This is a new general that I hope will gain steam and take off. I used to be a Right Libertarian, and I'm hoping now to inject some Left Libertarian discussion into Sup Forums.
>Welcome
Modern Liberals, Marxists, Anarchists, Welfare Statists and Postmodernists are all welcome.
Everyone else is welcome to debate.
>Recommended Leftist literature
>Pic related, from /leftypol/
Thanks for coming here and not blatantly shitposting like commie or an fem genrals
Bump
Hi, do you mind telling me how does an economy know whether a good is worth its costs in a non-capitalist system?
How can someone vote on the costs other people should incur, how would that even be moral?
Furthermore, how can you be a leftists and libertarian at the same time? Taxation is non-libertarian, you can't call yourself libertarian if you want to force everyone to give 30% of their income to you with threats of destroying them.
Thanks, lad. I'm a recently turned Leftist, and I'm hoping to engage in discourse with some of the more intelligent voices on Sup Forums
>SYNDICATES ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT FROM CORPORATIONS GUYS
ok bud
>taxation is non libertarian
taxation isn't nessesarily non libertarian, and socialism doesn't nessesarily imply taxation - the soviet bloc payed a lot less tax then the western world
I'm not a Marxist personally, but I can try to explain.
Depending on who you speak to in relation to Left-Anarchism, you may be given different answers ranging from "Distribution based on need" to "Labour vouchers with value based on the entire value of the production of the labourer"
What the second one means is that instead of a hierarchical system where the boss reaps profit-or surplus value-the labourer takes it all and chooses to invest it to purchase things. This may sound like the wage-labour system, but it's not because the worker is not giving his surplus value to his boss. So worth would be based on need, and subsequently wants once the individual's needs have been catered to.
I can be a Libertarian because 'Libertarian' in this sense simply means freedom from government social control, not the Right Libertarian definition.
I understand that on an ancom society unions like distribute the wealth. Now how would we keep the unions in check? What's stopping corruption from taking over?
They are, though. How are they not?
Democracy. Any managers found unfit to rule would be democratically voted out, just as they were democratically voted in.
Everything managerial in a Left-Anarchist society (again, not one myself, but I'm defending it here) would be done democratically.
I'm on mobile. Didn't mean to type that like a retard
>taxation isn't nessesarily non libertarian
How can "give me 30% of your income or have your life be destroyed by the government" a libertarian principle? Do you care about elaborating instead of saying "nuh huh"?
>the soviet bloc payed a lot less tax then the western world
Only if you are a completely delusional person. Countries like North Korea take the revenue from their national controlled corporations because its more difficult for the citizens to notice and to fight against. If taxation in places like North Korea or the Soviet block had to be voluntarily filled by the individual, then they would rebel against the government in no time. Same thing how US and modern economies do, they make the employer pay your taxes and tariffs most of the time to leave the citizen no room for questioning.
Also, I just wanted to clear the air about Left Libertarianism.
>Isn't it a contradiction?
No. You have two types:Liberals and Anarchists. 'Libertarian' in this sense means control from government social control.
>taxation isnt nessesarily non libertarian
>a-and the nap isnt even that good of an idea desu
>maybe we should have group rights and free healthcare
you guys arent libertarian at all. taxation is the use of force to ensure an otherwise declined trade. its fundementally non libertarian to use taxation beyond bare necessity to keep a government running.
>give me 35% of your earnings made by voluntary trade or else i will point a gun to your head and throw you in a cell
so libertarian
Bump
there is plenty of corruption in a democracy. See the thing is I agree that the world should function like this but we would need something fool proof to ensure that the wealth is distributed fairly.
That was a non-answer.
> So worth would be based on need,
That's how the current system works, dummie. How should this magical system that will replace the current system look like?
>This may sound like the wage-labour system, but it's not because the worker is not giving his surplus value to his boss.
There's no such things as surplus value. It's bogus marxist nonsense that was never accepted in the economics academia. Why do you deserve the returns from the investments you never made?
So basically, not only you cannot explain socialism, or communism, or any system you advocate for as a replacement to capitalism and individual freedom, but also, you base yourself on a canned economic framework.
You're operating on the Right Libertarian definition as the only one.
Taxation can be justified with the existence of a Welfare State. Now, I personally think taxes are too high on all classes, but a Welfare State is not necessarily anti-Libertarian if you define a Libertarian who wants freedom from government control
>unfit to rule
What happened to no gods no kings?
