After much procrastination THE MERCH STORE is finally here! mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products Also subscribestar is open with some extra content!: www.subscribestar.com/mentiswave
Hey, Mentis. I suggest debunking that TH-camr "Left Sphere" (@LeftSphere). He seems to have (correction: DEFINITELY HAS) the mentality of a 7-year-old.
Nice. Here's my watered-down argument against libertarian socialism (sorry for poor organization). --- If socialism was truly voluntary, it wouldn't be socialism. Also, for the argument that "sOcIALiSm hAs nEVeR bEen TrIEd," check the history of the Plymouth colony and how collective ownership failed. BTW, for the libsocs and anarchists, even if you believe capitalism is exploitative, if you understand the tragedy in Plymouth, you'd realize that under socialism, exploitation exists as by the collective against the individual. Also, for syndicalists, there are instances of union corruption and abuse. Finally, the cononut hoarding analogy, you do realize that this is unrealistic, and what if the other guy was asleep? Would you share or hoard it all for yourself? Probably, probably not. Plus, the answer reflects more about individual morality than the problems of the economic system. Remember, economics does not focus on ethical philosophy.
What's interesting is many ancoms claim work in their society would be completely voluntary, yet Kropotkin himself believed communes should kick out or "disassociate with" those who refuse to do their "fair share." Basically if you don't do the jobs the commune thinks you should be doing, you will be denied resources and a livelihood.
@@altideasfortomorrow Capitalism is voluntary since you literally don't need to work. Technically no one forces you to do anything. Hell, there are even people who have accumulated so much wealth that they stopped working and now they chill on their private islands.
@@altideasfortomorrow The definition of slavery is that it is not voluntary and that you are forbidden to quit your duty. Nobody is gonna stand with a gun to their head in capitalism when they try to leave their job.
@@cyablu6538 Yes, that is my point. Unless you have post-scarcity, or some sort of generous UBI, work will always be involuntary. All economic systems are coercive.
Right, they don't actually want or expect a free market. The intent of Libertarian Socialism is to combine libertarian social attitudes with socialist economic attitudes to create a state where you can do whatever you want at any time but are always cared for and have to suffer no social or material consequences. This is *also* a stupid idea and basically impossible, but not so obviously contradictory as the video lets on.
y'all complain about libertarian socialism not working and yet libertarian socialist projects like the zapatista movement and fejuve had been around for over 3 decades now
Total tankie victory would be the most annoying thing ever. Because, as you stand against the wall, waiting your turn for your brain to be liberated from your skull, you'd be next to ancoms. In that moment, you'd find no catharsis, because the ancom would never be smart enough to realize they were wrong. Instead, you'd spend your final moments seething as the ancom wonders aloud, "how did the fascists manage to infiltrate and corrupt our plan?"
@@valentinfeusi63 Ancoms empower the tankies by pushing for dumb ideas that were specifically designed to give the tankies power through deception, coercion, and manipulation. Ancoms are the useful idiots, and that's the point, often unwittingly openly handing all the power over to the tankies and yet they'll not even be intelligent enough to see this when those people get power and come to kill them off.
being an "anarcho"-communist and supporting state welfare and such is like being an anarcho-capitalist but applauding the idea of the state making smartphones Just because you're a fan of the end result, you don't get to support it regardless of how it's done It's quite literally like calling yourself a vegan and eating chicken, just because you strive for vegan chicken in the grander scheme of things, but yakno, until you get some, might as well get some real chicken
I think they are only an-archy/anti-order in that they are against the CURRENT state and will promptly substitute their own power structure. It's like a warlord taking over do they think of themselves as anything remotely like the same sort of thing as the government they just displaced?
yeah, anarcho communism being in favor of socialism makes 0 sense, the whole thing about anarcho communism is that you're communist but without the socialism in the mid of the process...
Just because it's "not their brand of radical left-wing" doesn't mean they hate all other left-wing things. It makes sense for them to like welfare seeing as it culls the worst of capitalism, which is better than leaving it unhinged.
@@yungpr1ma588 I can steal your money, paint your driveway and ask you the same about driving on my paint. You can't opt out of using their services. They have a violently enforced monopoly.
