people what is and isn't culture, art, etc. Here's the overview of contributionism: http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.phpHe's saying that people will contribute what they can and then receive what they need, in other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".He's calling for public ownership of just about everything.And he wants to get rid of money.That is socialism.

This made me curious, so I had a look into the "better solution".It's something called contributionism and - surprise, surprise - it's just another form of socialism.What makes you think that a philosophy that's been thoroughly debunked in both theory and practice appears to be better than capitalism?

To live you must consume, and to consume you must produce.Oppressed by natureWhile the state might make going self-employed or self-dependent or whatever harder than it otherwise might be, it doesn't make it impossible. And not everyone wants to go into business for themselves, even if given a completely free choice many would rather work for someone else because it's easier and less risky.So while people have a reasonably free choice over how they produce there is no slavery.Sure, you can change their working conditions, lower their pay, become a tyrant, and so on. But they can leave. Ultimately it's not you that sets those things, but the market. The more I engage with people about politics, the more cynical I become. And that's especially true when after pointing out someone's use of "Won't somebody please think of the children?" they go and do the same thing again in their very next post.