Political Philosophy

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283015217' post='2164529']
How do you decentralize private property without a government to prevent corporations from reorganizing?
[/quote]

What are you talking about? The State created Corporations. Its current form, historically, was created by the State. It was the State that gave Corporations such [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad"]massive power[/url]. There are huge privileges given by the State that promotes the centralization of private property in few Corporate hands. It's like asking "how do I prevent a killing which I authorized, support, protect, guarantee, and subsidize?".

What is known as neoliberalism, or "free market" and "free trade", is in actual practice, State socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor. A transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, enforced by the State. It does not have anything to do with "free" nor "free market". Plenty protections and welfare for the rich (especially large Corporations) in the expense of the poor. It is extremely protectionist for the wealthy countries.

Edited August 28, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' timestamp='1283016689' post='2164545']
Libertarianism to closely resembles anarchy. Some law is necessary.
[/quote]

Anarchism as a movement is not against law and order. People often confuses Anarchism with moral libertinism and nihilism.

Edited August 28, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

Kevin Carson, is one of the most prominent theorist of Mutualism (Libertarian Socialist), his book Organizational Theory can be viewed for free [url="http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/otkc11.pdf"]here[/url]. You should read this Chapter "
[indent][left]State Policies Promoting Centralization and Large Organizational Size 53
I. The Corporate Transformation of Capitalism in the Nineteenth Century 53
A. The Nineteenth Century Corporate Legal Revolution 54
B. Subsidies to Transportation and Communication Infrastructure 65
C. Patents and Copyrights 72
D. Tariffs 77
II. Twentieth Century State Capitalism 77
A. Cartelizing Regulations 79
B. Tax Policy 83
C. The Corporate Liberal Pact With Labor 84
D. The Socialization of Corporate Cost 86
E. State Action to Absorb Surplus Output 90
F. Neoliberal Foreign Policy 94
[/left][/indent]
Reading his book made me an Anarcho-Distributist.
[left]
[/left][indent][left] [/left][/indent]

[Winchester]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282971342' post='2164401']
That is State Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not enforce charity.
[/quote]
If the government takes my money and gives it to someone who meets certain financial criteria (even if my noey is exchanged for goods given directly to that person, it's charity. If I have no choice in the matter, that is enforced charity.

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1283021983' post='2164606']
If the government takes my money and gives it to someone who meets certain financial criteria (even if my noey is exchanged for goods given directly to that person, it's charity. If I have no choice in the matter, that is enforced charity.
[/quote]

Libertarian Socialism is against an enforcement of taking people's money. Have you even read my posts? Libertarian Socialism would make taxation unnecessary, because its aim is to make the government (the State) unnecessary. Libertarian Socialism does not propose redistribution of wealth through taxing people or pointing anybody with a gun, that's Marxist Socialism or Authoritarian Socialism or State Socialism or Totalitarian Socialism.

Edited August 28, 2010 by un.privileged

[Winchester]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283022606' post='2164611']
Libertarian Socialism is against an enforcement of taking people's money. Have you even read my posts? Libertarian Socialism would make taxation unnecessary. Libertarian Socialism do not propose redistribution of wealth through taxing people or pointing anybody with a gun.
[/quote]
I'm a follower of Free-Market Catholic Maoism.


It's certainly not possible that one could read "socialism" and actually apply its meaning. Yeah, that would be dumb. I don't care how much fluff you surround a stupidly assembled political term with, it's ultimately meaningless. What every "stateless" political philosophy has in common is that it establishes a different sort of state.

[un.privileged]

It's a historical fact of its existence, and a largely significant movement which predates Marxism. It is not freshly made up out of the blue by some pretentious freak like "free-market catholic totalitarianism". You seem to be largely ignorant of definitions of terms in its historical context.

[quote]What every "stateless" political philosophy has in common is that it establishes a different sort of state. [/quote]
What statist political philosophy has in common is that it establishes a different sort of state, some became the biggest mass murderer in history of human institutions. So what?