17:06 Also they already have this. Really if "Libertarian" Socialists don't want big government solution to achieving Socialism nothing stops them. Infact them citing co op successes in their works only makes OUR point. "Oh so you CAN have successful co ops without government? Then why don't you make them then? We aren't stopping you so why aren't you doing anything?"
You are stopping it. Coops work to great success in, say, spain because the government doesn't make it neigh immpossible. Same reason there's a large public banking sector in Germany, but not the US. The US government purposefully squishes every coop it can with a slough of taxes, arbitrary rules, anti labor propaganda campaigns, and plenty of collusion/acceptance with rich corporation owners (see Amazon labor union silencing). This system is far better and works in societies where the CIA hasn't been telling people liberals are socialists their entire lives. Socialism has been telling you the game is rigged since it's inception and all you can say is "if it's rigged why don't you play better?" Because the poor don't have the money to do that!
@@luna010so you're a libertarian socialist while being okay with the economic laws of today? How does this make sense at all? Just say you like coops and quit the edgy ideological title.
@@lightfeather9953 IMO, the idea is that after enough time, if they prove successful, co-ops will become more popular than other models of business and thus eventually become baked into law because the majority of people would want it. It's a slow "revolution" of people's values and ideas about how the economy ought to work that ends up being borne out in experience and choice. IMO, anyone who is a "libertarian socialist" who is also proposing some sort of quick-fix gov't-overthrow-type revolution is selling you a bridge
If you leave “social security” up to the individual, like how it was decades ago, the burden of caring for the elderly would once again fall upon the family and community. We have strayed away from community and family values, which is a big shame.
We've also wrecked the tribal family structure with modern methods of transportation, that one is unfixable but also an effective form of private social security.
Hard disagree, I do not want to take care of relatives who didn't take care of me, but that doesn't mean I don't want the goverment to have adequate ways of helping the elderly
When I was in high school I was a "Libertarian Socialist." Then I realized how stupid, illogical and contradictory that was so now I am just a minarchist libertarian.
My answer to the Coconut Island analogy: "When tyranny arises, humans usually kill their overlord and divide the spoils for themselves." We only need a political system when we want to work together.
As my alcoholic dad would say, you have to sleep sometime. He would be one of the 150 tragically killed by coconuts every year and with no witnesses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut
Just took the test myself and got Libertarian Anarchist... Not sure how I feel about that. I guess it fits that my biggest gripe in being born this early is that we're at least a century away before I can just blast off into space and become a space farmer or something. Light years away from the nearest bureaucrat. Post : Also, really youtube? You're censoring my comments now?
I got the same result (libertarian/anarchist), and am not suprised. My trust in government, accelerated by how they reacted to covid, is at an all time low; I am beginning to reach the conclusion that even a "minarchist" system cannot be sufficiently constrained to prevent it from overstepping bounds.
you'll get used to it. i was an "anarchist in denial" as i called it for months and months. I was essentially a minarchist on the very edge before being in the "no more State" category. I saw Michael Malice do a podcast appearance with What Bitcoin Did (episode is called "Understanding Anarchism with Michael Malice"), and he asked Michael about the difference between Libertarians and Anarchists and Michael just said: "6 months." and yeah, that seems about right.
@@rarelycold6618 USA almost became an ancap land, but the founders didn't crossed the line and now the country is the representation of what is wrong with "modern capitalism".
Did anyone else hear anarcho-communism and immediately start thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Or am I old in addition to being incredibly nerdy?
This always felt like a trick to me. It sounds like a dream and it mostly is. "Libertarian Socialism", like all Socialisms, cannot survive contact with reality, but "Libertarian Socialism" will bring about the worst form of State tyranny. I honestly fear this type of Socialism the most. "Libertarian Socialism" evangelizes being yourself to the fullest degree, while not having to worry about anything, because the State will handle any shortcomings. This sounds "nice", but its effects on Society are insidious and this is seems to be by design. It creates an uncompromising nature in people, which makes it impossible for different groups to come to an understanding, while promoting schisms inside groups making them wholly weaker. Thus creating a greater reliance on the State for support as "Individuals" become increasingly isolated. You see this today with Identity Politics and such. They seemingly want people to abandon everything in pursuit of their "True Self", and to admonish anyone who questions this. I called this a trick and I mean it. You have to understand, the part where this is a Contradictory ideology does not matter to them, its an intended quality. Socialists in general do not care for Contradictions and "Libertarian Socialism" is no different, they simply want Socialism. "Libertarian Socialism's" true intentions seem to be to fracture society to the point where any organized resistance could never form, since no one would be able to trust each other or would be too dependent on the state for support. In its end state you'll be sad, alone, and addicted to the State. It's a trick.