Well, corruption in any society is unavoidable. It's about limiting corruption, not eliminating it, and Democracy is the best way to do that.
>Taxation can be justified with the existence of a Welfare State.
No it cannot. If it could you would have justified it in your post, instead of saying "it can be justified" without explaining anything.
You need to actually explain your axiom that justifies taxation. A vague claim that it can be justified is not an explanation.
that's not anarchy. I know you said you're not an ancom but it pisses me off when they claim to be anarchists.
>That's how the current system works, dummie. How should this magical system that will replace the current system look like?
Look, you'd be better off asking an actual Marxist about this, but the system as far as I understand it would distributed goods in a society with automated production, and depending on who you talk to these goods would either be bought with labour vouchers or distributed by unions to the masses.
>There's no such things as surplus value
Yes there is, objectively. A labourer always produces more in value in an hour than he makes in an hour. A McDonald's worker always produces far more in value in an hour than $8 or $9 or $10 or whatever the minimum wage at the moment is.
We're down to moral arguments now, which are subjective. My subjective reasoning for moral justification of a Welfare State is that those who can't afford private healthcare or become unemployed do not deserve to have nothing and do not deserve to starve.
>inb4 charity
It's not enough. It's never been enough. If it was, then government wouldn't be needed to provide welfare.
>>There's no such things as surplus value
>Yes there is, objectively.
>A labourer always produces more in value in an hour than he makes in an hour.
You are mentally retarded. The laborer did not do the investments on the building, or the tools, or any of the capital he's utilizing. Why should the laborer deserve the investments he never made?
So, if I invest my money, and I hire people, those people deserve all the money I invested plus the returns of my investment? Why? How does that make even the tiniest amount of sense?
Well, to them it is Anarchism because there is no State
All that would do is not only create another state but that state would be in control of all the wealth.
It is tho. also what are your beliefs exactly?
Hold on, I'm not arguing for Marxism. I am simply stating to you that surplus value is an objective fact; profit is an objective fact. A worker produces more value than his hourly wage. Again, the McDonald's worker never produces value less than or equal to the minimum wage. I mean, fuck, one McDonald's meal alone is almost half the minimum wage, and they take a very short time to create.
You are speaking to me as if I'm advocating that the worker receive all of the value. I'm not. I'm just stating it as fact.
>My subjective reasoning for moral justification of a Welfare State is that those who can't afford private healthcare or become unemployed do not deserve to have nothing and do not deserve to starve.
That's a bogus and broad moral axiom that I can't take.
So, basically, being a fuck up justifies the theft against honest people? Sounds like a child like belief that has no respect for the integrity of individuals.
If your life depends on the servitude of others, then other should decide whether you live or not, not a superstate.
I guess you could call me somewhat of a Liberal. I'm only recently turned Leftist, so I'm not fully in the shoes of a Leftist yet. I still hold some Rightist sympathies like being fair to business, being anti-immigration and being for lower taxes.
I support a streamlined Welfare State and maximum civil liberties.
How exactly do you determine "need" though.
The problem with systems like this, is that they always underproduce instead of overproduce, because they're scared shitless of producing so much that they devalue their own product.
Let's say you have a farm that produces milk.
Some "democratically elected" government bureaucrat decides YOU SHALL PRODUCE NO MORE MILK THAN IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ONE GALLON OF MILK PER HOUSEHOLD PER WEEK AS THIS HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO SATISFY PUBLIC NEEDS
well what the fuck if I want more milk than that?
what if somebody buys more than 1 gallon before I make it to the store?
Yeah this is a small example, but take this idea and apply it to literally EVERYTHING and you'll see how badly it works for actual needs.
>Fuck up
Are you employing that anyone who's unemployed is a fuck up? What about construction workers who regularly fall out of work because that's the nature of construction work? Should they just be told to go fuck themselves in between construction contracts?
What about disabled people? Should they be told to fuck off too?
You're being an ideologue
Sorry, I meant *implying, not 'employing'
No, the surplus value is not an objective fact. There's no "surplus" value coming from the laborer. What you call surplus value is the return from the investments other people made.
>A worker produces more value than his hourly wage
No he doesn't. Investments focused on having a return had to be made in order for in a long period of time, the enterprise gets a return. The worker does not magically make more money than his costs. Otherwise, why aren't you just hiring people to make infinite money?
>>You are speaking to me as if I'm advocating that the worker receive all of the value. I'm not.
>This may sound like the wage-labour system, but it's not because the worker is not giving his surplus value to his boss.
