Isn't calling yourself a libertarian putting you in a collectivist box?

I'm not sure of the whole philosophy of Libertarianism but I see RP talk about how seeing people in groups is bad. Yet it seems like putting the label on that form of thinking is going against that very form of thinking. yes?

Not bashing RP. I'm actually voting for him. Just something that was running through my head while on the toilet.

reply to post by mayabong

As i understand it, collectivism is the idea that the group is of more value than the individual. Individualism doesn't imply doing away with the conceptual classification of people into groups.

TMI, dude.

Libertarianism is an Ideal. But yes its still putting you in a box and group. A group that believes in freedom and individualism. So you take the good with the bad I suppose.

Libertarianism has MANY different schools of thought/sub-divisions. And the differences between them can be VERY significant...
All libertarians focus on smaller government and greater individual responsibility
Some Libertarian schools of thought promote the total abolition of government (anarchism),
while some promote a smaller government which does not initiate force.
Some seek private ownership of all property and natural resources,
others promote communal ownership of all natural resources and varying degrees of private property.
And almost everything in between...
THE LIST of schools:

Agorism –
Anarcho-capitalism –
Austrian School –
Autarchism –
Christian libertarianism –
Civil societarianism –
Classical liberalism –
Consequentialist libertarianism –
Crypto-anarchism –
Deontological libertarianism –
Free-market anarchism –
Geolibertarianism –
Green libertarianism –
Individualist anarchism –
Individualist feminism –
Left-libertarianism –
Liberism –
Libertarian Christianity –
Libertarian conservatism –
Libertarian socialism –
Market liberalism –
Libertarian municipalism –
Market socialism –
Minarchism –
Mutualism –
Paleoliberalism –
Paleolibertarianism –
Panarchism –
Philosophical anarchism –
Propertarianism –
Right-anarchism –
Right-libertarianism –
Small-l libertarianism –
Voluntaryism –


Libertarian Ideals:

Civil liberties –
Constitutionalism –
Counter-economics –
Dispute resolution organization –
Economic freedom –
Egalitarianism –
Free market –
Free society –
Free trade –
Free will –
Freedom of association –
Freedom of contract –
Homestead principle –
Individualism –
Laissez-faire –
Liberty –
Limited government –
Methodological individualism –
Natural rights –
Night watchman state –
Non-aggression –
Non-interventionism –
Non-politics –
Non-voting –
Participatory economics –
Polycentric law –
Property –
Private defense agency –
Self-governance –
Self-management –
Self-ownership –
Spontaneous order –
Stateless society –
Subjective theory of value –
Tax resistance –
Title-transfer theory of contract –
Worker's self management –
Voluntary association –
Voluntary society –
(lists courtesy of wiki)

I thought RP is more along the lines of laissez faire capitalism a la Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Objectivism. Pretty much the opposite of collectivism?

Then there is the true traditional libertarianism.

Libertarian was a term first used in the anarchist journal, 'La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social', by French anarchist, Joseph Déjacque, first published in the U.S. in 1858.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

The term was stolen by the American right.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

theanarchistlibrary.org...

Libertarianism and 'right-wing' are an oxymoron. Much like other silly right wing attempts to bury left wing ideals by appropriating them, such as anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism can be no more anarchistic than totalitarian government. The whole idea behind anarchism, as with socialism, was the problem of 'private property', capitalism, and came mostly from Proudhon's work 'What is Property'...

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in BrE, [pʁu dɔ̃] in French) (15 January, 1809 – 19 January, 1865) was a French economist and socialist philosopher who was the first individual to call himself an "anarchist" and is considered among the first anarchist thinkers. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion of "Property is theft!", in his missive What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government with the original title: Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement, which was his first major work, published in 1840...

...In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he declared that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". The apparent contradiction is resolved when it is realized that, in "property is theft", he was using the word to mean the type of property which created exploitative conditions. Specifically, he was referring to the means of production which labourers did not own themselves, and the system of wage labour...