If you think Libertarian socialism = state tyranny, you're terminally online. It is anti - state. Calling these people for supporting welfare programs because that's about as much they can do right now is just hypocrisy on your part. American Libertarians are willingly working with the Republicans who will end up with stronger government power (project 2025). So, I guess that means that Libertarian are in fact okay with a powerful state as long as they aren't the ones being oppressed.
I call it the Political Triforce, but yeah. Ultimately, all forms of anarchy converge and are mutually exclusive from either progressive or traditionalist statism.
it'll either have the same stigma attached to it, or it'll be taken over by "voluntarist socialists" without a shred of voluntaryism in them. it's a good word, but defend the words we have from new speak.
Marxism wanted a stateless society, because Marx saw the state's main function as to support capitalists and protect private property. So a state is no longer needed when property rights are abolished.
@@Pottsdie yeah, but what they did was create capitalism but with "elected" leaders. They were rich people that saw how they could break the broken system in their favor.
Marxism is just incoherent. So the state is supposed to just magically dissolve once it's no longer needed to enforce socialism, and then you're left with... Anarchy-capitalism.
@@PhilosophicalZombieHunter not really, he thought that to achive communism there need to be a strong socialist state to change how people thought so that communism could be achieved.
8:43 "Chad always takes control of all his projects" This is the sentence that made me really reconsider. I am reading _The Battle For Spain_ to know what happened to the anarchists then, and what I've seen so far is that they trusted the socialists too much and were eventually invisibilised. I'll continue reading, but I still have the doubt of whether this will always happen or it could have been avoided.
This video mainly, if not entirely, criticizes the Marxian theory of socialism. Marx defined the 'state' in a way completely different from practically any other political theorist, which is where a lot of confusion and fallacious tactic stems from. However, it didn't much address other 'schools' of 'libertarian socialism', so I would say this is more leaning toward a debunking of Marxism, libertarian Marxism, and every other retarded Marxian theory. Great video nonetheless, big fan of your content so far and you've earned yourself a subscriber.
Yep. A big overarching theme of the video I was going with is pointing out how Socialism effectively requires a fairly hefty government state body or logically equivalent system for it to even operate, and thus the "LibSoc" claim of wanting a stateless society is as irrational and unobtainable as trying to get 5 from 1+1. That in a nutshell is why the concept of Libertarian Socialism is nonsense - it's doomed to either end with them ceding power to the tankies, or fail to ever get off the ground.
@@MentisWaveDo you not think citing market socialism which originated from the literal original Anarchist, Proudhon, as leading to an authoritarian state was a slippery slope, if not just a non sequitur? Have you actually come across Mutualism?
@@xenn4985 If the thought of lifting govt control and democratising large workplaces scares you, then I'd suggest reading some essays by Proudhon or listening to videos from Gary Chartier. These aren't extreme ideas. They're market based libertarian solutions to modern capitalist state problems.
funny thing is I've seen leftists call libertarianism "fascism", because apparently wanting limited government is the same as wanting the government involved in everything
@@GenericUsername-o7d "Socialism is an economic system in which major industries are owned by the workers, rather than by private businesses or the state. It is different from capitalism, where private actors, like business owners and shareholders, can own the means of production." the wikipedia definition. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." the Oxford definition "(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism." the Oxford definition, again
@@TheOverseerDDF Who gets to make the decisions for the workers/owners? I hate to have to reiterate the obvious, but.....they can't all be bosses? Because with more than one person, you will always have not just differing, but opposing values, preferences, tastes, ways of thinking, priorities, desires, needs, and quirks, or traits & opinions that seem unreasonable or silly to others. No group of people can agree on any specifics if they all have the same power. There have to be boundaries & limitations, and someone has to set & enforce them, while everyone else agrees to them. If everyone tries to set boundaries and laws you will chaos and fighting.
I was given the most circuitous nonsensical arguments when I told libertarians on Reddit that libertarian socialism was an oxymoron, another contribution from the party of mental disorders.