You were trying to explain a system where your alleged definition of surplus value goes to the worker. Don't try to shift goalposts.
>How exactly do you determine "need" though.
I don't know, man. I'd like to answer this question, but again I'm not the most well-versed on Left-Anarchist theory. /r/Anarchism is a good place to go if you want to know more.
>The problem with systems like this, is that they always underproduce instead of overproduce, because they're scared shitless of producing so much that they devalue their own product.
I agree. In fact, Marx argued that Capitalism actually produces too much; far more than anyone needs to consume. He argued that the excess production should be distributed to those in need, and I can agree to some extent. For example, when a supermarket is about to throw out bread or any other food item that hasn't been bought, why not have a government agency buy it off them and distribute it to the homeless or those in need instead of allowing it to go to waste in some landfill?
Maybe if you stop drinking the coolaid you would see as clear as water.
Black and white people: equal IQ = equal chance of getting out of poverty.
Most countries that are in extreme poverty have an average IQ bellow 80.
An IQ of 90 is about what it takes to read instructions and follow them without mistakes. So, poorer people drink more alcohol, study less, are more violent, and respect each other less.
So, basically, the bigger of a fuck up you are, the more you deserve, because we are all meant to be equal according to a post modernist neo-marxist dogma. If you are better at taking care of yourself, your friends and family, and the people who live around you, it means you deserve less and need to be taxed. Correct?
>I don't know, man. I'd like to answer this question
If there's anything you convinced people here is that left "libertarians" are completely clueless about everything and can't defend anything they believe in in a rational manner.
>I agree. In fact, Marx argued that Capitalism actually produces too much; far more than anyone needs to consume.
And you'd rather live in a system that produces too little rather than too much?
>He argued that the excess production should be distributed to those in need, and I can agree to some extent.
>I'm totally not a marxist but I agree with what he says about things and go onto the internet and advocate it
No, not correct. I am not arguing for high taxation, nor am I arguing for race-based welfare.
I am simply advocating for a social safety net for the unemployed, not simply a way of life for low IQ retards. Not everyone who's unemployed has a low IQ.
>An IQ of 90 is about what it takes to read instructions and follow them without mistakes. So, poorer people drink more alcohol, study less, are more violent, and respect each other less.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not they deserve unemployment benefits? If you became unemployed, would you like others making such assumptions about you?
I agree that lower IQ people generally tend to be more unemployed, but it's not as if every avenue of work requires a high IQ. It's just that the labour market shifts frequently and those who had a job yesterday might not have one today.
Also, pretty ironic how you call me an Ideology when you are defending a dogma that states people deserve more for no reason other than they need it more, and people deserve the have the actual fruits of their labor stolen from them if they are better at making wealth and prosperity than others because others need it more.
You follow an extreme ideological dogma that states all what humans produce need to be stolen and relocated just for the sake of having more equality.
>Agreeing with someone on one or two things suddenly means you're an advocate for their ideas
Right, so if I agreed with Hitler or Pinochet on one or two things that'd suddenly mean I'm a Nazi or a violent Dictator? Come on, how black and white.
Am I not allowed to admit gaps in my knowledge? Oh please, enlightened one, teach me your ways.
Fuck face.
So I take it you're an Anarcho-Capitalist then? Because taking your second sentence to its logical conclusion leads to that.
Hey, how about this, how about you start sending me some checks for my health care? Do you think everyone in Brazil can get the same access of health care as people in Ireland? Why isn't your country being heavily taxes so I can get free health care if I have no money?
Seems like you only believe in what you do because you want to steal from people richer than you. You want the marginal benefits of having an extra 10% taxes on the rich, but if what you believed was truly applied, everyone in the place you live would be taxed so indians and chinese get better health care.
I bet you don't believe in the axioms you stated whenever you remember that there are 6 billion human beings that would benefit if your entire country is taxed for them.
>Everyone is equal lmao
>Anarchism will totally work, nobody will go mass killing and looting.
Daily reminder that you're all stalinists in denial.
I'm not a Marxist.
How many times do I have to say I'm not a Marxist? I'm a Liberal with some Right-wing sympathies.
>I'm not a Marxist.
>>Welcome
>Marxists
Hmmm.
Admitting gaps in your knowledge is perfectly fine.
Not being able to defend a single case in everything you believe in in the thread you made about your beliefs is pathetic.
