If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Libertarianism is only about freedoms – all of them – political, intellectual, moral, religious, personal and economic. Libertarians seem sometimes to focus on economic freedom because, as you said, so much else depends on economic freedom.
But whereas I think individual economic freedom is a necessary guard against state economic control which brings with it a loss of political and intellectual freedoms - you would have the state intervene to more equally distribute the spoils of unequal economic activity, not very fair anyway - but even worse taking a big chunk out of our political and intellectual freedom.
You ask a lot of questions of others in this thread, but offer few answers yourself, and I really think it’s for you to defend your position that people with more should be coerced into sharing their booty with people who have less (usually called theft), or that 'economic equality' is a prerequisite for freedom, or that socialism isn’t imposed on me every pay day.
Surely "Nothing is more unequal than equal treatment of unequal people?"
Yet you're unable to explain what you mean by "freedom", you seem to think that freedom is possible without equality.
Depends on what you mean by "libertarian". Whether you mean from the left. i.e. concerned with negative and positive freedoms - a belief in economic equality, or whether you mean from the right, i.e. a concern with negative freedoms only and no concern with ecomomic equality - in other words freedom only for the rich and powerful
You're the one who keeps mentioning the state. Not me.
Which is why I'm libertarian - a libertarian socialist, or (at a push) anarchist communist. I see no role for the state.
I have on other threads. My position is clear - I believe in freedom and equality, including economic equality. I believe that workers and the community should have control over their workplaces and lives and should get fully renumerated for their labour, not have some of it skimmed off in profit.
I'm not talking about coercion. I'm talking about a voluntary agreement of equals. In fact it is you who is in favour of theft. Theft of land from the people, theft of natural resources and the theft of private profit and capital accumualtion.
I have shown this. If people don't have equal access to resources, how can they have equal freedoms to do things, to education, health care, self-development etc?
Eh? Where you living? Cuba? Capitalism is imposed on you and me everyday. I have no choice but to sell my labour to survive.
Nice statement, but essentially meaningless.
*Freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination,as an expression of the individual will.
*the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
*exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty
Your outdated left/right dualism and discredited idea of neg/pos freedoms are entirely bogus to me as I've said, and your refusal to admit that for us all to be 'economically equal' there must be coercion and unfair redistribution shows you to be dishonest (of course you would say the same about me).
Our outlooks are entirely opposite on this question - but it's only you who would impose your version of libertarianism on others.
How can one be free and self-determing without access to resources?
You haven't told mw why the ideas of negative and positive freedoms are discredited. They are a well known concept in political philosophy. If you want to write a critique, feel free.
You're yet to demonstrate that there would necessarily be coercion, you're also denying the resources are unequally distributed now and that coercion exists now. Are you going to address these issues?
I'm not imposing anything. You're the one arguing for imposition. Maybe if you could demonstrate how I would impose and coerce, and maybe you could demonstrate how our current system doesn't currently impose and coerce?
Obviously you misunderstand me because you believe that I would coerce even though I insist that I wouldn't.
If we can clear up these misunderstandings we may be able to have a chat but if not we'll just keep ignoring each other.
You haven't told me why you believe this to be the case. You also haven't answered my point about how can someone be free to self-determination if they don't have anywhere to live, anything to eat etc.
But you are arguing for coercing people into an economic relationship.
Yes, I'd like to clear them up, however you seem unable (or unwilling) to respond to my points.