This video is one of them. Socialism isn't always "state-ran", contrary to what right-wingers might say. As a bonus, libertarian socialist communes have existed in the past!!! (such as the CNT/FAI anarchists in Catalonia, before they made the mistake of collaborating with the totalitarians and liberals due to the nationalist threat)
@@TheOverseerDDF The video covers what you're saying. If you and some of your friends want to voluntarily give up your property and found a commune, then that's something you're allowed to do in the present-day US, no move away from capitalism necessary. But since most people, or at least most of those who control a disproportionately large share of resources and have the most to lose, wouldn't do so voluntarily, it couldn't yield the results you're probably hoping for without resorting to violence, such as physical violence or forcibly taking their property. You might respond, "It's not the state that would do the taking! It'd be a well-organized group of people!" But one fairly common, and commonsense, definition of a state is that which has a monopoly on violence, meaning it's hard if not virtually impossible to distinguish this group from a state. At this point, denying that this brand of socialism is state-ran would boil down to a dumb semantic game.
auth right people may respect property right more than auth left people but thats a very low bar to clear. most authy right people I know are classical corporatists.
@@tavernburner3066 well I haven’t heard of classical corporatism until now. I thought you were just referring to corporatism as in economic fascism (which many people believe is a mixed economy, making fascism authoritarian and economically centrist.) I did look it up and it says that communists, economic liberals, fascists and socialists have advocated for corporatist models, all of which have varying degrees of economically left and right policies. So I’m not sure either.
@@sorendipitous Why do you guys keep making this argument as if it's a good thing. Left libertarianism failed due to the inherent contradictions. That's like saying "ships literally started as wood before you made cruise liners" - yeah it was replaced with something radically more advanced. Seethe more.
what about in slavery? slaves' human rights are being violated but any government intervention would be infringing upon the slave owners' private property rights
@@captainketchuphater63 no. Humans can't be property. You calling a human property doesn't make them one. Humans have self ownership rights which are inherent in their humanity. So you can't bypass the human in the conversation... Same with abortion. Slavery can't exist with a right wing worldview which is why slave owners were openly socialist and 99.9% were democrats. You are violating the natural rights of the human being kept in bondage against his or her will. Natural law theory vs Legal Positivism... This is the dichotomy between the left and right. On the right we believe in human rights. Aka natural law theory. Democrats do not. They believe the government gives you your rights so they can take them away.
@@marcusdavenport1590 also, libertarians believe in homesteading and trade. it's impossible to separate a person from their self-ownership unless you turn them into a body or robot. same as how ideas cannot be property due to the nature of ideas, people cannot be property due to the nature of free will.
A syndicate is democratic and ran collectively by the workers. A company is not democratic and is ran by the rich founders and their children, basically a monarchy.
@LeoJimenez-j8j is the same propaganda than the state "is semocratic and ran by the people." You literally confirm my point. Not because you believe that your union wouldn't make the same crimes than the state it would be truth, I'm from south america, I know very well what those hollingangs can do, in the countryside of my homeland Perú they forced with violence people to march, and in the 80's they killed people. In Argentina those b*statds take money from workers by the force of the state and the law. Unions are as worse as the state. And yes not all of them are bad, but guess what, all of those who don't follow a left idiology and are nor related with the state are the only ones that I respect. But the same logic works for companies. The worse thing is that I already read your books, Koprotkin, Chomsky, Proudhon, Malatesta, Bakunin etc. But the ancoms never, and I mean never tried to read Bastiat, Mollinari, Huerta de Soto, Anxo Bastos, Bagus or even basic authors like Rothbard, Mises or Hayek. Is upsetrong because I feel that we (libright) treat this midwits with the respect that they don't show or they deserve.
This is what I call a "closed communist". They don't want to admit to being communist, or might not be aware of it. But maybe they'll manage to have a coming out one day.
The point of getting anyone like this to at least accept anti-statism is the golden arches theory. We must prevent conflict with Popper's peacefuls and coalition form to dismantle the state's monopolies and machinations.
6:30 "Noam Chomsky - anarcho syndicalist". How that makes any sense? Syndicate by definition is a group of companies who united to destroy any competition and form a monopoly, they control resources and giving them based on needs or importance of companies inside syndicate. So how it can be anarchic and why it is considered as part of Libertarian/Socialism? Isn't it Cyberpunk dystopia? Where no State (anarchism) and Megacorporations are making monopolies?
