Right-wing libertarians love to harp against coercion, and how bad it is to be forced to do something under the threat of violence.
But what they don't realize is that private ownership is by its nature coercive. Why should someone get to own a piece of land, or a mine, or a lake, or anything that contains goods or materials? They take it by force and basically hold it hostage, controlling its use. Then others basically have to work for shit wages just to survive.
Private-ownership of land and means of production = coercion.
You're not going to eliminate the use of force by a naturally predatory species. The only reason we have stability right now is that we have ceded power to a central body with a monopoly of force. How much power and force this central body should have, and what it should do with these, is the focus of political debate. You saying there shouldn't even be a central body is naive and would simply produce conditions that allow another central body to arise.
Brandon Johnson
deal with it. that's life.
Nathan Mitchell
We're done here.
Ryder Bennett
I don't think there shouldn't be a central body. I think there should be laws that stop people from privately owning the means of production.
I'm not a communist, I fall in the green on this scale, because I highly value personal and social freedom. I just think left-wing economics are better and more moral.
Ethan Mitchell
who enforces the laws
Anthony Carter
>Property is coercive >Your body and mind are property So you'll be fine if I come to your tiny 1 bedroom apartment and put a bullet in your head for coercing me?
Nathaniel Turner
...
Aiden Long
...
Tyler Rivera
>I value personal freedom, but the second you start voluntarily trading, you can bet me and my mob will be stealing your property.
Andrew Bell
right after the "two options" bit, the individual deciding to hold on to their property is actually being the coercive one.
Grayson Martin
Also I'm interested to see how you would respond to this. Political Compass website wrote this up in response to people who say "you can't be libertarian and left wing
>This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism. It was, after all, the important French anarchist thinker Proudhon who declared that property is theft.
>On the other side of the Atlantic, the likes of Emma Goldman were identified as libertarians long before the term was adopted by some economic rightwingers. And what about the libertarian collectives of the mid-late 1800s and 1960s?
>Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.
>The assumption that economic deregulation inevitably delivers more social freedom is flawed. The welfare states of, for example, the Nordic region, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities — not to mention anti-censorship. Such established high-tax social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on democratic rank eg Denmark ranks 2, Sweden 3 and Norway 7, while comparatively free markets such as the US, Singapore and China rate 15,74 and 121 respectively.
>Despite their higher taxes, the social democracies' degree of social freedoms would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in more socially conservative countries.
>Our point is that a regulated economy and a strong public sector are not necessarily authoritarian, and a deregulated economy with a minimal public sector is not necessarily socially libertarian.
Carson Cox
Ooooohh I see. So since (((they started it))) you're not actually being authoritarian or coercive by taking it back.
Doesn't remind me a bit of A REAL SCENARIO THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IN RUSSIA WHICH KILLED 50 MILLION PEOPLE Nope doesn't sound like that at all
David Bailey
>coercion:the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. >The body and mind are property, and allow us to exist >therefore, existence is by its very nature coercive Your bullshit is so incredibly easily debunked.
Michael Edwards
>when ancoms purposefully exclude the requirement of property rights in libertarian ideas
Camden Lopez
who said that body and mind were property? i didnt
well no its not coercive to stop people from hoarding what should be public property, technically it can be considered public defense
Henry Ross
I think, to an extent, part of the problem lies in what one considers "freedom".
As an example, the metric mentioned there that measures freedom is based on factors such as "progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities".
Freedom is not a 2 dimensional line. It's a spectrum.
By increasing the freedom of women, you decrease the freedom of men. A man used to own his wife. He is no longer free to do so. Is it more free? less free? somewhat irrelevant, the point is that freedom is a complicated concept.
And, the named countries are not "libertarian". They are authoritarian with libertarian principles/tendencies. Big difference there. Libertarian leftism doesn't exist. Leftism necessitates an authoritarian government who forces people to ((play nice)) and ((share)).
John Morales
MAX PAR
Jackson Bennett
On what basis do you decide what is public property and what isn't? Whether or not you can take it? Sounds like an upward spiral into authoritarianism to me.
Hudson Fisher
So if the body isn't property, I can shove my dick up your asshole right? It isn't property and it's for the public good.
If you don't define a person's body as their property you're gonna have a bad time.
Blake Allen
But you've skipped a step. property requires enforcement. In order for this person to claim say a plot of land, he would have to have a force strong enough to keep people off of it. If he does this with something other people need (say he claims all the freshwater sources in an area) and people wish to use the water, this aspiring property-owner has two choices
1. let them use the water as they please (his property claim is essentially rendered meaningless)
2. he somehow forces them off his property
In the latter case, he can essentially hold all of this resource in order to gain leverage over those in the community. Everyone who needs access to freshwater now has to obey him.
What the libertarian left does is essentially prevent this enforcement of private property claims (distinct from personal property).
In our current society, which force is responsible for protecting private property? The police of course. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. A state apparatus is necessary to uphold private property or at least something along those lines.
Dylan Bennett
most people fall on the green corner. That's not who we're talking about I'd assume because the political compass test is a joke. We're talking about stateless socialism
Ethan Brown
>Be in world filled with ancoms >Make an axe out of wood and flint >Give me that axe you made it's for the collective >no >HE'S VIOLENT GET HIM
Theft is coercion You prevent theft from succeeding with coercion ancoms say you're the violent one
Joshua Nguyen
But you don't own the wood and flint.
Juan Hill
You don't own the oxygen you breathe. Stop it. That oxygen belongs to the collective.