Edited August 28, 2010 by un.privileged

[Selah]

LOL. I'm kinda afraid to say

Let's just say I'm Libertarian.

[Socrates]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282964373' post='2164374']
What did Pope Pius XI specifically mean by "true Socialist" that he condemn?
Stalin would obviously think that he's Socialism is true, and it was totalitarian. Many Socialists would say that it's not even Socialism in the first place.[/quote]
Pius XI makes it pretty clear in the encyclical that he's condemning all forms of socialism, not just the the extreme communist or totalitarian forms of it (condemning even "Christian socialism").

[quote]116. Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.

117. But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. [/quote]

I'm not sure exactly what form of "socialism" you are advocating, as "libertarian socialism" sounds to me like an oxymoron, but if it's indeed socialist, it's incompatible with Catholic principles.

But since it's not clear to me what you're advocating in practice, it's hard for me to debate it meaningfully.

[quote]Some people even go so far call Obama a Socialist, even though he is the savior of Corporate Capitalism.

When the Church defends "Private Property", it is not in any way the same sense of "Private Property" in the Capitalistic sense, or most economist's understanding of the word "Private Property".
The Church endorses and condemns certain [i]concept [/i]under certain [i]term[/i], I'm more interested in the [i]Church's definition[/i] of its term rather than the word used for the definition itself.[/quote]
I have no idea what your definition of "private property" is, and how it varies from that of "Capitalism's," but if private property rights are not maintained, it's a short road to tyranny, as well as economic collapse.

And Obama's not the savior of anything, other than virtually limitless government expansion.

The corporate welfarism currently practiced by our government is not a true free market. I myself am a believer in free markets of the so-called Austrian School of economics.

I strongly suggest you read Thomas E. Woods, Jr.'s [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255394746&sr=1-5"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i][/url] for an excellent Catholic take on the issue.
I'd also recommend his [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=pd_sim_b_5"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse [/i][/url] for a convincing free-market look at the current economic disaster.

Woods makes an excellent case for a true free market economy, and explains how it's government intervention in the economy, in particular the Federal Reserve's artificial manipulation of the money supply and interest rate, not the free market, or "lack of government oversight" that was responsible for the economic bubble and collapse.

I don't have time to go over it in depth here, but I strongly recommend reading Woods - I think you'll enjoy him.

[quote]Btw, do you agree that "Democratic Socialism" is close to Catholic Social Doctrine, and has made a remarkable contribution to the formation of social consciousness? I don't actually endorse it.
[/quote]
I'll admit I'm no expert on "Democratic Socialism," but in practice socialism has always been a disaster. Pope Pius XI certainly didn't make any exceptions for "democracy" in his condemnation of socialism. Tyranny is quite capable of existing in a democracy (or mob rule).

[Winchester]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283024640' post='2164617']
It's a historical fact of its existence, and a largely significant movement which predates Marxism. It is not freshly made up out of the blue by some pretentious freak like "free-market catholic totalitarianism". You seem to be largely ignorant of definitions of terms in its historical context.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a libertarian authoritarianism. Sorry. The group that administers property and output and all the other croutons we're going to fantasize is better handled by committee is a state. You can avoid the terms, but not the reality and if all this is administered by this non-state state and not myself, then it's authoritarian. I'm not going to read a book for you. This isn't the "Suggest a book and everyone reads it and agrees with you" Table. Your job is to now show me some revolutionary way in which authoritarian government models merge with libertarian ideals in such a manner that the term is appropriate.

[quote]
What [all] statist political philosop[s]hy[/s]ies ha[s]s [/s]ve in common is that [s]it [/s]they establish[s]es [/s]a different sort of state, [and] some[times] bec[s]a[/s]ome the biggest mass murderer[s] in [the] history of human institutions. So what?
[/quote]
So pretending that powerful entities are somehow not "states" is asinine. It's not going to solve or slow the cycle of birth, growth, decay and destruction that history has taught is man's way.