Syndicalist mostly want the Government to be ran by a collection of small localized unions, which make up a bigger centralized government. I suppose anarcho syndicalist want a government ran by a democratic union of workers, which wouldn't make it any more different then communism, except how the classless utopia is ushered in.
The thing that I find really funny about the “coconut island” analogy is that, pushed to its natural conclusion, all the other guy without the coconuts would have to do is just… find a big and/or sharp stick, go back to the guy with the coconuts and say “share or get shanked, your choice”. Like… all you would have to do in that situation is find a weapon and force the bastard to share. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that. It’s not even that good of an analogy my guy
I recently discovered your channel and you have a lot of great videos. I was an "anarcho-communist" for 8 years and I'm still trying to understand more about other political ideologies I shunned out, I've been particularly gravitating to minarchism or right winged libertarianism. Do you have any recommendations for channels similar to yours? Keep up the good work
Libertarian Socialism is not only effective, but the most successful form of organisation we have. Families, Amish, open source, burning man, literally any small community. That being said, libertarian socialism is only possible for small communities. Libertarian Socialism essentially lifts the free market one rung up and puts the individual into small, socialist communities where everyone is capable of knowing everyone else's needs and society is based on humanities innate goodness. It's essentially 'love thy neighbour', however this is predicated on 'knowing your neighbour'.
16:38 Wrote this comment before getting to this part of the video. My point is, we have this. People do this. To the extent that people do it, it's effective. To the extent that people don't, it isn't. Any community that operates in a socialist way must be done in a free market, where successful communities rise and fall based on their own merit. Those communities can have whatever rules they want, with members being free to leave at any time.
@@humanperson8418 This implies that in your family, you give give give, and there is no transactional nature to it, which is just false. My family has decided that my privilaged brother gets everything, even though he created his own problems. He will inherit the property and the money, despite impregnating two different women as a triple felon. Is that the sort of libertarian socialism you want to enact? If I find such a system intolerable, is it because I'm failing to "love thy brother" or "honor thy father and thy mother" enough? What a total load this post is.
Ok, extremely well spoken, uses memes to explain things, and Touhou? You've got my sub. Especially so for pointing out fake arguments that look way smarter in the moment than they actually are
@@janfungusamon4926 Fascism is just a holistic, schizophrenic form of Socialism that happens to be nationalistic. Fascism is not compatible with anything remotely Libertarian.
19:12 The Coconut Fallacy can be used to "show" why pure or direct democracy doesn't work just as well. All it takes is a third survivor who conspires with the first one; they both vote that you're their bitch and have to do whatever they say, and, well, the majority decided it so what are you complaining about, fascist?
I really appreciate how well done this and your other of your videos are. Not allowing them to play into their false word games, redefinitions, etc. is one of the best ways to lay bare there idiocy and deception.
I'm a slight right leaning Libertarian on a standard political compass quiz and Libertarian on the border of progressive on the advocates quiz. It's interesting that one quiz says I'm on the right and the other says left.
Libertarian socialism, is fascism in practice. Mussolini's government was basically unions being organized under the state. "A bundle of sticks" is the basic idea.
Oh my god, that’s corporatism. Syndicalism is collectively owned workers unions, who democratically vote on decisions. Syndicates are not controlled by the state, “corporations” in corporatism are.
But did Mussolini's Italy have government-owned businesses, or did the state simply own the trade unions that operate within private businesses in order to exert their influence?
@LeoJimenez-j8j In that case all syndicates become corporations. When considering human nature and the fact that humans will only work or innovate when reward is in reach, democratically owned businesses are garunteed to collapse and the unions will fall under the state, so all businesses owned by syndicates results in said syndicates becoming a corporation.
I feel like libertarian socialism works in communes full of people that actually voluntarily work and buy into the ideology. They can kick people out and people can leave voluntarily whenever they want. Basically, a bunch of ideologists larping as socialists in a wider society. Which would basically need to be a non socialist libertarian one if they are going to be allowed to do this stuff without getting more resources extracted from them from someone higher up.
Right, economics is not a zero-sum game, you can always produce more of a good But land is actually zero-sum, there's just so much land on earth, unless the sea levels fall, we make artificial islands or we colonize another planet
@@KanzlerOttoVonBismarck Land is more than enough. It's possible to build more than 10x the buildings the whole world have, our underground also can be more explored and populated.
