Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

[GePap]

I think Che succinctly illustrated the core difference, which goes to the nature of the human condition. Liberterianism certainly, but even most modern liberalism follows from Enlightenment beliefs that paint human groups as somehow a voluntary gathering of soverign individuals who agreed to come together. This is an idealized and in my mind clearly non-historical picture of the start of human communities. The materialistic, non-idealisitc view is that humans are social animals. Humans don't exist alone anymore than Chimps or wolves exist alone. Our gathering into groups is part of being human and thus this predates any individual soverignty.

I don't believe in liberalism because I believe it has an incorrect view of human nature at its core, and my problem with what became modern communism is that I believe the arguement of historical determinism based on economic conditions is wrong because it itself is based on viewing human beings as primarily driven by economic concerns, something I think is incorrect.

[chequita guevara]

I'm actually in favor of individualism. What I'm looking for is a way it can be maximized. Assume for example (with numbers pull out of my ass), that you are a mountain man. No one tells you what to do, but you have to spend the vast majority of your time engaged in the business of survival. Are you really all that free? On the other hand, you could live in a society where the group tell you what to do half the time, but you have to spend almost not time engaged in the struggle for survival. Yes, people are telling you what to do, but you have half the time to yourself. Are you freer or less free than the mountain man?

There is, of course, a glaring hole in my example. Let's see who points it out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you freer or less free than the mountain man?

Depends on what you really consider free . And, of course, is a big difference between the two philosophies.

[Deity Dude]

Pertaining to Che's question/example:

I am assuming the mountain man chose to be one or at least could choose not to be. He probably considers freedom the things you consider the chores of survival. I am in general a libertarian because I look at that as the freedom of the individual to make a choice. Afterall, a group of Libertarians could get together and form a commune. The difference with that and socialism is under socialism you have no choice. The mere fact that you are born means you must become part of the society and are part of the implied social contract. The more socialistic the society the less freedom of choice.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
I'm actually in favor of individualism. What I'm looking for is a way it can be maximized. Assume for example (with numbers pull out of my ass), that you are a mountain man. No one tells you what to do, but you have to spend the vast majority of your time engaged in the business of survival. Are you really all that free? On the other hand, you could live in a society where the group tell you what to do half the time, but you have to spend almost not time engaged in the struggle for survival. Yes, people are telling you what to do, but you have half the time to yourself. Are you freer or less free than the mountain man?

There is, of course, a glaring hole in my example. Let's see who points it out.

Um, I'm not sure about mountain men, but hunter-gatherer societies actually had far more leisure time than we do. They just couldn't support as large of a population or the attendant benefits (arts, architecture, pottery, civilization). But that's not a hole so much as your argument being fundamentally flawed.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Elok


Um, I'm not sure about mountain men, but hunter-gatherer societies actually had far more leisure time than we do. They just couldn't support as large of a population or the attendant benefits (arts, architecture, pottery, civilization). But that's not a hole so much as your argument being fundamentally flawed.

FWIW, my friend who is an anthropology Ph. D. told me hunter-gatherers are estimated to having worked 6h/day.

[Elok]

I heard five. Either way, it beats farm life.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
I'm actually in favor of individualism. What I'm looking for is a way it can be maximized. Assume for example (with numbers pull out of my ass), that you are a mountain man. No one tells you what to do, but you have to spend the vast majority of your time engaged in the business of survival. Are you really all that free? On the other hand, you could live in a society where the group tell you what to do half the time, but you have to spend almost not time engaged in the struggle for survival. Yes, people are telling you what to do, but you have half the time to yourself. Are you freer or less free than the mountain man?

There is, of course, a glaring hole in my example. Let's see who points it out.

I think you miss my primary point. Socialists are not suggesting that they are trying to hurt people's welfare. Far from it. Socialists believe in maximizing the total good for the society (eg the total good summed over all individuals in the society), and believe they can make that number higher than if each individual was out for himself. Libertarians believe in allowing each individual to maximize his own good individually, even if that leads to less total good for the society (but generally believing that it does not, because social mechanisms are flawed).

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I think you miss my primary point. Socialists are not suggesting that they are trying to hurt people's welfare. Far from it. Socialists believe in maximizing the total good for the society (eg the total good summed over all individuals in the society), and believe they can make that number higher than if each individual was out for himself. Libertarians believe in allowing each individual to maximize his own good individually, even if that leads to less total good for the society (but generally believing that it does not, because social mechanisms are flawed).

Libertarians always believe that a society made up of the sum of individuals making choices in their own self interest will exceed a society where a person or group of people make choices for them.

Libertarians are not necessarily individualistic, they just don't want to be told what they HAVE to join, or who they must allow to join them. Like I said earlier, a group of libertarians could very easily for a commune, but it would be their choice. It is the coercion through threat of force or incarceration by governments without any choice of the individual (i.e. the implied social contract) that Libertarians object to. It is the same sort of extortion a mafia boss might put over his territory, "pay up or pay the consequences", for "protection money" except this has the legitimacy of the term "government".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
Um, I'm not sure about mountain men, but hunter-gatherer societies actually had far more leisure time than we do. They just couldn't support as large of a population or the attendant benefits (arts, architecture, pottery, civilization). But that's not a hole so much as your argument being fundamentally flawed.

No, your point is no flaw in my argument. In hunter gatherer tribes there was a division of labor and the presence of a number of people mean that work was shared, and thus lessened for everyone. Hermits/mountain men have to rely on themselves for everything.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Pertaining to Che's question/example:

I am assuming the mountain man chose to be one or at least could choose not to be. He probably considers freedom the things you consider the chores of survival.

A person in prison could consider himself free. That doesn't make him free. So the mountain man's consciousness of his situation has no bearing on whether or not he actually is free. In that he must spend considerably more effort and time surviving, he has less time to do anything else. His entire life is consumed in trying to stay alive.

No, the glaring hole in my example is this: what limits the society to only intruding on your time for the minimum necessary amount? Just because society only needs half of your time, why would it necessarily not take more, if it has the power to do so?

Of course, the counter to that is, society is made of of other people, very much like yourself. If they are the ones controlling society (socialism is supposed to be democratic, after all), then we all are the ones who make the choice as to how much we must give to maintain society and how much we have free to do whatever we please.

The paradox of the two ideologies is that while libertarianism proclaims as its goal the maximum freedom for the individual, a liberation society means the most people have a lot less liberty, while a few have a lot more. Socialism, on the other hand, distributes the necessary work, so that we minimize the amount of work we all have to do. What is left, then, is up to us, so our liberty is maximized.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Theben
Christopher Hitchens said libertarianism and socialism are two sides of the same coin.

There's certainly a lot of crossover between the two factions. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the socialist-turned-libertarians turn back to being socialists again in the current economic climate.

It would be interesting to make a list of libertarian thinktanks, and see where they've drifted to in ten years time. My bet is that some of them will be socialist in all but name.

[Theben]

Anarchists grow up to be libertarians. Socialists apparently become neocons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The paradox of the two ideologies is that while libertarianism proclaims as its goal the maximum freedom for the individual, a liberation society means the most people have a lot less liberty, while a few have a lot more. Socialism, on the other hand, distributes the necessary work, so that we minimize the amount of work we all have to do. What is left, then, is up to us, so our liberty is maximized.

.... depending on what you call liberty .

[chequita guevara]

I define it as being free from compulsion. So the more time you have free from what you are compelled to do, by nature or society, the more liberty you have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like I said, depends on what you call liberty. Some would only consider compulsion by society to be anthetical to liberty.