Topic: Political Assessment (Read 7839 times)

Hmmm

Objectivist, but without the chain smoking.

;-)

I guess it depends on how you define it whether communes work.  There are a number of small religious communities that I think could fairly be associated with that sort of commune.  Notably the Hutterites, who live in colonies, mostly in western canada, and run huge farms communally.  The key is that for that sort of social relationship to work, people need to feel a stable social relationship with each individual in the group.  This is why the hutterite colonies never exceed about 250 people.  I'm sure there are various mennonite sects that have similar strategies.  Outside of the commune capitalism is the best way to go. This is the same as the way people deal with their close friends and family.

This is true enough, but a libertarian can be a socialist; just not a statist.  If the socialist order is non-coercive, any libertarian should be fine with it's existance, even if he doesn't agree that it's an ideal social order.  A fine example is a hippie co-op type farm, wherein adults not related to one another agree to live in a communal fashion.  History and reason both tell us that these adventures aren't sustainable, but that's irrelevant.  Another example is an 'intentional community', or even an extended family living together in the same household.  It's the idea that the social fabric of a happy homelife can be extended to the whole of society that drives the 'feeling' youth towards the socialist worldview.  Children who grow up in dysfunctional families are much less likely to fall for that crap.

Ok I understand now, but a political system is not a philosophy.

Politics is all about making decisions, including those implying the use of coercion.  Therefore, I doubt it makes any sense to claim being both socialist and libertarian.  Socialism is about forbidding free market and private ownership.  Socialism can not be libertarian.

I am somewhat of a left libertarian too.

I'm similar to an authoritarian leftist in how I would prefer society to be organised.

The difference is the means of achieving that goal.

I would prefer society to be more cooperative, economically equal, and tolerant of lifestyle choices. I do not believe the way to get there is coercion, but persuasion and reward.

You have just described a 'phyle' system.

Anarcho-pluralism. Meaning that a stateless society will result in thousands of communities organized as they see fit at a local level. Under such circumstances a left anarchist community could peacefully coexist adjacent to an ancap one. Because I don't wish to impose any form of governance on anyone, I advocate for eliminating the state while strengthening competing institutions at the local level whether they be left or right.

My personal preferences: Among my people, the most likely form of non coercive governance would come in the form of our decentralized clan system. Clans (20-200 people) have historically been the holders of property and resources. Think of the typical western nuclear family and the way it shares food and other resources. My people extend this concept to extended relatives. It has been a very effective way to address the "Tragedy of the Commons." My tribe, the Tlingit, of SE Alaska, had clan ownership over territorial fishing grounds. Clan members were permitted to fish these waters with no limit restrictions. Yet they would dismantle their fish traps and not over fish for personal gain because to do so would threaten the well being of their family. We have what I call a multi-generational clan consciousness, and refrain from doing things that would damage the clan today, or damage the clan 4 generations down the road. This has been the feature of our cultural that has allowed us to survive unbelievable hardships over the past 500 years.

While this might sound like a restriction on liberty and freedom for some here, one must remember that such concepts are derived from cultural context. Concepts of property rights didn't just fall from the sky (like from god, as some claim.) Furthermore, the decentralized clan system I reference allows for private property, entrepreneurship, capital accumulation, etc, so long as it doesn't threaten the clan. If any individual doesn't like this, they could always move to Ancapistan, which will hopefully have a presence in every region of the world.

I think I had the discussion in this forum again, but...

Socialism really is not a system. Is a set of promises or desires, but not a set of policies to acomplish those promises (which is very convenient, I know). This promises are equality and having the basic needs covered (food, housing, etc...).

Then there are different systems or proposals to get to those objectives, communism being the most famous, but we all know how it ended. But there are others. In fact, socialist Proudhon was one of the biggest critics of Marx. And developing the ideas of Proudhon, people like Benjamin Tucker or Lysander Spooner would take mutualism to the next level. Now Kevin Karson (which I highly recommend reading) is taking this ideas forward with heavy use of Austrian economics.

This people believe that the free market will bring society as closer as it can get to their ideal of equality. I honestly dont think that peacefully looking for equality is a bad thing. I instinctively dont like to see people having a lot while other people starve. I understand that using the excuse of inequality to gain power and violently impose rules is bad and even against equality itself. But I dont see nothing wrong on working towards a more equal world under free market rules.

I have stopped calling myself a capitalist, because its too loaded, and I wont call myself a socialist for the same reason. I call myself a free marketeer, and since I come from a lefty family I consider myself left-leaning (meaning the core of social values usually related with the left pro-gays, sexually, etc..., but would not like them imposed trough government).

That is why I call myself a free market left-libertarian, or if you want a left leaning free marketeer.

It's only socialism if you are forced to do it.

Most anarcho-capitalists, in their private life, are quite socially-aware and always happy to help out someone deserving who is less fortunate than they are.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "left", but to me it means "communism", or "socialism".  It is very much incompatible with free market.

So to me, "free market socialism" is an oxymore.  I guess I'll have to read about that.

Agorism is left-libertarianism.
Roderick Long is left-libertarianism (http://aaeblog.com/)
There is even free market socialism, called mutualism, in the tradition of Proudhon and Tucker.

What is the problem with calling myself a free market left libertarian?

No offense but, what does that mean ?  How can you be in favor of free market and claim being "left" ?

Free market left libertarian.

Shares are property.  You can give some to employees only if there are shareholders who agree to give part of their property.  In the same way, a employee can buy shares only if they are people who agree to sell.

Wages and capital are not equivalent, realy.

Some companies can pay in shares, if you ask for it.  With a public company, one can always take your salary and invest it into the company he or she works for.  A private company, it will always be up to the owners to decide how they compensate those who the get help it.

Overall it is all about risk. The investors take lots of risks (capital), so they need to be compensated.  An employee takes much less risk, so gets paid accordingly.

You confuse *benefit* and *income*.

And even so, salaries are *part* of the income of the company, they are not *shares*.

People working on commission receive a part of sales, not benefits.  An employee can receive a huge commission even if its employer has made no benefits.

Again, benefits are whatever has been earned, minus whatever has been spent.  Salaries, commissions and things like that, are expenses.

Somebody needs to pay the salary, that (in the long run), comes from the benefits that the company provides. A salary is just an abstraction of risk, the investors and shareholders take the risk, the salary is paid regardless.  So in the long run, the salary come from the benefits of the company, (or the expected benefits), however has lower potential return, lower risk.

People who work on commission share the benefits also, however they take more risk, therefore have higher potential income, and higher potential losses.

Both share in the benefits, however the those on commission take more, as they take more risk.  The person who is on a salary takes the benefit of having a job at all, at the risk of loosing it.

I'm sorry but no, it is not.

Salary is not a share of the benefits.  Benefits are what's left once salaries and other expenses have been paid.

Salary is a previously agreed amount of money that is paid to an employee in exchange for his work.  It is the same whatever is the financial situation of the company, whether it is in deficit or in benefit.

A salary is a share of the benefits that the company produces, based upon the demand and the worth of the work done. It is just taken in the long-run, not the short.

Well, are you ok with people working for a  salary instead of a share of the benefits of the company they work for ?

If you are, then you're ancap.  Otherwise, you're leftist.