Lincoln Cooper
Stateless socialism has never happened because a government will never ever ever voluntarily dissolve and you need an authoritarian government to take everyone's property away from them
Brody Price
His actual choices are 1. Let them 2. Say No
Capitalism=consensual sex Socialism=rape
Lucas Hernandez
True libertarians dont care about the left(progressive values) or the right(conservative values) they only care about freedom.True libertarians are centrist.
Chase Nguyen
Exactly
Angel Hill
...
Connor Wood
Tbh I'm not really interested in your wood and flint axe. Not sure why you're wasting time making them. Anyways various left libertarians have different concepts about what sorts of property rights will be enforced. The distinction between private property and personal property can be drawn at somewhat different places however obviously things like your toothbrush, bed, home, etc are personal property.
If we were talking about any given object that were owned collectively or unowned I would imagine that you would essentially be able to use it and if others wanted to use it they would have to wait.
I should hope resources are not so scarce that we're fighting over wood and flint axes that you've been wasting your time making. If that's the case then socialism probably wouldn't work out all that well. A certain degree of abundance is required for socialism to work.
Jaxson Roberts
>A certain degree of abundance is required for socialism to work Exactly dude... exactly.
If you're really a Marxist, I encourage you to read the Gulag Archipelago. At least the abridged version. Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
That book serves as a cautionary tale for how Marxism can wind up. Read it if you dare.
Kayden Flores
or a group of revolutionaries. There have been projects with varying degrees of success but I agree that there are difficulties with the system coming into being. I'm not certain it can, all I'm saying is Sup Forums don't know shit here.
See that's just generalizing. You have personal property. Left libertarians wish to abolish private property (admittedly there are some grey areas here that may vary according to sect. For the average person, though, they basically get to keep all their things).
>I don't know shit about politics: the compass
political compasses were already shit but "true libertarians" have somehow found a way to make them worse.
Jacob Murphy
Not a Marxist (though there are some Marxist groups that I agree with on a lot of issues). Nor would I defend the Soviet Union's actions, especially when it comes to gulaging. Revolution is risky. Of course. I don't deny that. Socialism's biggest problem is the transition. That was also true of capitalism transitioning out of feudalism (French Revolution and others).
Julian Hughes
Please read The Gulag Archipelago.
Christopher Reed
Marxism made the lives of Russian serfs worse. Hear me? It took people who worked the land every day all year, slept in a hut above a stove to keep warm in winter, the MOST SUCCESSFUL owned perhaps a cow or two.
It made their situations WORSE.
They got to live with their families before Marxism happened to them.
They got to stay in the same hut their whole life.
They weren't punished for keeping enough of the harvest to subsist upon.
Their lives were qualitatively and objectively better under the Tzars.
Because Marxism is the worst thing that has ever happened to Humanity. Period.
Jason Butler
Nice Spooks
Kayden Sullivan
Perhaps I'll get to it. Once again as I said I do not defend the actions of the Soviet Union. Much of my family was disappeared under Stalin's regime. The Soviet Union was a great tragedy. They failed to transcend capitalism and likely did not even have the potential to do so after say 1921. Lenin's NEP was essentially reverting back into capitalism and giving up on the global revolution.
Marxism didn't. But those who attempted and failed to end capitalism did. Saying marxism is what killed the many who were supressed under the USSR is denying Stalin and company their responsibility in the tragedy. Marxism is an abstract concept, but Stalin was a butcher
William Smith
>Invading Russia in winter is an abstract concept
Carson Brown
I'm sorry what? That's not marxism my dude. Hitler invaded Russia in the winter. What's interesting is that nazis do not distance themselves from Hitler and the atrocities committed under his regime. The in no way seek to figure out what went wrong because to them Hitler did nothing wrong. Hitler bears responsibility for those he killed. Those who support him bear responsibility for supporting him.
That invading russia in winter is an abstract concept, all those who attemped it, weren't really invading russia in winter at all
>Hitler bears responsibility for those he killed This is a funny way to put it, did Hitler ever pulled a trigger? Or was it the fear and love to Nazism that made millions of humans around the world pull the triggers?
Bentley Reyes
>take it by force 2/10 made me reply but you could make this bait gr8
Camden Harris
I'm still not understanding your point. Marx did not call for what Stalin did (Even if he did, Marx would bear partial responsibility, not marxism). Stalin bears responsibility for what he did.
>This is a funny way to put it, did Hitler ever pulled a trigger?
That's some nice sophistry mang. If you wanted to go further you could say that the person who pulls the trigger is not responsible as they just pressed the trigger, the bullet is responsible. Of course if you did that you'd be a retard. Once again, Stalin ordered people to die/get gulag'd/etc. So he's one of the people responsible for their gulaging/etc. Same with Hitler.
John Johnson
>Marx did not call for what Stalin did The abstract idea of invading russia didn't call for what Hitler or Napoleon did either, they just tried to find their way to it and failed very similarly. Maybe that says something about invading russia in winter.
>the bullet is responsible Bullet can't be responsible cause it doesn't have a choice.
>That's some nice sophistry mang It isn't doe, you try to displace the blame of millions on to one person as if that person was controlling all of the others by force, but he really wasn't, all it took was a bullet in his head to end it all. Yet nobody did. Why? Because of the conversation everyone got trapped inside of because of the invention of propaganda, radio, tv, and cinema.
If anything Marx and Hitler are both guilty of having created two very powerful mind viruses.