“libertarian” in that context appears to mean having everything controlled by a democratic government to which everyone voluntarily submits.
?! I gotta see this!
Oh, wait, nevermind:
Anti-authoritarian, anti-propertarian varieties of left-wing politics, and in particular of the socialist movement.
Libertarian socialism is the anti-state tradition of socialism.
The version of left-libertarianism defended by contemporary theorists like Vallentyne, Steiner, Otsuka, van Parijs, and Ellerman features a strong commitment to personal liberty—embracing the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership—and an egalitarian view of natural resources, holding that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.[17] On this view, unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, believing that private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources. This position is articulated in self-conscious contrast to the position of other libertarians who argue for a (characteristically labor-based) right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as land
Arguing that vast disparities in wealth and social influence result from the use of force, and especially state power, to steal and engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges, members of this school typically urge the abolition of the state. They judge that, in a stateless society, the kinds of privileges secured by the state will be absent, and injustices perpetrated or tolerated by the state can be rectified. Thus, they conclude that, with state interference eliminated, it will be possible to achieve “socialist ends by market means.”
I think you may have misunderstood the way “socialist” was being used there.
I think you may have misunderstood the way “socialist” was being used there.
They talk about the elimination of the state, and in the same breath (or at least the same Wiki article) of collective ownership of the means of production. The idea seems to be that it isn’t a “state” when it’s Us, only when it’s Them. Since it’s Us, and therefore good and right, everyone will voluntarily agree to it. Anyone who does not is Bad, and therefore not one of Us, but one of Them. Liberty is liberty to do anything that is right, that is, to agree with Us. You can have anything you like, and do anything you like, as long as it’s what We think you ought to have and do. We are truly democratic, since everyone voluntarily supports Us, but They are undemocratic, even if They have elected government, because if They had truly democratic government They would be organised like Us.
I suspect this is similar to the question for certain right-anarchists of why can’t one think of the state as defense agency, that decided to expand into other services.
I suspect the actual content of these philosophies is ideas about the optimal way to run a government/defense agency/collective ownership council.
?! I gotta see this!
Oh, wait, nevermind:
I think you may have misunderstood the way “socialist” was being used there.
They talk about the elimination of the state, and in the same breath (or at least the same Wiki article) of collective ownership of the means of production. The idea seems to be that it isn’t a “state” when it’s Us, only when it’s Them. Since it’s Us, and therefore good and right, everyone will voluntarily agree to it. Anyone who does not is Bad, and therefore not one of Us, but one of Them. Liberty is liberty to do anything that is right, that is, to agree with Us. You can have anything you like, and do anything you like, as long as it’s what We think you ought to have and do. We are truly democratic, since everyone voluntarily supports Us, but They are undemocratic, even if They have elected government, because if They had truly democratic government They would be organised like Us.
But this is politics.
You haven’t talked to many socialists, have you? But as you say, we’re dealing with a mindkiller here.
I suspect this is similar to the question for certain right-anarchists of why can’t one think of the state as defense agency, that decided to expand into other services.
I suspect the actual content of these philosophies is ideas about the optimal way to run a government/defense agency/collective ownership council.