A problem with these compasses is putting libertarian and authoritarian as the equal but opposite terms... yes they are opposites as authoritarians cannot be libertarians and vise verse.. but authoritarian is something that can encompass multiple political philosophies and just means total government control.. libertarianism is a specific political philosophy (yes it has multiple branches) not every philosophy that hates government is libertarian
What's quite weird and fascinating (mostly in regard to how stupid its believers are), is that anarcho-communism regarding its literal definition is technically just the original communism since Marx's original incarnation of communism advocated for a no-government series of communes. However, the interesting stupidity aspect comes from how ancoms want more government...aka the "anarcho" part is completely removed which defeats the entire point of the name.
I would like to point out that if you flip the revised political compass across the conservative-progressive axis, then rotate it forty-five degrees counter-clockwise, you get pretty much exactly what the poltical compass is, except you've changed the ways people define all the connecting attributes. You replace Auth-Right with conservative, Auth-Left with Authoritarian, Lib-Right with Libetarian, and Lib-Left with Progressive. For the most part, these classifications are preserved and just redefined. The axises even just switch terms. Instead of calling you either economically right or left, it calls you either pro or anti economic freedom. Instead of calling you either libertarian or authoritarian, it calls you either pro or anti personal freedom. It's functionally a libertarian biased political compass. You can even see this in the design, putting libertarian on the top, desipte the fact that two axises are almost always put in an x/y coordinate plane. The only reason you could argue that design choice would be to make a scale of more versus less freedom going up or down, but even this fails when you notice that it implies that someone who is completely for personal freedom and completely against economic freedom (100,0) is more pro freedom than someone who is mostly for both (70,70), while also implying that they are more anti freedom than someone who is mostly opposed to both (30,30). It unironically implies a radical progressive or conservative is more pro freedom than a moderate libertarian, while also implying that they are more anti freedom than a moderate authoritarian. It literally says Mod-Libereratrian
About 4 funny square Political Compass, the up/down axes only refers to restriction of personal liberties and increase in government control over people. Aka down axes just refers to how little government control over your personal freedoms you want. Technically Libertarian Socialism could exist... But technically it would just be a bunch of Libertarians who voluntarily agreed to run their businesses on co op model. Also we technically have AuthRight states rn, Singapore is an example, they have strict control over personal freedoms but businesses have way more freedoms then in other nations(Singapore ranked #1 on economic freedom index several times, hope you cover it someday)
The 4 quadrant spectrum isn't accurate. You're limiting your thinking by using this flawed spectrum The person who thinks that free humans can't work out how to trade for healthcare is authoritarian... If you vote for something like Medicare for all... you're saying you want to more than DOUBLE my taxes (according to the study that Bernie Sanders uses) and if I don't pay you'll send men with guns to lock me in a cage just for wanting to be free and live my life the way I did yesterday. If I say no, you'll have me killed via your vote. Economic freedom and personal freedom are bound together. The people who would trample economic freedom are also trampling personal freedom.
I took the quiz. It’s really easy. All I had to read was the first few words ‘the government should not….’ AGREE. The government should not ‘anything ever at all’
Wait a minute... I'm a libertarian?!? I thought I was classified as a conservative what with my "the less of the state, the better" and all that. Maybe I'm a center/right kinda guy.
Thanks for that political quiz! I took it and I think it might've been decently accurate. (I got strong libertarian slightly to the right.) I took another political quiz and it said me not wanting to give welfare to illegal immigrants was "nationalist." That's a pretty low bar for "nationalism" if you ask me.
refusing to give welfare to people who escaped from the poverty and tyranny of their home countries just because of imaginary lines in the sky is not nationalism, but possibly even racism
I mostly agree with this video, but conservatives (at least in America) are usually not socially authoritarian, they're just less libertarian than the libertarians, and libertarians only see them as authoritarian because they use themselves as the reference point instead of centrists
5:32 The main thing I disagree with with your "better political compass" is terminology. In my experience most people that call themselves and other people call conservative value personal rights more than government control with only a few exceptions (mainly gay marriage). If conservative applied to people who didn't value personal rights then Orwells 1984 would be about a conservative dystopia, with all the spying in meddling in the characters personal lives in order to find nonconforming thoughts, when it is conservatives who cry that 1984 is what we want to avoid I think the separation of the two into whole different quadrants rather than being just slightly different points in the same quadrant is just to make conservatives look bad
yes, you're using the better chart! i spam that thing when i can although as mark passio points out it's actually a binary: those who believe in the legitimacy of authority and those who don't. 😎
I don’t believe you can have a meaningful political compass with any less than three axes. But considering only personal and property rights is an interesting way of putting things. Your diamond combines the economic axis with the authoritarian axis, unlike the conventional square, which nonsensically combines economic with cultural.
