Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron?

[Nirvana_Nut85]

sc94597 said:

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. 

Yes, I’ve read the quote before. There is quite the ongoing debate as to whether Mises was really in support of conscription. I’ve seen compelling arguments on both sides, but after reviewing all facts, I’ve come to a personal conclusion, based on the evidence provided, that he was not a true supporter of conscription.  What always seems to be left out when this debate occurs is sources from several backing statements where Mises critiques a governments role in conscription. In your own quote ” 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” Mises is insinuating that this means is a last resort. Not supporting a draft in terms of Vietnam but only when every last option of the individual is exhausted and their rights and freedoms will be imposed upon. In Nation State and Economy, Mises refers to conscription as a “blood tax”

This quote paints a different picture than the one you provided.

“Compulsory military service thus leads to compulsory labor service of all citizens who are able to work, male and female. The supreme commander exercises power over the entire nation, he replaces the work of the able-bodied by the work of the less fit draftees, and places as many able-bodied at the front as he can spare at home without endangering the supplies of the army. The supreme commander then decides what is to be produced and how. He also decides how the products are to be used. Mobilization has become total; the nation and the state have been transformed into an army; war socialism has replaced the market economy.”

If that is not a critique in it’s absolute form, then I’m not sure what to tell you.

Although I can concede that he is not 100% Libertarian in when it comes to that particular viewpoint.

 “ "the libertarian principle of self–ownership says that each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply.”

You can check off most of the points in this definition to confirm Mises’ alignment with self ownership when reading through his works. I believe his vague remark that contradicts all previous statements would still have him in the category of Libertarian more so than classical Liberfal.

What you are referring to in pooling resources and or expecting people to hand over sole proprietorship to the worker in allowing them not only a fair share of profit but equal say in the individuals company is more of a pipe dream than a realistic expectation. You’d assume that every entrepreneur/owner would be willing to hand over this without coercion or force. Its rather nonsensical and unrealistic. The majority of individuals who have built their business from the ground up an sacrificed time with family in order to provide financially would never go along with the idea.

I’ll answer your question with a question. Have you ever been involved in business or owned a company that was successful (in terms of millions in profit)?. However, a majority of small business owners who went from a joint venture to sole proprietorship and were successful can admit that cooperation is difficult and holds back the individual from achieving and implementing all of their own creative ideas. That’s why a numerous amount end up dissolving, especially on the small business scale.

While it would work for an individual proprietorship where the business would only require a single owner such as a small business computer repair shop, multilevel marketing or some small service that can be provided to the public, those who already own a business or who had ideas to create a product on a mass scale would then be forced under the society to share ownership. I personally would not want a society in that manner because the reality is some people are of higher intelligence than others.

 

These are the reasons why I believe that Libertarian and Socialism are not compatible to the full extent that you described, although I can acknowledge that some Socialists can, to a certain level have some Libertarian leaning ideology. Although I disagree with you, thank you for the intelligent debate and sorry for taking so long to responds. As a tradesman, I’m up early and work late so I’m not the best at responding in an immediate timeframe.