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1283030739' post='2164643']
Pius XI makes it pretty clear in the encyclical that he's condemning all forms of socialism, not just the the extreme communist or totalitarian forms of it (condemning even "Christian socialism").



I'm not sure exactly what form of "socialism" you are advocating, as "libertarian socialism" sounds to me like an oxymoron, but if it's indeed socialist, it's incompatible with Catholic principles.[/quote]
In America it is. Noam Chomsky explains it very clearly. The word libertarian was taken over by this apologist of Capitalism. Libertarian Socialism historically was and is a synonym for Anarchism.


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM[/media]

[quote]But since it's not clear to me what you're advocating in practice, it's hard for me to debate it meaningfully.


I have no idea what your definition of "private property" is, and how it varies from that of "Capitalism's," but if private property rights are not maintained, it's a short road to tyranny, as well as economic collapse.[/quote]
I believe in maintaining private property, but as I said, not in the Capitalistic sense (absolutizing the role of private property).

[quote]And Obama's not the savior of anything, other than virtually limitless government expansion.

The corporate welfarism currently practiced by our government is not a true free market. I myself am a believer in free markets of the so-called Austrian School of economics.

I strongly suggest you read Thomas E. Woods, Jr.'s [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255394746&sr=1-5"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i][/url] for an excellent Catholic take on the issue.
I'd also recommend his [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=pd_sim_b_5"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse [/i][/url] for a convincing free-market look at the current economic disaster.

Woods makes an excellent case for a true free market economy, and explains how it's government intervention in the economy, in particular the Federal Reserve's artificial manipulation of the money supply and interest rate, not the free market, or "lack of government oversight" that was responsible for the economic bubble and collapse.

I don't have time to go over it in depth here, but I strongly recommend reading Woods - I think you'll enjoy him.
[/quote]
I completely agree with you on this. We never had a free market. What I meant Obama to be the saviour of State Corporate Capitalism, is the corporate welfarism that you have just mentioned. Privatizing profits, socializing cost. I've never claimed at all Obama to be a defender of free market. It is a sick joke for anybody to claim this. But to call him a Socialist only make sense if there are Socialists movement that advocate welfare for the rich in the expense of the poor (AFAIK there isn't).
I was a follower of Austrian School of Economics, but I've become disillusioned with the Austrians which [i]absolutize[/i] the role of private property, which is not what the Church endorse at all. Private Property, must [i]serve[/i] labour. It become illegitimate when it is not utilized. I still enjoy Austrian economics though, as it was the one that lead me into becoming a Libertarian Socialist (Mutualist) and Anarcho-Distributist. I love free markets. But historically, what is called "Capitalism", and actual-existing-Capitalism is a result and has been maintained through massive State intervention.

I enjoyed Tom Woods. But I enjoy Kevin Carson more. If you enjoy Tom Woods, you will enjoy Kevin Carson, a prominent Libertarian Socialist in the Mutualist tradition (free market anti-Capitalist). It is free online.
[url="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-subsidy-of-history/"]The Subsidy of History[/url] (The Freeman online, it is also an austrian journal)
[url="http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/otkc11.pdf"]Organizational Theory[/url] (Even hardcore Austrians such as Roderick Long endorses this book.)

Benjamin Tucker, was a Libertarian Socialist, Rothbard, the anarcho-capitalist got the idea of private defense agencies from him. Libertarian Socialist wants everybody to have private property, instead the State being the sole title to all properties (that is State Socialism, or any kind of Socialism that proposes State intervention to takeover private property rights). Capitalism, the actually-existing one, has concentrated private property in few wealthy Corporate owners. Libertarian Socialism and Distributism, proposes to restore private property in the hand of the worker/workers themselves instead few stockholders. That is why we advocate a free market cooperative economy.