...On the other hand, in asserting that property is essential for liberty, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisans home and tools of his trade. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is his property and anything beyond that is not. He can be considered a libertarian socialist, since he advocated worker self-management and argued against capitalist ownership of the means of production.

eng.anarchopedia.org...

B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?

Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, along side hierarchical authority and the state. Today, the dominant system of private property is capitalist in nature and, as such, anarchists tend to concentrate on this system and its property rights regime. We will be reflecting this here but do not, because of this, assume that anarchists consider other forms of private property regime (such as, say, feudalism) as acceptable. This is not the case -- anarchists are against every form of property rights regime which results in the many working for the few.

Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, arguments. These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from What is Property? that "property is theft" and "property is despotism." In his words, "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority as well as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

Anarchism came from the workers, as did socialism. The anarchists were simply socialists who did not support the state system, as did Marxists. Socialism being the workers ownership of the means of production.

Anarchism is stateless socialism...
Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality Mikhail Bakunin

As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people. 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

reply to post by mayabong


Ah toilet meditation...

It is my considered opinion that labels are bad. They always try to make you follow one set of beliefs to the exclusion of others, and to my mind are just another tool to separate us into groups. What ever happened to the Free Thinkers? Oh yeah, public education system, that's right. The Free Thinkers were a nice little group, and kinda fun to hang out with too. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is one.

I believe some things that are liberal, some that are conservative, and can go along with some Libertarian ideas. The one thing that I do not agree with Ron Paul on is the free market idea. He seems to go along with it pretty well, but I believe that regulation is important. I base this on two things. 1) Milton Friedman was an idiot, and 2) corporations have a long track record of proving that they cannot be trusted when they are allowed to roam freely. Corps need to be on a leash or we end up in the same situation we are in now.

C'mon folks we did all this before in the 20s/30s. If you don't know your history you were born yesterday!

Sorry I got carried away there.

reply to post by mayabong


Why do people think Libertarians are non-collectivist? We are a group. A political party. We have a set political agenda... a core set of beliefs.. hence why we are Libertarians.

RP, as much as I love him, is a traitor.. he is a Republican because it's the only way to get his ignorant constituents to vote for him.. many are rural straight ticket voters.

There is nothing wrong with collectivism. We do it all the time. We are inherently social creatures, we don't do well by ourselves. We are naturally collectivists, we need to be to survive.

Communities that work together, are stronger communities.

Under true libertarianism, libertarian socialism, industry would be collectivized. Meaning it would be collectively owned by the workers, as apposed to a private owner, or owners.

It doesn't mean you lose personal freedoms. In fact you gain freedoms because you are no longer working a 'job' for someone else's profit, but earning the full amount you labour produces. You are no longer coerced to compete for a 'job'. You are free to be part of a collective, or not. Nothing is forced, it is a direct democratic voluntary system. If you own property you can do what you want with it. Just don't expect to exploit labour when workers have another choice. If a 'worker' wants to be exploited then it's their choice.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm not going to debate your erm .. beliefs.. just going to state that the history of a word is meaningless.. the only thing that matters is the present day belief attached to a word. People don't believe in the word or terms, they simply believe in the present belief associated with them. As usual, your arguments are completely moot.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ANOK

 

I'm not going to debate your erm .. beliefs.. just going to state that the history of a word is meaningless.. the only thing that matters is the present day belief attached to a word. People don't believe in the word or terms, they simply believe in the present belief associated with them. As usual, your arguments are completely moot.

Well they're not really my 'beliefs', they are historical facts.

The history of a word is not meaningless at all. I can see why you would want people to think that though. Who are you to say what people believe, or want to believe? People should be exposed to everything.

The left has far more right to that term than you do. I see nothing wrong with sharing the history of a term, so people can see for themselves where it comes from. The original meaning has not gone away just because the right appropriated it.

