»What's the difference between libertarianism and anarchy?«
|
|||
 That site is obviously a libertarian one, so sorry if I assumed wrong that this is the right thread for this question: what's the difference between libertarianism and anarchy? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)what's the difference between libertarianism and anarchy? |
|
|||
|
oh well, knn has made it a new thread. I found out the answer, libertarianism is anarchy with police. If anybody wants to comment on this or discuss libertarianism, please go ahead. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 It's so much more than that. Anarchists arent really anarchists either because they will always need some form of structure even if they don't admit it posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: libertarianism is anarchy with police. This sounds easy, but to have police you have to have A LOT of structure. Starting from laws to streets and prisons... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 the gist i got out of libertarianism is personal freedom and being intelligent and determined enough to handle your own life. No government regulations on your job, money, family, amount of kids etc. why would you want to live like this? the government telling you what you do for a living? i must claim ignorance again, but wasn't part of communism telling you what job to perform? what if you were doing the wrong job? say your a mathematical genius and could possible change the world if given the opportunity, but not having the freedom to pursue it, those talents are wasted posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: libertarianism is anarchy with police. Yeah, and a police state is a free state with police. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Libertarianism acknowledges the need for government, but also the evils of it. It restricts the federal government to only its basic, necessary powers. I don't think "anarchy with police" is a fair description, however. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: wasn't part of communism telling you what job to perform? Not really, that was just the way it was implimented. True communiusm is about contributing what you have to a greater whole, not assigning tasks arbitrarily. But then of course it's never been implimented in it's truest sense and so our view of it is tainted by those that oppress society in the name of equality 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: But then of course it's never been implimented in it's truest sense Maybe because it can't. Because it's based on the principle to punish you the harder you work. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: the government telling you what you do for a living? Oh really? Look again, it's the corporations, the market, which is telling you what to do for a living. Who decides that all those people should toil in cubicles in front of consoles? The government? And libertarianism seems to be about giving more power to the market. And what do you think we would see then? I think this rosy dream of every problem being solved when capitalism is taken to its extreme is a complete fallacy, if only from what we can see now. There will always be weak and oppressed people, as long as human beings have free will and the choice to be exploitative. There should be an organised and solidly established means(not just social activists who help because of the 'freedom for self-government) to protect and empower their interests. stinkz: It restricts the federal government to only its basic, necessary powers. And what would be the basic, necessary powers? It would be very subjective wouldn't it? I'm sure somebody could follow a train of logic like "We need A, so we can have B, but that means C, so we also need D" and so on to prove that everything in today's governments are necessary. Crossfade: Anarchists arent really anarchists either because they will always need some form of structure even if they don't admit it Indeed. Spontaneously forming social hierarchies seems to be a basic human trait. It's impossible to eliminate the government totally; giving total freedom to people would practically mean the formation of lots of little government. Wait and see how long it would take before city councils are formed, then associations of city councils, then representatives of those forming confederacies and ultimately the nation-state as we see it today. But wait, wasn't that how the United States was formed? Well, maybe there's a certain socio-political cycle that human societies need to follow, anarchy to city-state to country and back to city-state and so on... The ONEder Man: but wasn't part of communism telling you what job to perform? There seems to be a lot of bad ideas about communism flying around here. According to Marx, in the ultimate phase of communism, once power has been transferred completely to the workers, the state is abolished. FYI knn, I didn't receive any topic reply notifications for this thread. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: There seems to be a lot of bad ideas about communism flying around here. That's because it has completely and utterly failed. If you want communism go to North-Korea, where they don't even know what salt is, have no TV and a mobile costs more than 1 year of average pay. ralph_angelus: According to Marx, in the ultimate phase of communism, once power has been transferred completely to the workers, the state is abolished. This a theoretical phase of his demonstrably non-working nonsense. I also can write a book anout "XXXism" and state, that "in the final state all illnesses will be abolished if only all people do it as I hypothetically state" and similar nonsense. ralph_angelus: And libertarianism seems to be about giving more power to the market. And what do you think we would see then? You can shout against capitalism what you like, but there is probably NOTHING worse than communism. OK, anarchy is worse (where everyone can kill you and noone will do anything about it) but that's too extreme to be considered as a "system" anyway. ralph_angelus: Oh really? Look again, it's the corporations, the market, which is telling you what to do for a living. Not really. You can be an artist, or a philosopher, or a tailor, or a scientist. In a true communistic environment you would be a tailor because your community needs one. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Look again, it's the corporations, the market, which is telling you what to do for a living. Who decides that all those people should toil in cubicles in front of consoles? The government? Oh brother. It is the free market which allowing you to choose whatever job you like. The free market has never forced anyone to work at any specific place, though it does force people to work. Hopefully you don't see work as a necessarily bad thing. ralph_angelus: There should be an organised and solidly established means(not just social activists who help because of the 'freedom for self-government) to protect and empower their interests. If you really believe this, go start a private Charity. It is not virtuous of you to take everyone elses money to promote what you think "should" happen (which is what happens if it becomes the governments responsibility). ralph_angelus: And libertarianism seems to be about giving more power to the market. And what do you think we would see then? I think this rosy dream of every problem being solved when capitalism is taken to its extreme is a complete fallacy, if only from what we can see now. I'm sorry, Ralph, I cannot hold your socialistic views. Government intervention has never solved anything. The freer the market, the freer the people. ralph_angelus: There seems to be a lot of bad ideas about communism flying around here. That is because communism is a corrupt and completely illogical system. Anyways... I see that knn has already addressed most of your points. So, I'm done. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: ralph_angelus: There seems to be a lot of bad ideas about communism flying around here. That is because communism is a corrupt and completely illogical system. Can we please change that to "all attempts at Communism have been corrupted". Communism itself is an ideal and so can't be corrupt - Illogical perhaps, Corrupted certainly. Corrupt, no. Capitalism on the other hand is based on Greed and self-interest. It has forced people to work in jobs they don't want to do. By eliminating non-competative industries, people with skills in those industries are reduced to flipping burgers and pumping gas. The free market system has never been free. It's another corrupted ideal. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: Capitalism on the other hand is based on Greed and self-interest.
It has forced people to work in jobs they don't want to do. No, that is called life: If you have a BODY that needs food you need to PRODUCE something that others are interested in so that there is a fair EXCHANGE. Yes, you are free to manufacture ugly dolls. If noone wants them, you are in trouble in every system, whether communism or capitalism. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
marl64: Capitalism on the other hand is based on Greed and self-interest. Capitalism is a system based around the already selfish and greedy natures of humans. marl64: people with skills in those industries are reduced to flipping burgers and pumping gas. Chances are, if the person has skills in a particular industry, the company will hire him. It would be profitable for them to do so. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 22:17 php B.B. |