Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The King


30 posts in this topic

They are simmaler. In fact, many libertarian socialists also consider themselves anarchist socialists and vice versa, where as others disagree, saying there is a ditinction between the two.

In the end, the only real difference is what King said.

Shaman, Ill be the first to agree. Every example of libertarian/anarchist socialism has failed, but usually because of outside influence.

Im not entirely anti government, but I like my government small.

Its not a perfect system, but Im a firm believer that all systems will eventually fail anyway.

Id rather die free than live imprisoned.


My biggest problem with that philosophy is that it, from what I gather from proponents, advocate largely a world without responsibility. One thing I hear is basically all you're needs are met so you can pursue your own interest uninhibited and while that sounds very appealling and sounds like Freedom who's going to be responsible for meeting your needs, someone has to grow the food, build the houses, make all the things for the people who are out doing whatever they want regardless of how people value your skills? If you want to be Free you have to take on the responsibilities of being free. Another problem and something I gather from advocates is they disdain specialization. And while the idea that all people becoming completing self sufficient and shouldn't have to rely on others in anyway is a nice idea(and people are free to pursue the lifestyle of a mountain man :tongue: ), it's far less efficient for a society to operate that way. The advantage of people being masters of one trade is that they'll often perform that one trade very well, more efficiently and can trade their skills for a more efficient outcome. While the problem with a jack of all trades is that while you are more self sufficient, you won't do any one skill well and is overall far less efficient. Another problem is the elimination of land property. And once again it does sound appealing that land and resources should be accessible to the public and everyone, but that could be a major source of conflict. Lets say you have a quarry and their is only enough room for one team of stone cutters, but you have three different groups doing three seperate projects that they need to get done asap. How do you determine who uses the quarry first? What if the first two teams use up the stone and leave the third hanging? Who decides who gets what. Another issue is if you have a farmer and he grows food on the farm, what is stopping someone from picking the crops he grew, the farmer might start picking the crops earlier to prevent others from taking it, but at the cost of a lesser yield. Another issue is lets say the farmer has prepared to grow two acres of crops, but someone else comes along and starts using one of the acres? Also housing real estate. Lots of people want to live on the beach, but how do you determine who gets what land? What if someone builds a house, if he had no property rights to the house, what is stopping someone else from just moving in and using the house you built, or purchased with your own wealth? Or building dangerous structures nearby? One issue in third world countries where they don't have strong property laws is that people are unable to seek opportunities away from their homes because they fear someone may just take it and they can't do anything short of violence to get it back. This lack of security forces us to operate in a way that isn't always most productive. and can inhibit in some ways from pursuing certain opportunities, or experimenting. Property for the most part settles these disputes and ensures a level of security. It decides who can work the quarry and get the stones(usually those who need it the most), it allows the farmer to take more time in care preparing his fields and crops to gain the most yield, it delegates real estate to those who value it the most and deserve it the most and ensures that they use the property the way they want and that they can leave it and come back knowing it's still theres.


I don't think all instances were destroyed I think you also have situation where people try it and they find it isn't an advantageous lifestyle. In my opinion people generally do what's in their, or families interest and the people within wealthier societies find that largely Capitalism is what's in their interest.


While no system is perfect for sure, I would disagree that all systems are doomed to fail, because if the core values of the system provide widespread and consistant prosperity why would it eventually fail? What I think is the case is that when you have a society operating under system that is working well, you will eventually have interest within that society that while working for their own betterment don't operate for the betterment of the broader society and will slowly pervert and change the system into something else entirely that slowly works against the broader society. Rome didn't fall because it kept doing what made it great, it slowly and under the radar of most people changed into something that would precipitate it's decline and fall.



 That happen in Puerto Rico, in the past although people were poor, they didn't loss themselves. They always had a sense of identity and humanity, family and community were above personal benefits. Now, a few decades of force Americanization, everyone is willing to sell out their country in exchange for a few more bucks. Nobody wants to work, they only take coupons because the government give up so many benefits. This is so american, if you protest your a communist. 

 I am socialist, i not gonna give up benefits for people who are just taking advantages but neither i am going to ignore the needs of people. Many American are in genuine need for economical aid, In my island that not necessarily truth, more than half of those who take government aid are taking advantages of it. 

It is a stretch to call all of the smart people socialist or at least left-leaning?


I mean many of the world most important politicians has been socialist, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela,etc. They  do care more about the people and what they should be entitled too than most conservatives and even liberals( weak people) will ever do. 


Capitalism is so mundane, it simply a another form of slavery.


From what I'm hearing the government in Puerto Rico is acting well Socialist. And you're right if government is handing out free benefits why work for them yourself and people are definetely going to take advantage. The big problem with government providing aide is that the people who work in the government are essentially giving away other people money. They have no stake in the game why be careful with it, they probably don't know and don't care about the people getting the money just that they got it. Welfare is just a thing politicians put out their and town to claim their being compassionate and generous to win votes and so long as voters think that it doesn't really matter if it is making an impact. It's far to easy to be generous with other peoples money. I often find that delegating the responsibility of charity and helping your fellow citizen to the government, an intrinsically selfish, lazy, and self satisfying idea.


If you truly want to help people especially help them climb out of poverty, join a charity, or start one of your own. Get involved with those you want to help and when it's your own money on the line you'll be more careful to make sure it has an impact. Before the development of the modern welfare state people within communities would help each other and you had community organization that helped people. People in a community would contribute to the organization and when they fell on hard times they could rely on it and neighbors to help them, not some distant government. The advantage of this is that the people knew each other, they interacted with each other, they could get first hand experience of the impact, wether it made a change, or if you had those taking advantage.


