Liberty vs. Socialism

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Can you cite any examples ?

A farm co-op is an example. Producers agree to split profits from selling their produce, while agreeing not to undercut each other. By collaborating in this way they hope to make more by cutting out middle men and rent seekers at the same time.

This is the socialist version of a farmers' market.

Of course, it is often 'worse' for the consumer, so some one is having their liberty curtailed, if I include access to cheap produce as a liberty, but this is a conflict between the liberties of producers and consumers, not a devaluing of Liberty as an abstract idea.

And, @Hash, I have it on good authority from the anti-bolshevik hero, Smitty, himself, on public display on this very forum, that I am not a socialist, just a terrible liberal. So, not 'only' socialists argue that socialism and liberty aren't in conflict.

I am all for voluntary collectives. If you want to do open source projects, great. If you want to join a farm coop, great.

That's not really what we are talking about here either.

You are talking about Marxism, I think.

I took the OP to be talking about socialism more broadly, for which I provided an alternative definition, which I think includes voluntary collectives.

Now, if you want to talk about specific forms of government, or how to manage the needs of individuals within a voluntary collective, then that is a little more dicey.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'm a Liberal (Classical, hence the "Liberalist" moniker), not a Libertarian, so I add "except by due process of law" after the liberty credo of individual-before-group, however, the mindset is still liberty first. Socialists are group-first at default.

I don't care what the Farmer's Market people do as long as they don't pass group-first laws that prevent me from selling & buying however I want. All you workers-control-the-means-of-production people need to check out the Marxist end of socialism.

I don't care what business owners do as long as they don't work together to pass laws that increase their bargaining position and undermine mine... aw FUCK!

Looks like I am shit out of luck and have been from the day I was born. Oh well, I guess as long as somebody's individual sovereignty is protected I can soothe myself with the knowledge that my freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want wasn't curtailed by my fellow wage slaves.

[Martin Hash]

Workin's a bitch.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Workin's a bitch.

I hate it, and avoid it wherever possible.

I do look forward to the government giving me your money so I can continue being the world's highest welfare queen... but that has very little to do with my thoughts on socialism.

[Speaker to Animals]

A farm co-op is an example. Producers agree to split profits from selling their produce, while agreeing not to undercut each other. By collaborating in this way they hope to make more by cutting out middle men and rent seekers at the same time.

This is the socialist version of a farmers' market.

Of course, it is often 'worse' for the consumer, so some one is having their liberty curtailed, if I include access to cheap produce as a liberty, but this is a conflict between the liberties of producers and consumers, not a devaluing of Liberty as an abstract idea.

And, @Hash, I have it on good authority from the anti-bolshevik hero, Smitty, himself, on public display on this very forum, that I am not a socialist, just a terrible liberal. So, not 'only' socialists argue that socialism and liberty aren't in conflict.

I am all for voluntary collectives. If you want to do open source projects, great. If you want to join a farm coop, great.

That's not really what we are talking about here either.

You are talking about Marxism, I think.

I took the OP to be talking about socialism more broadly, for which I provided an alternative definition, which I think includes voluntary collectives.

Now, if you want to talk about specific forms of government, or how to manage the needs of individuals within a voluntary collective, then that is a little more dicey.

The main problems with socialism in the US is state socialist programs like the VA hospitals and welfare systems.

The FAR larger problems we face as a nation stem from Marxism.

The problem with state socialism in general is that, at its core, is a kind of slow process towards Marxism. It might not start out that way, but sure as Swedes are facing extinction, Marxism is what you get.

[Fife]

Statism is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

Like oil and water, or salt on a snail's back. It's never gonna mix.

If you take poison into your body, you're gonna have a bad time.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am all for voluntary collectives. If you want to do open source projects, great. If you want to join a farm coop, great.

That's not really what we are talking about here either.

You are talking about Marxism, I think.

I took the OP to be talking about socialism more broadly, for which I provided an alternative definition, which I think includes voluntary collectives.

Now, if you want to talk about specific forms of government, or how to manage the needs of individuals within a voluntary collective, then that is a little more dicey.

The main problems with socialism in the US is state socialist programs like the VA hospitals and welfare systems.

The FAR larger problems we face as a nation stem from Marxism.

The problem with state socialism in general is that, at its core, is a kind of slow process towards Marxism. It might not start out that way, but sure as Swedes are facing extinction, Marxism is what you get.

The inexorable march from voluntary collective to state mandate is, in my opinion, one of the toughest nuts to crack when it comes to balancing the interests of workers against the interests of capital owners... at least where liberty is concerned.

Unfortunately, I don't believe I have the good sense to crack it, but I still think the interests of workers are important, and protecting their right to free association in order to increase their bargaining power is both a version of socialism, and a pro-liberty position.

[Martin Hash]

High progressive taxation & confiscatory inheritance tax would do a lot to push wealth into more people's hands, not because the State redistributes it, but because it incentivizes investment & discourages hoarding.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Statism is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

Like oil and water, or salt on a snail's back. It's never gonna mix.

If you take poison into your body, you're gonna have a bad time.

You can be gnomic, so I might be way off the mark here, but I expect we have only one fundamental difference of opinion on this topic.

I don't think property rights are a sufficient protection of individual liberty, and I would expect you don't believe it is possible to have the sort of limited government, strictly proscribed by a constitution we both want, and is fundamental to individual liberty, if you try too hard to protect any rights other than property.

Of course, as a cannabis addicted idealist, I would reply "*cough* *cough* why can't we all just, like, get along man?"

[Fife]

High progressive taxation & confiscatory inheritance tax would do a lot to push wealth into more people's hands, not because the State redistributes it, but because it incentivizes investment & discourages hoarding.

"Hoarding" is a myth. You just want my stuff. I'll put it to better use than you will.