[quote]I'll admit I'm no expert on "Democratic Socialism," but in practice socialism has always been a disaster. Pope Pius XI certainly didn't make any exceptions for "democracy" in his condemnation of socialism. Tyranny is quite capable of existing in a democracy (or mob rule).
[/quote]
I don't know, it was actually quite a direct quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his book [i]Without Roots[/i]. He claimed that Democratic Socialism was and is close to Catholic Social Doctrine and made a remarkable contribution forming social consciousness. I found the excerpt [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0201.html"]here.[/url]

Edited August 29, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1283035130' post='2164670']
There is no such thing as a libertarian authoritarianism. Sorry. The group that administers property and output and all the other croutons we're going to fantasize is better handled by committee is a state. You can avoid the terms, but not the reality and if all this is administered by this non-state state and not myself, then it's authoritarian.[/quote]
It is not administered by any kind of state. Distribution of wealth is directly done in the process of production itself, owned by the workers (e.g. Co-operatives), not the State. What is wrong with you? I think taxing is a legalized theft. There is [i]Stateless[/i] Socialism you know, it preceded Marxism. It is completely voluntary, no guns involved. Have you even read the Benjamin Tucker's quote I provided to you?

[indent]"The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor. "
[/indent]

Edited August 29, 2010 by un.privileged

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283017051' post='2164549']
What are you talking about? The State created Corporations. Its current form, historically, was created by the State. It was the State that gave Corporations such [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad"]massive power[/url]. There are huge privileges given by the State that promotes the centralization of private property in few Corporate hands. It's like asking "how do I prevent a killing which I authorized, support, protect, guarantee, and subsidize?".

What is known as neoliberalism, or "free market" and "free trade", is in actual practice, State socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor. A transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, enforced by the State. It does not have anything to do with "free" nor "free market". Plenty protections and welfare for the rich (especially large Corporations) in the expense of the poor. It is extremely protectionist for the wealthy countries.
[/quote]
Disagree. A corporation in its pure form is a group of like minded individuals who provide some good or service in exchange for a different good or service. No state is necessary. I'm not going to argue against what corporations may (or may not) have become under the influence of our nanny states, because it's not relevant.

How would your libertarian socialism prevent a group of, say, fifty investors from pooling their money and starting a multi-million dollar multinational oil firm, for instance? More importantly, why would you ever want to?

[Nihil Obstat]

I've got no problem in theory with some kind of voluntary socialist commune (although I'd never participate in one), but what if, as a skilled entrepreneur or businessman or all around lucky person, I come into a fair bit of wealth and would rather own and operate a private firm, or contribute startup capital to a public firm? Under a "libertarian socialist" system, apparently I don't deserve that wealth in the first place because it actually belongs to the workers I hired as an entrepreneur or businessman.

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283051624' post='2164761']
Disagree. A corporation in its pure form is a group of like minded individuals who provide some good or service in exchange for a different good or service. No state is necessary. I'm not going to argue against what corporations may (or may not) have become under the influence of our nanny states, because it's not relevant.[/quote]
A corporation or the modern business Corporations? Modern Corporations would not have so many power as it has right now without plenty protections, subsidy, and guarantee by the State.

[quote]How would your libertarian socialism prevent a group of, say, fifty investors from pooling their money and starting a multi-million dollar multinational oil firm, for instance? More importantly, why would you ever want to?
[/quote]
How are they going to maintain protection of a multi-million dollar multinational oil firm without State privileges such as Corporate personhood and limited liability of tort? How would they survive without the systematic power given by the State to exclude the workers from ownership and control. The Church says workers has the right for ownership of the means of production. The modern Corporations as you know has gained most of their strength from the State. Have you even tried reading the Chapter that I recommended to you?

How do I prevent a killing of a person which I actively authorized, subsidize, protect, and guarantee? Stop authorizing, subsidizing, protecting, and guaranteeing it!