Libertarian Socialism?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think the main difference between straight libertarian and libertarian socialist is that the second would say that the very fact that I provided labor for a project earned me a right to the productive capital.

It is hard to make a meme for it, so it might as well not even exist as an idea.

[Fife]

Oracle doesn't need the state to do it's thing, does it?

Quite the opposite it seems to me.

The way state socialists frame it, you don't need the state to have socialized means of production.

Where I think they are wrong, as I already stated, is that you still need somebody to maintain means of production, schedule its use if necessary, collect any fees to cover the cost of usage, or run some kind of donation drives to raise said funds.

You essentially need a property owner no matter what. Even something as ephemeral as Java, which is free to use for all and doesn't cost a dime to compile your source code, still requires Oracle to maintain it. Oracle has to make money off it somehow, or they will just sell it to somebody else. And if you start your own development environment from scratch, you still will need some kind of foundation to manage the project.

I think we agree.

Three cheers for private property.

Down with the state.

"Libertarian Socialism" is a non sequitur, and an intentionally obtuse one at that. Tell the chef it's low-grade dog food.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I think the main difference between straight libertarian and libertarian socialist is that the second would say that the very fact that I provided labor for a project earned me a right to the productive capital.

It is hard to make a meme for it, so it might as well not even exist as an idea.

It's been tried and done, in a few companies. Workers earn shares of ownership, and everybody profits from the growth. I'm of the opinion that this is a model for future employment.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think the main difference between straight libertarian and libertarian socialist is that the second would say that the very fact that I provided labor for a project earned me a right to the productive capital.

It is hard to make a meme for it, so it might as well not even exist as an idea.

It's been tried and done, in a few companies. Workers earn shares of ownership, and everybody profits from the growth. I'm of the opinion that this is a model for future employment.

Never. Employees must be paid in funny money for freedom.

[Speaker to Animals]

Check out Mondragon.

Now you guys strayed into distributism. That's something that makes sense. The workers are also the owners of thecapital goods. None of the vague socialist libertarian nonsense.

[Martin Hash]

I think the main difference between straight libertarian and libertarian socialist is that the second would say that the very fact that I provided labor for a project earned me a right to the productive capital.

It is hard to make a meme for it, so it might as well not even exist as an idea.

It's been tried and done, in a few companies. Workers earn shares of ownership, and everybody profits from the growth. I'm of the opinion that this is a model for future employment.

Maybe? But as long as we're Liberty Nation, that has to be voluntary. Once you start using the organic food argument that "organic food should cost the same as regular food so ban pesticides" then we got a problem.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I think the main difference between straight libertarian and libertarian socialist is that the second would say that the very fact that I provided labor for a project earned me a right to the productive capital.

It is hard to make a meme for it, so it might as well not even exist as an idea.

It's been tried and done, in a few companies. Workers earn shares of ownership, and everybody profits from the growth. I'm of the opinion that this is a model for future employment.

Maybe? But as long as we're Liberty Nation, that has to be voluntary. Once you start using the organic food argument that "organic food should cost the same as regular food so ban pesticides" then we got a problem.

At the current rate, it will cost the same anyway.

[ssu]

Leftist liberitarianism surely exist. Not only Chomsky for the matter.

One way to look at the thing is trade unions. Now principally libertarians shouldn't have any problem with trade unions... as long they are voluntary. And no problem that people to improve their negotiation stance when dealing with the employer. And something like Co-operative are totally OK.

It's been tried and done, in a few companies. Workers earn shares of ownership, and everybody profits from the growth. I'm of the opinion that this is a model for future employment.

Seems like you are talking about co-operatives. They have been around for a long time and many aren't small enterprises. There basically modern corporations. One type of co-operative is a consumer's co-operative: consumers form a co-operative to get products cheaper. In fact the biggest supermarket chain here is this kind of co-operative dominating 49% of the retail market and owns hotels among other enterprises, a bank and even an electric company. From a population of 5 million the co-operative owners are about 2,2 million. So basically every second Finn is an owner in a co-operative.

Basically a huge Walmart with steroids here. So don't think that co-operatives a small outlets were few workers share everything.

Co-operatives perform well especially if the cooperative lacks some socialist ideologue (which usually creates huge problems on the business side).Actually they can work just well if only the leadership isn't reckless.

But there isn't anything new to this.

[Martin Hash]

Leftist liberitarianism surely exist.

So do unicorns.

p.s. Saying something is so when it isn't is almost lying, and people calling themselves something they aren't, certainly is.

[Hastur]

When I first started hearing the term "Libertarian Socialism," I thought it a staggering oxymoron because the two ideologies diametrically oppose each other, but now I understand what's going on...

As usual, when something doesn't make sense, it's usually nonsense. In the case of "Libertarian Socialism," it's a term intentionally adopted by Noam Chomsky to sow confusion. To name your enemy is the first step in defeating it; Noam Chomsky is the undisputed expert in using linguistics to twist political narratives into something I call an "oral illusion." He knows the battle is between socialism & liberty, so he throws up linguistic conundrums to blur the distinction, and people who are not paying attention can be easily caught up in the web of NewSpeak, allowing socialism to creep into the public subconscious through subterfuge & torture of the language.

Yup.

Typical Chomsky attempt at Neuro-linguistic programming or Transformational grammar. Sneaky bugger