Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron?

[Nirvana_Nut85]

sc94597 said:

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

I would credit Mises more than Rothbard as the father of the modern right libertarian and simply reading through his works, such as "Socialism", he points out the incompatibility of socialism and libertarianism​ as in that school of thought, tax is theft and private ownership "Trumps" public ownership.

I consider Mises to be a liberal, but not a libertarian. I define libertarian as, "A subset of liberals who strongly believe in self-ownership, and derive their support for individual rights from the axiom of full self-ownership." This includes right-libertarians, left-libertarians and any libertarian socialist who believes in voluntary action. Unfortunately, Mises believed in things like conscription, did not found his support for individual rights on natural rights, and focused instead on praexology. Rothbard took  from Austrian economics, natural rights theory, and individualist anarchism, combining them all into right-libertarianism. Rothbard's theory starts with the axiom of self-ownership, and derives all other rights from there. 

I am of course a left-Rothbardian/agorist/individualist anarchist , but not a libertarian socialist nor an anarcho-capitalist. I think all property norms, and forms of organization can coexist fine, with dispute resolution enacted by a mutually agreed upon arbitration system. Still, socialism as defined by most libertarian socialists need not be enacted through force. It is entirely voluntary. 

By the way, libertarian socialists would agree that "tax is theft" and aren't fans of "public" (as in state) ownership. 

Mises was an ardent critic of conscription and foreign interventionalism. There was only one statement I ever read where he implied that under an extremity would conscription be considered a thought.

While Rothbard is accredited as a pillar of modern day libertarianism, in it's form of classical liberalism, I find Mises' line of thought to be more in line with the origin of the term in comparison to Rothbard. He leans more anarcho-capitalist ( which I tend to as well)

I do believe that what is defined as libertarian socialism would still be at odds with libertarian principal because at some point there would have to be theft or force in order to implement the society. You would have to take away the right of the individual and transfer that power to the collective of workers to posses the means of production. That would also limit the ability of the individual to determine what they wanted to accumulate in life as they would be limited to an equal share and not able to implement ideas  (without a group majority) but instead forced into an idealogical oppression that creates a cieling for the individual.