A lot of misconceptions of history come about from the misunderstanding of the true meaning of terms, and how they were used at the time. Those misconceptions seem to benefit only the right wing capitalist establishment.
I wonder why?

I remember we have had this same discussion before, when you attempted to make my posts seem meaningless.
If you don't want to debate my 'beliefs', why did you even bother to say anything?

Open your eyes to our true history, and how it's been twisted to suit the establishment, and it opens your eyes to the true evil of the capitalist system.

There is nothing collectivist about libertarianism and there is nothing wrong with labeling organisations either.

Silly thread!

Originally posted by mayabong
I'm not sure of the whole philosophy of Libertarianism but I see RP talk about how seeing people in groups is bad. Yet it seems like putting the label on that form of thinking is going against that very form of thinking.

I would have to respond by saying that it goes perfectly well with what Dr. Paul is saying. When we lump people into groups then all those people are either good or bad depending on our view of a few. That is what he was saying when he said Michele Bachmann hates Muslims.

Libertarianism does not believe in punishing the group for the crimes of the few. Each person is responsible for their own actions without government interference preferably. But governments get involved and then we must punish whole countries for the believes of a few.

That is a simplification of the bigger case made for Libertarianism but so be it. Libertarianism is a broad diverse subject.

Personally I am an Anarcho-Capitalist Christian Anarchist with a bent toward Paleolibertarianism.

reply to post by ANOK


Understanding the history of words is very important as it helps to understand history. But words get hijacked from time to time by groups to distance themselves from bad history. Such as the word liberal.

If you place the philosophical goals of Collectivists side by side on a list with those of Libertarians, they are practically identical, at least insofar as the idealistic goal of securing the health and happiness of the average citizen is concerned.

What differs is how the two sides attempt to achieve the goals.

Libertarians feel that equality of opportunity is the best way to achieve fairness and prosperity for all.

Collectivists believe that the tyranny of the majority and the forcible redistribution of wealth by the State is the only way to achieve fairness and equality in society.

Libertarians also believe in the value of consequences and the virtue of personal responsibility.

Collectivist ideologies take a jaundiced view of human nature and hold that individuals are selfish and cupidinous and cannot be trusted to act altruistically or mutualistically, and therefore must be controlled and guided and forced into service to others by the State.

Libertarians believe that people should suffer the consequences of their malfeasances, including the consequences of sloth, idleness and lack of personal industry and willingness to work. They view this as a natural progression that the person must suffer through if he is to learn, grow and become a better person.

They believe that saving people from the consequences of their actions, particularly through government intervention, actually harms them in the long run and causes them to become dependent and damages their self-esteem and therefore their ability to improve themselves and find true prosperity and happiness.

The logical flaws in the 'collectivist society replacing collectivist state' notion are so obvious that they have been pointed out a great many times by a great many people. Hain, like Marx before him, clearly sees libertarian socialism as working towards the 'withering away of the state' as a true collectivist 'society' comes to replace it.

But to maintain such a condition of total political governance will require the use of force to prevent any consensual but not democratically sanctioned acts between willing individuals. To maintain this suppression of spontaneous several relationships, a collectivist socialist 'society' must be organised and structured in certain ways that make it indistinguishable from a collectivist socialist state.

So if for a collectivist 'society' to function there must be a high degree of politically imposed non-spontaneous behaviour from its 'citizens' (such as preventing a person selling their own labour for less than the political community will allow them to), and those mandates must be backed with the threat of violence (i.e. law) if they are not to be ignored, then what we have a political State by any reasonable definition of the word 'State', much as Rousseau would have defined one.

In fact, socialism must be the most ironic use of language in the history of human linguistics: it is the advocacy of the complete replacement of social interaction with political interaction, the very negation of civil society itself.

Source 1
Source 2

Originally posted by Rothbard

Personally I am an Anarcho-Capitalist Christian Anarchist with a bent toward Paleolibertarianism.