1. You can't just take the compass that fits your case to "debunk" it and 2. that definition of "Libertarian is ancap which is a very different thing. Libertarian socialist is bad wording as they are actually communists concerned with the UNRESTRICTED state power. Hence "anarcho-communists" 3. Then why did the Catalonian, Ukranian and Kurdish societies work and upkeep the highest possible living standarts in times of chaos and civil war, despite NOT being helped, or rather being actively crushed by the worlds biggest powers (especially the USSR) 4. Stop arguing against statist communism, we hate tankies all the same and don't support their methods that always lead to authoriarian state-capitalism. 5. You are marked free from class-consciousness
1. There's no way in hell you can achieve muh "true socialism" without the tyrannical tankie way. 2.There's no such thing as state capitalism, what you mean by that is cronist state funded corporatism.Very popular in the modern day West and China.
Something I realized after listening to a few videos of yours, that kind of explains my own thoughts in a good way about the fact that if violence is committed against you or your family, then obviously that person has given up their rights by committing that violence, i.e it is no longer wrong for you to commit violence against them in return. Most sane people understand this and agree whether they are libertarian, progressive or anything. So the part that was really making me struggle was how to reconcile that with the fact that in the world we live you cant actually act on that freedom of violence against this person, because that would put you yourself in trouble instead. Obviously if the legal system can find fault in that person they will get punished by the collective of society through the laws we have in place. But what happens then if the legal system cant prove that violence was committed against you? You know it happened and want to do something about it, but you cant and if you do it anyways youre the criminal. Listening to you has made me realize that this is effectively the rest of society voting that you didnt have ownership of yourself, and the other party had the right to harm you. I.e it is the democratic system, by majority decision, deciding that you have less rights. The issue this takes me to however is that there isnt really any other way either. Its not like a more libertarian state could actually solve this, since if you cant prove it then that more libertarian state would still be forced to treat you as the perpetrator of violence against an innocent victim, i.e youd still be the one breaking the NAP. You also cant really solve this in a more tribal, might makes right society (which I take issue with some of your characterisations of might makes right as wrong, since it is ultimately what all of society is based on even now.) where if you take matters into your own hands others around you who might be individually stronger than you, or if not then still stronger together than you are alone might still decide that youre the one in the wrong because they dont have proof that the other guy did anything wrong in the first place to justify your violence, or because its a more tribal society they might also just not care, i.e it might lead to a blood feud for all youre in the right. Contemplating what Ive heard has given me a bit more clarity, but I really cant figure out any true solution in the end, beyond the ridiculous idea of an absolute surveillance state which cant really be justified and still wouldnt actually solve anything because there are always flaws. So in the end I still cant see any other solution than some amount of egoism in your personal ideology to go through life with. I.e if you cant solve things in any other way you have to take things into your own hands despite the consequences or beliefs of the rest of society, you have to do it despite the rest of society then seeing you as the aggressor for it. Its reality coming in the way of ideology, something that cant be solved in any way except personal strength and action, there is no ideology that can solve imperfect information.
Realistic libertarian Socialism just means a more decentralized form of welfare. So a city manages the specifics of how a welfare is implemented independently of the state. The point is that the community is more involved and has to take responsibility in the care of their dispossessed neighbors. In that system people can't just blame the state for the poverty in their community and call it a day, while not having to take any responsibility for it themselves. This is basically how "welfare" (where it existed) in the past has always functioned.
no it don't mean that, read anything by emma goldman or errico malastesta(forgot how you spell his name) and look at projects like fejuve or the zapatistas for example, realistic libertarian socialism never was just welfare like you inplying
I think there is only One Place where Socialism or Communism might 'MAYBE' work. In family units and Tribes of less then 100 people. That tend to have to live in cordination with one another or im wrong
Anarcho-primitivism is the way forward as industrial society has been proven to be a disaster that will only create more existential threats to all living organisms on planet Earth.