I think left "libertarians" should just lay off their political labels, shut the fuck up for 3-5 years, and observe things from a neutral point of view. Instead of going on about how the USSR was actually great and that the least developed state in mexico is a successful socialist revolution; which will only make your future self cringe.
>the soviet bloc payed a lot less tax then the western world
You don't need to tax slaves, just appease them with vodka and cigarettes, and hope they don't get a glimpse of the outside world.
>Hey, how about this, how about you start sending me some checks for my health care? Do you think everyone in Brazil can get the same access of health care as people in Ireland? Why isn't your country being heavily taxes so I can get free health care if I have no money?
What a ridiculous argument. I have no obligation to non-Irish people, just as Brazil has no obligation to Irish people, you fucking nigger.
I pay taxes to upkeep the healthcare system here, and I'm pissed at the way the government handles it. I'd rather it was reformed.
>Seems like you only believe in what you do because you want to steal from people richer than you.
I have no qualm with the rich. In fact, I'd like to see all classes get a tax reduction.
>Am I not allowed to admit gaps in my knowledge? Oh please, enlightened one, teach me your ways.
You shouldn't be advocating for us to switch to a system that you yourself cannot explain or rationalize beyond your own emotions.
>how exactly does your system provide people with better goods and services and a higher quality of life?
>I DONT KNOW HOW IT WORKS BUT I HOPE SOMEBODY IN CHARGE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS AFTER I VOTE FOR THEM
If you create an economic system in which there is absolutely positively no way to fail at life, then you have created a system in which a majority of people will figure out how to contribute as little as possible while benefiting as much as possible.
Why would I want to work 40-60 hours a week away from my family for my basic needs, when I can work less than that and have my basic needs provided by some other workaholic sucker?
(1/2)....
Just because I disagree doesn't mean they're not part of the discussion.
(2/2)
If working or not working both give me access to basic need, what is the incentive to produce more than a bare minimum
How do you extract productivity from people?
If you want me to produce 100 widgets an hour for my basic income, and I only produce 50 widgets, what the fuck are you going to do to me?
Fire me and give me basic unemployment income for no work at all? What a terrible punishment.
Only a marxist can accept marxists.
That's how it works.
I'm NOT advocating for that system. I'm simply explaining the system to you. Jesus, I think I've told you like five times I don't want it.
By the way, you just learned why the autistic spaniard that makes commie threads never tries to actually debate and engage with people on a free speech forum.
>What's stopping corruption from taking over?
Nothing, hence you get figures like Stalin. An-com is communism btw, but the middle class hippies that actually try and start a commune get purged quickly in favour of a strongman who likes the idea of running "the dictatorship of the proletariat" indefinitely.
Left libertarianism has inherent contradictions. Admit that you are a communist. Freedom to smoke dope isn't freedom.
>(((trotsky)))
>No Mao
>No clouscard
bad
Plus,add "The origins of Familly, private property and the sate"
>i dont want this system but I will fiercely defend it from anybody who also doesn't want it
You asked me to explain it and I did to the best of my ability. That's not me "fiercely defending" it.
Maximum civil liberties is really a right-wing libertarian belief.
Just look how the left is banning and regulating every thing they dislike. They are far worse for civil liberties then even the religious right. They only legalize their leftist bullshit degeneracy, while making the social response to that degeneracy illegal.
Refer to this OP.
Whether you identify as a Stalinist or not, this is the reality.
You are questioning things which is good. You have further to go. Shake off the taboo surrounding right-wing politics and go from there.
Well, that's the modern Left. If you go back to the 1960's and 1970's you'll see the Left spearheading the sexual revolution, fighting for marijuana legalisation and the acceptance of porn and women's rights
If you are going down the loberg route. It has to be right libertarianism. Finicial incentive is the only way a libertarian society can function, since they so heavily favour individualism.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with social services in america, so I'll explain it briefly just in case you've never been here.
The "social safety net for unemployment and disability" thing you talk about?
We already have it. It's called Social security.
We also have people who abuse the system for their entire lives.
They're called niggers and white trash.
The government requires that people deemed able to work must attempt to work in order to receive unemployment benefits.
So what happens is a nigger gets a job at mcdonalds, does the shittiest job they can possibly do, and hopefully gets fired so they can keep collecting unemployment again for another 6 months, rinse and repeat indefinitely.
You mean classical liberals?
They are now considered right wing libertarians by almost everyone.
PoMo Deconstructionism isn't thoughtful or productive. Declaring that ideas are "a bunch of macho cishet horsepuckies" or something to that effect and dismissing them doesn't actually discredit or challenge them in any way. You're just pretending like they don't exist for the sake of your one-sided, aggressive discourse.
