OwlFancier posted:

How do you be a libertarian and also like collectivized healthcare?

JustJeff88 posted:

Sadly, you're probably right, but I laughed so hard at that and still smile a bit when I think of it; I'm sure that I still have it somewhere.

quote:

I don't usually use forums or Reddit, I usually just post comments on Ancap blogs like Molyneux or Cantwell's blog, but they didn't seem appropriate places to post my story. So here goes, I just wanted to share this with all of you.

Nov 3 I flew to Europe for a Eurotrip type tour. Not a guide or packaged deal, just going around by myself. I paid for half of the trip with the wages I earned over the last two years, my dad paid for the other half. I am 19, I guess that is normal starting college and all. (Before that I worked for my dad's company part time, so I guess you could say he paid for all of it, lol).

I did France and then Italy and then Greece next. I am an Ancap so I wanted to see anarchists in these places. Yes, I know they are different kinds of "anarchists" and not really full anarchists like us. I went to an anarchist book store in Italy and it had a lot of English books, but no Rothbard or Ancap. Like I said, I expected that, not a surprise.

I went to Greece, which everyone knows is famous for its revolutionary anarchism, its economic crisis and everything going on right now. Here I found directions for a local anarchist center. I went and didn't see anybody, but it was covered in graffiti, mostly in Greek so I couldn't read it. Whatever, I started taking pictures. Then some people came out and confronted me.

This should have been my first warning sign something was not right, because photography is not a crime. They were not violent, but they were not friendly, like asking who I was, what I wanted. They all spoke good English actually. Not uncommon in Greece. I said I was a tourist and an anarchist and I just wanted to take pictures. Then they got friendly and told me I should have asked first (but pictures are no NAP violation so I don't know why, but I didn't say anything) and they invited me inside.

We hung out for a while and smoked hash (there is no good dank in Europe as you might find out like in Cali, everyone smokes hash with tobacco which isn't as cool as it sounds). We started talking about politics and anarchism. I was trying to talk about the state, they were like yeah no doubt the state was bad. But they wanted to talk about capitalism, capitalism this and that. This is when we started to get into a debate.

I told them that what they called capitalism is different from the free market. They said capitalism is free markets. And I said I agreed. That is what I am saying. Real capitalism is free markets. And they said yes, that is what we are trying to get rid of. And I said no, but we don't even have that right now. We need more free markets. And everyone at the same time was like "nooo" we are anarchists, we are against capitalism. Anarchists oppose capitalism.

And I said but not anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists are the anarchists who support capitalism. I had a fanny pack (yeah, lame I know) for my camera and in that I had this yellow and black bowtie (also super lame, it was a joke but I wasnt wearing it). And I said look, these are the Ancap colors, yellow and black, like versus the communist red and black. Well, these guys had a lot of red and black in the building already so I thought they would get it.

I think that is when it started to get a really bad vibe, really tense in the air. The free market thing was funny, we disagreed but I think they thought I was just confused. Everyone was uncomfortable now. Then someone said markets wont work with democracy. And I said exactly, that's it, democracy is against anarchism. And they kind of agreed, and said yes, we don't have real democracy, just governments, and we needed more democracy. I said no, we need less democracy, democracy is the enemy. And we need to end democracy to have anarchy. Then they were all like "noooo" again. You know that thing people do in groups when everyone all says "nooo" or expresses some disapproval at the same time.

And one of them said "but we do want to stop democracy" and then they kind of spoke back and forth in Greek. I didn't really understand it. And they asked me what I meant.

So I said okay, I had the floor, I was going to tell them about ancapism. And I tried to explain to them some Rothbard and Hoppe. I said the natural order in anarchy is that the best rise to the top, the market picks who is the best. They compete and are peaceful. They said what do we want instead of anarchy. I said we want private owners to own their own land and businesses, and to employ people. They said that is what we have now. I said no, it would be even better. One of the guys said it was like feudalism. And I said it is not feudalism.