Let's not forget although these men were great Civil Rights activist not all of them were necessarily good Economic thinkers. India became far poorer after Independence, the average Indian was worse off because subsequent Indian government followed Socialist teachings. Martin Luther King Jr. never actively entered politics (was probably to smart to), but many Socialist idea's like affirmative action and welfare tactics have only served to hurt the African American community and lock it in poverty and has bred a terrible culture of dependence on government, while destroying good cultural values like the nuclear family and working hard. I don't think I know enough about Nelson Mandela to form an opinion, but I do know South Africa has done well since the end of apartheid.


Please tell me more about how were stealing money from other countries when we export around $100 billion to china while we import almost $400 billion to us. Thats a $300 billion deficit a YEAR. You know what maybe you're right looking at it from Chinas perspective... They're costing us jobs, thats evil! They should shouldn't be trying to better their country! They should be living in the slums! (Really?)


Of course the government wants to do whats best for America or what ever nation, if they didn't then we would be one shitty country. I could see it now, President Obama running around with money falling out of his pockets screaming, "Take it! Take our money! We don't want it! We want to live awful, starve and die from disease!"


People in South Africa can be nationalistic, more power to them. Don't really know where thats going.




Just remember we get actual and useful goods at a cheaper price from China, what do they get, pieces of paper that is losing value as we speak. That's not so much a result of trade, but government policy.


There are a lot of shitty countries out their my friend. Just because the purpose of government is to serve the people, that doesn't mean it always does.



Shaman, a nation exists only to better itself and no one else. China is a country near equal footing with the US, but do you think the trades US makes with, say, Ghana are equally beneficial to both countries? The US uses whatever leverage it can to make the deal as much to their benefit. It's a country, and such acts only in self-interest. By zero sum game, I'm not saying we don't progress, but the political, economic, and social power of a country in relation to other countries is always at a a balance. And I don't know much about Noam Chomsky, but he's one of the most well known intellectuals in the world, not just "some guy" who claims to know about things...


I would disagree that China is near Equal footing, the US I would say is two times better than China at the moment, but that's my opinion :happy: , and even if China was on equal footing as a whole, the average American would still be roughly five times better off than the average Chinese. I would disagree with that logic, Nations don't have ambitions, or motivations, or interests, people do. And the Government of Nations are made up of people, who have their own interests. So what a Government does isn't what is always whats good for the Nation. While you are correct that trade isn't always equally benificial to both countries that is has more to do with the Countries own policies and not from the trading. First off the Ghana economy is one of the fastest growing in Africa, although I don't know much about it's trade relations. So I don't see how that is a good example. While you are correct about their being a balance of power on the international theatre, I'm not exactly sure how that would relate to the idea of "zero sum game", or to free trade. I guess one country could influence another in a negative way, but that isn't trade, that's just politics.

Edited by ShamanMcLamie

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy wall of text... You must be a real Shaman, as I always appreciate your posts. 

Ill have to read this later though. Not enough time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaman, you make some very good points. Let me use one of your examples:

If you have 3 groups of stone cutters and only enough quarry for 2 you can either divide it equally best you can, or you can leave one ******** out of luck. With the former everyone at least gets a fair share. With the latter, you have a whole group of people being flat out denied.

As for skills well yes, most advocates believe you should be free to do what you enjoy. IMO, this means doing something productive and beneficial to the community that you also enjoy. As far as a specific trade goes, Im not sure how I feel about that being indecisive about my own future trade. But I see no reason why people couldn't have multiple trades.

On the subject of property, well as I said, Im not an anarchist so I do believe law enforcement would exist.

Take the farmer and his crops for example. Who "owns" them? IMO it would be the community as a whole. As such, there should be regulations in place to assure that all those crops remain on the "farmers land" until distribution.

Now Im not 100% against property. Just certain kinds. Specifically land and production. People still should have the ability to own things like homes, cars, misc items, etc.

Now in reality, whats stopping somebody from breaking into your house right now? A window, a door maybe. But thats about it.

My point is theft should still be punishable by law be it theft from the community or an individual.

I think for a society like this to exist, you first need to define and make a difference between things such as "public" and "community" property, if you will. Community property being essential resources (Food, water, fuel, etc.)

As for "who gets what land" the answer is, nobody.


System operates on a community realization that this is a system designed to care for everyone at the expense of everyone.

If the farmer has a land dispute with somebody wanting to build a house next door, the person wanting to build there should consider the needs of the community as they are her needs as well. Using the realization that this extra farm land = more crops, they realize that means more food for them. If said person doesnt care about having extra food, this is a clear sign that extra farmage isnt needed.

I see no reason why both sides would conclude anything different.

As for your point about capitalism being better, yes. Many, or most people rather, put their families interests above anyone else. This is only natural. However, what is a family? And how is it different from a community? 

The differences are extremely minimal.

Its not the "looking out for your family" thats the bad part. Its the fact that people knowing they have plenty, will only want more. At first for the sake of security. Latter for the sake of simply possessing and dominating. 

"Over praising the gifted leads to contentiousness. Over valuing the precious invites stealing. Craving the desirable loses contentment.

The natural person desires without craving and act without excess.

By not doing, everything is done."

-Lao Tzu 


As for failing systems, I agree. But I also believe the flaw you mentioned is inevitable in all societies.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you all should be stump hanged for this treasonous talk.


I love America, I hate it's Government and it's dumbass lIberals.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0