This.
"Antifa" communists now classify the term "classical liberal" as a code word for "alt right"
Uh... You the /sg/ guy?
Explain me how your ideology "works".
Not necessarily Classical Liberals. A lot of the people advocating these things would have been Welfare Statists and even some Anarchists and Marxists. Probably some Neo-Liberals too. Classical Liberals probably took part as well.
A lot of different groups, but the point is that the Left fought for these things. In fact, hippy culture-which arose out of these movements-is largely considered Left-wing
leftism operates like a sect,
because leftism IS a sect.
( no hyperboly )
>Libertarian
>Statists & Marxists
please elaborate
Too much tankie shit in that list
>No...
>Chomsky
>Kropotkin
>Emma Goldman
>Bakunin
>Berkman
>Godwin
it doesn't
Gaaaaaaay
Take your jewish free market bullshit and shove it up your fat ass Italia
They cant. Left libertarianism is a sham. It cant exist in any practical shape or form.
Liberals, then.
Marxists fit depending on how you define Libertarianism. They advocate the abolition of government.
The Left were the original Libertarians
>We wuz Libertarians n sheeit
Personal property is permitted in Lib Soc societies.
Its not really property if the state allows you to have now is it?
None of those groups (with the exception of classical liberals) are libertarian. The are classic, big government lefties or retards (anarchist s). Leftist policies, like the NHS for example, require a large government and taxation, none of which are libertarian.
There's no state in Lib Soc societies.
How bout you go on to a Marxist board, on a Marxist internet, on a Marxist computer and talk with your Marxist friends on you Marxist country?
Ohh what's that? Communism in an inherently inestable system and will fall every time you empose it?
Well, then fuck off commie scum
>a Welfare State is not necessarily anti-Libertarian if you define a Libertarian who wants freedom from government control
how can you be free from government control in a situation where the government defines who gets welfare, for what reasons and in which quantities though
>The Left were the original Libertarians
How have you reached this conclusion? They pushed social equality for decades, not libertarianism. Social equality from the leftist point of view requires taxation and wealth redistribution; everything a libertarian is against. The original libertarians where Americas founding fathers.
Not necessarily a large government. Just because you have a social safety net and universal healthcare for the poor doesn't mean you need a huge government or high taxation, as long as you deregulate and don't extend government too far.
Welfare and healthcare and education are okay to fund. Immigration, environmental experiments, EU payments and other non-essentials are not.
It's not a binary choice between Minarchy and overbearing government. There's a gradient
>and Democracy is the best way to do that
I highly disagree. Every system -democracy, monarchy, aristocracy- can be corrupted but democracy is without a doubt the most corruptible of all. Better have a meritocracy than a system that choose by numbers and popularity.
The founding fathers were liberal. The libertarians are liberals who are afraid of the word because it has been taken over by marxists
>There's no state in Lib Soc societies.
So like we said, OP is a communist. Not a meme, the truth. If you are a communist, then you are unwittingly a Stalinist. Left libertarianism is profoundly retarded
I've reached that conclusion because even Rothbard bragged about taking the term away from Leftists
technically classical liberals were on the left when they invented the left/right axis, people on the right were monarchists. That was way before Marx though, no one cares
I'm not a fucking Communist or Marxist or anything. I'm a very moderate Leftist who just wants a light Welfare State.
So you are a liberal then? That is what I am getting from this thread.
Moderate Modern Liberal, yes. Right Libertarian up until recently
Ask, Rojava.
Just call yourself a liberal in future, christ sake. Left libertarian implies anarchy (or at very least small government). The biggest meme term I've heard on here. I know the word liberal is taboo around here, but it best fits your political stance.
You started this thread welcoming marxists and anarchists, you were not a moderate leftists when this thread started. Your views are just being brutally stumped.
And you can't even defend your views rationally. If the believe in equality for the sake of welfare is a moral axiom, then why is it limited to national borders? Why aren't you being taxed for my countries's benefit?
> I have no obligation to non-Irish people, just as Brazil has no obligation to Irish people, you fucking nigger.
Except you had a moral axiom that the pursuit of equality justifies the taxation of unrelated individuals, all of a sudden, this moral axiom stops existing outside your borders.
What's more likely is that you are immoral and have no moral axiom to back your belief in welfare, you just want to receive more safety at the expense of the rights of others.