Eventually one of the guys spoke up and I thought he was Greek, but he spoke English perfectly so he may have not been. He said he knew what anarcho-capitalism was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if I thought everything should be private. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people were unequal. And I told him yes. And that not everyone would have equal rights. I said everyone has the right to own property and not be done aggression against. But that not everyone had to be treated equally by the owners. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that would not happen in a free market, but yes property owners could be racist if they wanted to. They had to respect property.

Then he called me a fascist again, and someone else said I was a fascist. And then they basically all started shouting fascist at me, and one of them grabbed me by the wrists. They pulled me out the door, it was up three floors, and basically drug me down the stairs on my back. It hurt really bad and I remember yelling "you're breaking the NAP" and things like that. "Stop initiating force against me." Then they kicked me around on the ground in the hallway, before they took my camera and threw me outside. I was crying and stuff, I just sat there. I was in shock because it was so sudden. Looking back there were warning signs though.

I think they felt bad for me and gave the camera back, but when I looked later they stole the memory card with all of my Greek photos.

So they initiated force and theft. They broke the NAP. I knew the left anarchists were not real anarchists, but I never knew they would do something that bad.

I wasnt seriously hurt, just kicked around a little, lots of bruises and little cuts. I am fine guys so don't worry. Just needed to share.

OwlFancier posted:

So a libertarian socialist that didn't get the circular about what the word means?

Discendo Vox posted:

Procedural question: when loving a watermelon, does one cut a hole in the fruit in advance, or must one...it just seems difficult, and more than a little uncomfortable.

Sephyr posted:

That said, I think there is a subgroup of libertarians that are fine with public healthcare under the "Give everyone a level playing field, then step back" rationale. I think even Hayek thought along those lines.

Discendo Vox posted:

Procedural question: when loving a watermelon, does one cut a hole in the fruit in advance, or must one...it just seems difficult, and more than a little uncomfortable.

OwlFancier posted:

How do you be a libertarian and also like collectivized healthcare?

Pththya-lyi posted:

What actual libertarian thing does Chomsky believe?

quote:

Chomsky: Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don’t have to talk about that! That kind of —

Wilson: It seems to be a continuing contention today …

Chomsky: Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. It's better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent.

The thing you need an argument for, and should give an argument for, is, How can we best proceed in that direction? And there are lots of ways within the current society. One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled. I mean in the long run, anarchists would like to see the state eliminated. But it exists, alongside of private power, and the state is, at least to a certain extent, under public influence and control — could be much more so. And it provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power. Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that. They’re not going to come about through private power. Quite the contrary. But they can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control … to carry forward reformist measures. I think those are fine things to do. they should be looking forward to something much more, much beyond, — namely actual, much larger-scale democratization. And that’s possible to not only think about, but to work on. So one of the leading anarchist thinkers, Bakunin in the 19th cent, pointed out that it’s quite possible to build the institutions of a future society within the present one. And he was thinking about far more autocratic societies than ours. And that’s being done. So for example, worker- and community- controlled enterprises are germs of a future society within the present one. And those not only can be developed, but are being developed. There’s some important work on this by Gar Alperovitz who’s involved in the enterprise systems around the Cleveland area which are worker and community controlled. There’s a lot of theoretical discussion of how it might work out, from various sources. Some of the most worked out ideas are in what’s called the “parecon” — participatory economics — literature and discussions. And there are others. These are at the planning and thinking level. And at the practical implementation level, there are steps that can be taken, while also pressing to overcome the worst … the major harms … caused by … concentration of private power through the use of state system, as long as the current system exists. So there’s no shortage of means to pursue.

As for state socialism, depends what one means by the term. If it’s tyranny of the Bolshevik variety (and its descendants), we need not tarry on it. If it’s a more expanded social democratic state, then the comments above apply. If something else, then what? Will it place decision-making in the hands of working people and communities, or in hands of some authority? If the latter, then — once again — freedom is better than subjugation, and the latter carries a very heavy burden of justification.