How can a capitalist be an anarchist, when capitalism creates the very system anarchists are apposed to?

Capitalism is an authoritative system, private owners have authority over those that only have their labour to sell. It is exploitative because workers have to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the private owner to make profit.

It goes against everything anarchism ever stood for. How can anarchism and capitalism be compatible?
Capitalism creates the very state system anarchists appose. No true capitalists would want to get rid of government as they ARE the government and use it to their benefit. Without government what protects you from workers taking over and throwing you out?

It would send us back to the industrial revolution, before the left improved working conditions and pay. How would you protect your capital? With a gun like in the 'wild west'? The majority of people are workers, we can't all be owners, as we would have no one working.

Christianity is also a hierarchical system that is not compatible with the goals of anarchism. Those goals being to rid man of all forms of hierarchical power.

It's just another attempt by the right to appropriate left wing terms, like libertarian. It's a system I believe based on misunderstanding of terms, something I explained in my other posts here. You all have good intentions, but you're going in the wrong direction if you want true liberty. Liberty for the masses will never happen with capitalism, if you get rid of government capitalism would not survive anyway.

Anarchism is a political system based on Proudhon's work 'What is Property?'. A critique of the use of private property in order to exploit labour.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

www.infoshop.org...

As an anarchist I appose all forms of authority, and capitalism by its very nature is the worse form of authority.
It allows the few lucky owners of property to lord over those that don't.

Libertarianism is just a way of thinking
It's not a collectivist box because your perception most likely portrays a club with like minded members only

reply to post by ANOK

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market."Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.

It is my opinion that many collectivists lump free-market capitalism with state capitalism which is a very narrow view of capitalism. There are many forms of anarchism, socialism, libertarianism and capitalism they are diverse and not mutually exclusive to anyone type.

It goes against everything anarchism ever stood for. How can anarchism and capitalism be compatible?

The anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard believed that anarchism is not fully developed unless it accepts capitalism and that capitalism was not complete unless it accepted abolition of the state: "In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism."

Without government what protects you from workers taking over and throwing you out?

I suppose they could but what will they have to gain? By using force to take from someone else are they not going against the very definition of Anarchism by creating a hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations? If the workers are paid for the labor fairly and are not coerced to work for a set wage but are free to negotiate for that wage why would they create disorder and chaos? If they were pure anarchists they would not enter into this type of agreement anyhow.

On the subject of wage labor, anarcho-capitalists vary. Being that the idea of contract is central to anarcho-capitalism.",in an anarcho-capitalist society, any individual would be free to contract with any other individual to provide for any good or service, provided that it is done without the use of force or fraud. This includes the right to sell one's labor to another.

It would send us back to the industrial revolution, before the left improved working conditions and pay. How would you protect your capital? With a gun like in the 'wild west'?

Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement.

Anarchism is a political system based on Proudhon's work 'What is Property?'. A critique of the use of private property in order to exploit labour.

Though he was a contributor to the body of knowledge and maybe if you want to limited Anarchism to just a "political system" he was what you say.

But Anarchism goes back much further than Proudhon. Proudhon changed many of his views toward the end of his life. He even defended private property by saying,"property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists, with an unequaled capacity for setting itself against authority..." and the "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual."

As an anarchist I appose all forms of authority, and capitalism by its very nature is the worse form of authority. It allows the few lucky owners of property to lord over those that don't.

Many people in the United States and the rest of the world own property. As do I. I do not lord it over anyone. I earned what I got. It wasn't luck it was hard work.I believe that people should suffer the consequences of their sloth, idleness and lack of personal industry and willingness to work.

Collectivism and State-Capitalism leads to Totalitarianism. Which is the worst form of authority?

I find that most people who subscribe to collectivist beliefs have a chip on their shoulder. "The world owes them something" by blaming capitalism they want the state to take away from others and give to them. So in turn they subscribe to the very ideals that they propose to be against, a Stateless society.