A Libertarian believes a free market/capitalist system should be left alone without any government interference and wants lower taxes. Libertarianism is a right wing ideology. A Socialist believes in unlimited government interference in the economy and wants more taxes. Socialism is a left wing ideology. 

Even if one supports conscription for extreme cases, which is an arbitrary exception, Mises knows very well that what is considered "extreme" differs from person to person, so it would easily be abusive to add such a proviso. Supporting conscription in the marginal instance denies individuals full self-ownership, but you recognized that with "I can concede that he is not 100% Libertarian in when it comes to that particular viewpoint." 

Mises denied natural rights (and therefore self-ownership) quite frequently. This was mostly because natural rights theory was not very popular amongst academics when Mises was prominent. Utilitarianism was the most common philosophy at the time. Rothbard saw it as a deficit of Mises' philosophy, and wanted to fix it. Mises derived all of his politics from the axiom "people act" rather than the axiom "people own themselves." Most of his arguments were consequentialist in nature because of this. 

"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 am not talking about the appropriation of any extant institutions that don't greatly benefit from state-privilege, but Rothbard and Mises did say the following: 

https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later

"Indeed, he would later argue that any nominally private institution that gets more than 50% of its revenue from the government, or is heavily complicit in government crimes, or both, should be considered a government entity; since government ownership is illegitimate, the proper owners of such institutions are "the 'homesteaders', those who have already been using and therefore 'mixing their labor' with the facilities." This entails inter alia "student and/or faculty ownership of the universities." As for the "myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex," one solution, Rothbard says, is to "turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants."16 He also supported third-world land reforms considered socialistic by many conservatives, on the grounds that existing land tenure represented "continuing aggression by titleholders of land against peasants engaged in transforming the soil."17 And here again Rothbard is following that wild-eyed leftist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote:

Nowhere and at no time has the large-scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone "

I agree with Rothbard that any institutions that benefit greatly from state-privilege should be homesteaded, and I agree with Mises that large scale alienable ownership over land would be very expensive to protect without a state to subsidize that protection. Therefore, monopolies over land would be costly, and more people would have access. Combined, both of these set up an environment where market socialism (particularly mutualism) can compete with capitalism. There is nothing wrong with that. I am for markets more than I am for employer-employee wage relationships, and if the latter lose out the prior, so be it. At the same time, abolishing capitalism through force, is obviously illibertarian, no worthwhile libertarian-socialist would argue for such actions. 

" 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."

I have done contract work as a sole-propriertor, so to an extent. The problem with your argument is that the reason why cooperation is difficult, is because large vertical institutions benefit greatly from economies of scale as well as outright privileges (subisidies, legal monopolies, etc) provided by state. Furthermore, one must consider the economic calculation problem (thank Mises for this one.) The larger the insitution (not just government) the less efficient it is in planning, because the knowledge is not being directly inputed to the person making the decisions in the market. One can argue that large vertical firms only remain healthily profitable because the workers and lower management often ignore central management, because they have more information on the status of the market. 

The mutualist Kevin Carson makes a good argument about this. 

https://c4ss.org/content/14497

"This calculation argument can be applied not only to a state-planned economy, but also to the internal planning of the large corporation under interventionism, or state capitalism. (By state capitalism, I refer to the means by which, as Murray Rothbard said, “our corporate state uses the coercive taxing power either to accumulate corporate capital or to lower corporate costs,” in addition to cartelizing markets through regulations, enforcing artificial property rights like “intellectual property,” and otherwise protecting privilege against competition.)"

So it is errenous to believe that a free-market would have the same winners and losers as our current one. Without the state, markets would manifest differently in certain ways and similarly in others.  Small businesses, and cooperatives would definitely have a much better time if 1. diseconomies of scale took over, and 2. the state did not provide large companies with subsidies, anti-competitive legislation, and legal protections against torts (limited liability.) There is already cooperation within any firm, but it is very hierarchial. Small businesses tend to be less hierarchial and more horizontal, and that is all that socialists want. 