Sephyr posted:

My one libertarian friend (a woman to buck the trend, though she likes stuff like single payer so she's an outlier) told me that nearly all of her libertarian acquantainces have gone HARD into the JordyPete/Alt-Right train.

Disinterested posted:

He's an anarcho-syndicalist. One of his most basic rhetorical positions is that our use of the word libertarian in the United States reflects an appropriation of libertarianism as a concept by the right, but that historically the word had been the property of left-anarchist movements. He believes that politics should move towards a model of worker control of the means production in an increasingly stateless society.

jrodefeld posted:

OwlFancier posted:

What on earth logic did he use to make that claim because if he's a left libertarian what the hell is a right libertarian?

GunnerJ posted:

He actually cited where people sat in the National Assembly of Revolutionary France.

Mornacale posted:

Given that leftist positions, thinkers, and politicians have been almost universally ignored if not outright opposed by U.S. media for over a century, how can we possibly consider you intellectually honest when you focus on anything other than communists being given equal representation in American public discussion?

OwlFancier posted:

How do you be a libertarian and also like collectivized healthcare?

Jazerus posted:

some libertarians are socialists at their core, they just don't know it because their range of acceptable ideas is constrained by growing up in a capitalist society. they'll probably eventually figure out that the core of what they're looking for is actually nowhere to be found in libertarianism.

(i was one of those people for a couple of years)

ToxicSlurpee posted:

It isn't about tricking the left into thinking that right wing ideas are left wing ideas it's about convincing the left that right wing ideas are the correct ones.

Mr Interweb posted:

Is it, though? I mean, just look at what Realtalk tried to do, claiming he was a Jill Stein supporter. He didn't claim that he used to be a Stein supporter and then saw the light. But rather, he's a Stein supporter, and thus he can say with confidence that the Right are mostly correct about everything.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Well there's also the matter of Jrod being an incredibly dishonest poster who just throws whatever he thinks most likely to stick at the wall, which rarely works because thankfully he's also a staggeringly dim bulb.

VitalSigns posted:

P sure jrod was proselytizing for Gary "what is Aleppo" "who cares about climate when the sun will engulf the earth in 5 billion years" Johnson itt anyway.

Caros posted:

Nah, he has always hated the actual libertarian party for not being libertarian. I fully believe he voted for Jill Stein, because he is the exact sort of dupe who could be convinced into voting for her. Plus she's just as concerned about the mercury in his teeth.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Well there's also the matter of Jrod being an incredibly dishonest poster who just throws whatever he thinks most likely to stick at the wall, which rarely works because thankfully he's also a staggeringly dim bulb.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

He posted like he believed fancy words and walls of text won you arguments by default.

Goon Danton posted:

Crucially in that slave state mess, he accused us of abusing the word "slavery" to just mean "labor laws we don't like." This from the guy whose whole gimmick is that taxation is literally slavery.

fake edit: for clarity we really did mean slavery

VitalSigns posted:

Oh yeah that was the ranking system that had no entries for worker freedoms, and in fact put any worker freedoms in the category of business regulation (which was of course bad), so having de facto slavery got your country a higher freedom ranking (because Big Government wasn't muscling in to stop you from holding your guest workers' passports hostage in order to force them to work without pay/work beyond their agreed contract term/etc)

ToxicSlurpee posted:

He posted like he believed fancy words and walls of text won you arguments by default. This despite the fact that his incredible arguments were frequently torn down by like five words.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Frequently, those five words were, "lol, what is this bullshit?"

Which I use solely because the ubiquitous "on the other hand, all recorded history" is seven.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Well on history nobody has freedomed hard enough so I'm not wrong. What's the harm in just trying to freedom as hard as jrod wants? Nobody has ever tried it do you don't know for sure now do you?

But yeah there are just so many examples of why zero regulation is terrible.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

That is the standard fallback, alongside with "well them what about communism's record abloo bloo bloo? " but Jrod often brought up 18th and 19th mutual aid societies as ideal replacements for any/all social needs that might call for INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE enforced on hapless citizens by MEN WITH GUNS (aka taxes) to fund them so it was especially apt.