| Nirvana_Nut85 said:
|
Sure Mises wasn't perfect, but I still think Rothbard deserves the title of the father of "modern libertarianism", espcially since he was the one who called himself such wheras Mises referred to himself as a liberal, and seems to be quite embedded in the liberal tradition. While libertarianism is a type of liberalism, it is more exclusive than liberalism, per se. Self-ownership must be the basis of one's philosophy in order to be called "libertarian", in my opinion, and Mises did not proclaim self-ownership as the axiom. He relied instead on praexology. This does not take away from Mises's great contributions though.
------
"Libertarianism is not necessarily abolishing the state completely as most believe that having a small form of government, limited to protecting the rights and freedoms of the people of said state is the only role that it should stay active in. Abolishing the state completely pushes the ideology into the realm of anarcho-capitalism, communism, etc."
Libertarianism to its logical ends necessarily calls for the abolition of the state, since it is an institution of force. Sure, some libertarians compromise this view as they think it is unfeasible, but even they would ideally choose anti-statism vs. statism if they could be convinced that such a society were feasible and functional.
------
"Your experience as a contractor in a sole proprietorship, would not necessarily give the same knowledge and experience as running a small-medium sized business that employees 20+ people. I’m not saying that to be rude, I’m just trying to establish a line of thought and reasoning as to why I believe your analysis is incorrect. "
Sure, but just as a doctor does not have to experience cancer to know about it, I don't have to experience being a business owner to know about the structure of firms. As an economics minor, I have learned quite a bit about the various structures of real world firms.
------
See, under a true and not branch off, by means or definition of an actual Libertarian society, any system within a community or competition as you described between wage relationships, between the employer and employee, competing against companies that went the route of mutualism would fit in that realm due to the freedom of being able to choose any platform desired.
Yes, this is a good characterization.
------
The issue with what you describe as Libertarian socialism is that by definition, any society that would allow the existance of the sole proprietorship to remain and wage agreements would then render the deifinition null and void.
How so? Different groups of people would do different things in a free society. Some would choose wage labor and private property, others would choose collective property. It is not the society that is socialist or capitalist, but the institutions and social relationships contained within it. If a certain mode of production predominates at the macro-level, we can call such a society "socialist" or "capitalist" as a short-hand, even if many of the minority institutions exists.
------
While no worthwhile Libertarian would argue for such actions as you claimed, it is impossible not to have some form of force, if it is through a central planned economy by the collective society to be able to implement that society.
Not even anarcho-communists advocate for a "central planned economy" albeit they do support communal planning and cooperation through voluntary confederalism. Other libertarian socialists, particularly market socialists, strongly advocate for market relationships. So the demerits of central planning is not an argument against libertarian socialism.
------
It would require the use of force in one manner or another despite your objections or else how would resistance against it be met?
Why would resistance against communism have to be met with anything? If somebody does not want to be part of a commune, they can choose not to be part of a commune, just as if somebody does not want to be part of a capitalist institution they can choose not to be part of a capitalist institution. Choice is the key here. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Communes will exist only if people freely choose for them to exist if we are to call such a society libertarian. Otherwise it is not libertarian. If they can't work because of the failings of their economics, then people would just choose not to participate in communes. All of this falls under decentralized planning.
-----
The reason my friend is not the monopolies or mega corporations that influence the government to implement the regulations that make it difficult to compete, that are the deciding factor as to why cooperation would be difficult(especially in business) but a little thing called individualism.
While an employee can contribute input to a business, it doesn’t mean that they should have a decision in steering or given a voting right to determine what acceptable pay is and in what direction a company should take.
That is for the individuals forming the contract and institution to decide, not for we philosophers on the outside. If the laborer has equal bargaining power and better alternatives, I don't see why they shouldn't aim to control that which they produce if they can. It would be irrational not to want to have access to a means of production and the full rewards of your labor, if it is in your means to achieve. Now if that is not possible, because of scarcity in the means of production, then the wage relationship is not a bad choice, because there are no alternatives. Libertarian socialists want to make the means of production accessible to more people through voluntary means and by the elimination of state privilege.
-----
Many entreprenuers who have started out in partnerships end up disagreeing on what direction they want to go in and split.
That's fine. Many also have had a shared vision and temper eachother for decades. Such relationships are the result of free contract.
-----
While you could always leave said companyand start or join another, many of us prefer to beour own bosses and then if they decided to grow that idea into a larger company, they would once again be limited in being able to steer the proverbial ship of their destiny due to the restricions of your society.
What restrictions of "my society"? Anarchy means there are no restrictions besides those imposed by the economic laws of nature and the natural laws of men. If people collectively decide that they no longer wish to work for others, but for themselves, and they have the means to achieve it voluntarily, why shouldn't they go for it? The whole idea of libertarian socialism is that more people have access to means of production by eliminating artificial (state) barriers to credit and land. The only expropriation that would occur under libertarian socialism is of stolen property (that which the state possesses or private institutions possess by the state's power of eminent domain and taxation.) Consider for example, how much abundant land exists in federal government "owned" regions of the United States. How might we be able to put that land to better use than in our current society? How would this affect the market in land? Will the prices of property go up or down? With better access to land, what would the effect on rents be? So on and so forth. The end result is that people are less depenent on landlords, employers, and lenders because artificial (state-produced) scarcity have been eliminating. Consequently, characteristics of capitalism like wage labor, leases, and interested loans would become less prominent than they are now. This does not come about by force, but rather by the removal of force, and allowing economic laws run their course.
The only socialists who have problems with private ownership of the means of production are communists, and in their libertarian form they'd just choose not to recognize such property within their own organizations where all persons involved agreed to be a part of. They're not going to raid people who choose not to be part of their institutions, but they also won't form social bonds with them, unless they absolutely have to, either. All of this is peaceful and libertarian.
----
"Except of course of what socialists want,lol."
-----
"In your society while maybe more polite would still require the demand that private property be abolished although through the collective instead of the state."
I am not even a libertarian-socialist. I believe in lockean property norms and call myself a left-Rothbardian. I believe not only in the existence of private property, but in the existence of alienable private property, the legitimacy of usury, and so forth. I see none of this contradicted with people who don't like these things, but who also do not wish to abolish them through violent means. Both I and they are libertarians because we do not advocate for institutional violence against peaceful persons.
Well, the word "libertarian" was a more polite term for "anarchist" once upon a time. The French government banned the publication of the word "anarchist" in the 1870's, so certain French writers used "libertarian" instead. So it is a logical (and correct) conclusion.