"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."

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. 

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. 

We will have to agree to disagree on semantics then. I will just reassert my definiton of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political ideology which holds as its axiom that the individual is autonomous and owns herself. Mises denied self-ownership as the basic axiom from which liberty is defended, and therefore is not a libertarian. 

It calls for the abolishment of state intervention into the economy and way of life in terms of Liberty and freedom but still allows for a government to operate in a very small manner in terms of protecting those rights and liberties. Any abolishment of state pushes the thought into the realms of Anarcho-Capitalism.

I don't see how you can justify a coercive monopoly on the use of force as inherently libertarian. The state only exists by force, even if it were in a small form. Without taxation there is no state, and taxation is theft. This is libertarianism 101, here. All arguments for a reduced state, seem to be about pragmatism and the now, rather than some ultimate goal to maintain. Anarchism is libertarianism to its logical ends, and I stand by it. 

I am interested, can you provide your definition of libertarianism please? It seems to me as if these two portions of the conversation are principally about semantics. 

True, but as anyone who has gone into a particular career or field of study, what you read in a book does not always necessarily translate into giving you a proper understanding of how the interactions of that specific job applies when put to a real world application. As a welder/pipefitter , there are numerous applications that aren't always applicable from a book to the problem that is put in front of you. A doctor who has operated on cancer patients would probably tell you that you cannot always go by the book. 

Sure, but you necessarily need the textbook knowledge in order to become a doctor, even if it might not pertain to real-world action 1:1. Just having experience is not sufficient. Likewise, in order to discuss hypothetical economic structures (in our case firms), we must have at least some theoretical knowledge of economic principles. Real-world experience is not sufficient, because it is local and provincial, and not cognizant of general concepts. The theory of the organization of firms is purely economics, and I don't suspect somebody who is merely a business owner in our current society and time to have a general theory of economics, unless they studied it. 

but if the institutions are forced to be socialist in any way shape or form, which they ultimately would in order to apply the term. 

You need to support the second clause with some supporting statements. Just asserting it does not make it so. I already explained how socialist insitutions can exist through voluntary means, and how a true free-market would be different and more conductive to socialist institutions than in our current society. Please address these arguments. Particularly the ones involving diseconomies of scale. 

But it would be. On a social level if you look at the structure described, from my view there is a form of central planning but on the level of the social aspect of the general collective society and not the state. You would have to have some form of it in order to fully implement the ideas of what you are describing as Libertarian Socialism.

Again, support your assertions with arguments. Just stating "there is central planning" does not address what was brought up, and you need to support said assertions. There cannot be "central planning" without the state. If there is no state, then there is no central planning. You might argue that there can't be socialism without central planning, but that is a hefty argument to make, and I don't think you can make a convincing one. "Workers ownership of the means of production" does not require central planning. 

See but if you allow for example an entrepreneur to continue his wage labour agreement instead of apply the socialist aspect to the company then you do not have a true socialist society.

The interest is not in a "true socialist society" but viable socialist institutions. Socialists suspect a socialist society will come to be only after socialist institutions are constructed, and people see how much better they are than capitalist ones. If that does not happen, then libertarian socialists aren't going to force it to happen. They'd be content experiencing socialism for themselves. The goal is not to force a particular organization structure on everyone else, but to realize it for oneself. Somehow I think your idea of a "true socialist society" is vastly different from what socialists believe it to be. 

It would just be considered Libertarian.

It would be libertarian yes. Libertarianism (plainly) is not a full political philosophy though. It only answers the question, "is violence moral." It does not answer questions of how we should use our freedom once we've obtained it. Libertarian socialists combine their libertarianism with their socialism. They believe, "I want to live in a peaceful society where we have more opportunities to own the full fruits of our labor." Libertarian socialists believe the best path to socialism is through libertarianism and the elimination of coercive forces. 

