| Nirvana_Nut85 said:
|
You didn't read the link did you?
Here is what Mises says on conscription, he is pretty clear in his support for it:
"He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all. Human Action 3rd Edition (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966, p. 282)"
Libertarianism as a political philosophy has always been about self-ownership/individual autonomy. This when taken to its radical ends, implies anarchism. Mises denies full self-ownership, even though he pushes for individual rights (from a different basis) and therefore does not qualify as a libertarian, but simply a liberal.
"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"
Can you expand on your reasoning here? For example, why do you think people can't pool their resources together and start firms collectively? The only thing that prevents it in our current society is that the state heavily subsidizes a small subset of people in business, hindering competitive markets from actually working. In other words, the state creates monopolies. Most anarcho-capitalists would agree with this claim. So without monopolies over unhomesteaded resources it seems possible that people would abstain from working for others, because they already have their own access to the means of production. Then it is simply a matter of cooperating with other persons and creating firms that are managed democratically. Most libertarian socialists fully embrace libertarian means of achieving their ideal social structures, as they've seen the nasty effects of violent revolution.
"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."
Only those individuals who choose to work in cooperatives. Self-ownership is definitely a thing. Remember, libertarian socialists aren't only anarcho-collectivists. Many were individualist anarchists (Benjamin Tucker in particular) and the reason why they opposed wage labor was because the individuals did not have control over the means of production. They idealized a society where all individuals had control of the means of production, regardless of whether it was in collection with others, or independent of that.