It seems that what you are defining your viewpoint of Libertarian socialist, is more of a how a particular community could operate, moreso than a society as a whole.

Yes, because under libertarianism there is no "society as a whole." There are a bunch of overlapping and decentralized "societies". Society is just an abstraction of real world institutions. It is not important in itself. This is what libertarians (as a whole) argure. The individual is autonomous, society is an abstraction of individual relationships with others. 

To transition into your definition of Libertarian Socialism, you would have companies that would require to change their aspects of how they operate business.

They would not be required by force, according to libertarian socialist theories. The theory is that people would choose to no longer work for capitalistic insitutions if they have socialist alternatives, and the capitalist institutions would have to be reformed. The only reason why people don't choose socialist alternatives in our current society is because the state benefits capitalistic ones through corporate welfare and overregulation, giving the capitalistic institutions an unfair advantage. 

If the society forces them to not continue their practices, force has been applied.

Society can't force anything. States and invididuals can force people to do things. It is silly to abstract this away into "society". Libertarian socialists do not support violence against peaceful persons. The only institutions which will be expropriated are state institutions which have stolen what they hold, and institutions which benefit from state resources (those which use eminent domain or get massive amounts of corporate welfare, for example.) This is consistent with the views of non-socialist libertarians like Rothbard, Long, and Konkin. 

Yes, I agree but you're not looking at it at a standpoint of cooperation of private ownership, which is not the same in the terms you are applying to your argument against it when using the current market and society.

I have not argued against "cooperation of private ownership." In fact I have not argued for anything besides the case that libertarian socialists are proper libertarians no different from libertarians who propose other forms of social organization. That they support collective property, or worker's ownership of the means of production as personal uses of their freedom does not make their views " a contradiction." 

I can agree, we'll say, hypothetically with another business owner and find a mutal benefit in cooperating on some form of business venture that profits bot h of us, but at the end of the day I would still be the owner of my company.I would not want to give up my rights of being able to personally decide which employee should have a wage increase and the agreed upon wage. If an owner is not able to determine the profit level that he/she defines as acceptable, whether fair or not, then their rights as an individual have been restricted. 

Nobody who understandingly ascribes "libertarian" to their identity denies this. You are arguing a strawman here. The argument is not that people are going to forcefully prevent you from negotiating wages with others. The argument is that you will have less bargaining power in the negotiations, because there is more competition in the market of purchasing labor. Labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand, like any other good or service. If the labor demanded exceeds the labor supplied, then the equillibrium price (wages) will increase. If a large swath of people can work for themselves and gain the full profits on their labor without you, then you are going to have to pay a higher wage in order to attract employees. If the wage is too high, then the wage-labor relationship is unsustainable and uneconomical. Nobody forced you to do anything, just as prices and equillibrium wages in the current market don't force people to do or not do anything. 

Of course under the definition you have provided, there would still be a range of freedoms and rights. I never stated that they could not go to and from different companies or be self employed, my argument comes down to when the individual decides to grow their company, that the restriction is on that persons individual rights to as I stated steer the provebial ship of their destiny but instead required to implement the thoughts of the collective which what it would eventually boil down to when given voting rights.

That the factory next door to you is organized democratically has no effect on whether or not you organize a factory democratically, other than that of market competition for purchasing the labor supply. Again, I reiterate, you are not forced to do anything. The market decides the limits of what you can and can't do and then you make your choices in that framework. If the wage-relationship is unsustainable in said market, then that is just the reality of competition. You agree with competition and the market, right? 

Yes, I have read arguments for and against whether the term Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron as the op described or not and what that society would entail. I've read the arguments for how it would not impose on the individual but have developed the personal viewpoint as I've stated in my arguments, why I believe the idealism displayed falls in the realms of a pipedream and why there are too many inconsistancies in order for society as a whole to have it implemented.

Maybe it is because many of the claims you make are merly assertions and not arguments, but I am not convinced that you've made a proper case that libertarian socialism is a "pipe-dream". For one, you confound socialism, which is defined as "worker's or social ownership of the means of production" with "centrally planned economies", which is a categorical fallacy. Socialism can be based on markets, heck it can even be based on certain forms of private property (again see: mutualism.) Furthermore, you've yet to discuss the economics of this all. You have not remarked on the sustainability of socialism in a market economy, or decentralized planning, which is a feature of every market. 

I will state that you can have small factors, given a true Libertarian society would allow the operation of many political idealogies to operate in small groups, that would allow the type of society you're discussing to be implemented on a small scale within a Libertarian society.

Sure, but my entire argument depended on the nature of economies of scale, particularly with the elimination of the state there would be more predominate diseconomies of scale. If that is the case, then any institutions which can exist at the "small scale" will predominate, because it is more profitable for one to do as such. Therefore, in said market communes, syndicates, worker's cooperates, etc can predominate. 

Yes, subtract the state and we do. Unions, shared capital and wages contracts between individual and employer exists.

You can't merely "subtract the state", and then say "we do". The market distortions induced by state action are immense and omnipresent. A market without state action is going to be immensely  different from one with state action. This is a basic point made by austrian economists (including Mises), not just market socialists. So I am sure you wouldn't dispute it. It is a very weak argument to use our current society to speculate on what is possible in one that has a key feature taken out of it. 

I understand but when you look at the society as a whole, all private property would then be required not benefit the state but the society as a whole instead of the individual who would hold that land.

Why? Again, support such statements like these. Just merely asserting something, does not make it true. Libertarian socialists form the basis of their arguments on the fact that they want property to support the individual and because they believe that society is the sum of its individuals, like other libertarians, they see this as benefitting society as well. There is no dichotomy from what benefits the individual and what benefits society, as Adam Smith's argument of the butcher has shown us. 

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adamsmith136391.html

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Libertarian socialists understand this. 

While many state that it would not be implemented in that context, because Lib Socs do not beleive in force, you would ultimately have to apply it in some way shape or form if you are to truly have that society come to fruition as I've argued previously.

You haven't argued it though, nor have you addressed my arguments to the contrary, particularly my economic ones. An argument has multiple parts, 1. an assertion, 2. supporting arguments, 3. a logical connection between the supporting arguments and the assertion. Just providing 1. is not an argument. I don't mean this in an antagonistic way either, but purely one of how analtyic discourse is made. 


To summarize my main argument again: 

1. In our current society the state interferes with the market greatly. It benefits vertical institutions by providing them with taxpayer money, special protections (like limited liability), unhomestaded property claims (monopolies, emininent domain), and regulatory privileges and rents. 

2. All of this reduces the ability for horizontal and egalitarian institutions to compete with hierarchial ones. 

3. This is not a free-market and fair competition. 

4. Libertarians argue for free-markets, which means no state interference in the market. 

5. In a free-market the economies of scale provided by state intervention no longer exist. 

6. Economic scale factors then more likely favor diseconomies of scale and/or constant scale. 

7. This means that small businesses and small-scale communes, coooperatives, syndicates can more feasibly compete with capitalistic wage-labor. 

8. With these alternatives people will demand better compensation from any capitalistic institution, or they will choose to work for these other institutions. 

9. The market price for labor increases, and consequently wages increase. 

10. A stable market economy where various social structures peacefully coexist. Wage-labor might not be eliminated entirely, but it will become less prominent than it is currently. Small businesses will especially flourish. 

11. Therefore, a libertarian society will be more friendly and conductive of socialism than an illibertarian one, where illibertarian is defined as coercive activity. 

Q.E.D

Now please, address this argument. Thank you! And sorry if any of this sounds heated. It isn't, I am just a pendant when it comes to political discussions. I look forward to your response. There is no need to rush in your response either. I hope you carefully think about the argument and what it entails before replying! 

Isn't this just a form of social democracy, or in other words: a more democratic form of capitalism?