I do plan to cover cryptocurrency a bit more as time goes on, currently only have one video that makes mention of it. Agorism and counter-economics will likely get a mention in that.
The fundamental issue with this is that Marx didn't know what he was talking about and so the read is fundamentally biased and slanted towards saying a left wing position like this can exist becuase there is no analysis that the tankie who believes this can do to understand its in compatibilities.
I think it's important to point out that private property and personal property are two different things under socialism. Private property most often refers to large assets, or capital, etc, in socialism.
I'm an IT freelancer. I work on my private laptop doing IT stuff for whoever hires me, then, when I'm free, I play Fallout or whatever game I'm currently interested in. Is my laptop a private property or personal property?
"Large capital" is so incredibly vague that it could mean anything What is considered large capital? A house, car, conputer, apple? What is the difference between a 300k house and a 2m house? For that definition to even be considered plausible we need a specific definition that holds up to scrutiny
It is simple, libertarianism is about limited government while socialism is about the collectivization of private property, they are mutually exclusive. How are you gonna prevent someone from owning private property without a state?? You CAN'T
You all CHOOSE to share the property bro. Pretty simple concept no? Thats the LIBERTARIAN part of lib soc. Everyone CHOOSES to participate in the system. There is democratic control of the workplace… how are these hard for you guys to understand
@@altideasfortomorrow But what if an individual chooses to have their own business or property outside of the collective commune, how can you stop me from freely trading like a capitalist. Will you expropriate my property like a marxist-leninist or excommunicate me from your voluntary planned economy like some kind of left-wing hoppean?
@@SpencerYT138 if you choose not to participate in the community, you have the right to leave. How would it be any different under a capitalistic system, where you either work, own the means of production yourself, or leave? Id imagine in a libsoc commune, you’d do your share of work, or leave? No economic system is voluntary unless your base needs are met. What would you do under capitalism if you didnt want to participate in the system?
@@SpencerYT138 also why wouldnt you be able to start your own business as long as members of your business have equal say as you? The assumption is that youre partaking in the commune the same as everyone else, and hiring from the commune. Assuming you chose to be in the commune (community of choice) then why not leave anyone? You used commune resources (in the form of food, labour, housing) then claim the results as your own (assuming thats what you meant by a business)? Could you elaborate though so I can respond more directly? Regarding property, I think if you use it, its yours. You live in your house, you use your tools to utilize your labor to make a living, etc. vs where you just owning unused EXTRA land and renting it out is where Id imagine a commune or community of individuals would draw the line when that land can do far more?
4:27 "Imagine you did not have the right to defend your house from a robber" - I don't have to imagine, I live in Britain where it is fully illegal to use "excessive force" or "force that exceeds necessary force" in any situation. If the court rules that you used too much force in defending your house you go to prison
Also, isn't the problem with coconut island analogy is that it is technically the direct outcome of idea of labour being equal to value? The guy put labour into collecting coconuts, so now he should own 100% of fruits of his labour, shouldn't he? (Analogy also completly ignores that part of property rights is ability to defend said property rights, so the moment the guy would walk to sleep he's refusal to buy defense agreement from you would result.in him getting robbed. Which would not prove socialism is right, just that natural monopolies are impossible to maintain.)
So you believe in property rights until you don't like them and then you say it's morally justified to redistribute wealth because he should have defended him self and might makes right and still don't see that that is exactly the point of the thought experiment.
@@justantoThe thought experiment doesn't work as an analogy because it purports that pleasuring the coconut man is the ONLY means of surviving. In a real free market this is never the case. Therefore the analogy is meaningless.
@@nathancollins1715 lol. how do you aquire the basic necessities of life outside of the capitalist system in the real world? how do you get food? shelter? are you going to just will some free land into existence and start farming? Where are you going to get the seeds or livestock? You live on coconut island and you don't realize it because you already have a source of coconuts.
@@justanto Actually, I live on a version of coconut island where rather than one man offering me coconuts, there are thousands, and they're all constantly trying to outbid each other to get me to purchase their coconuts over the others. Eventually, the cost of these coconuts will settle into (labor value + marginal profit per unit) and, since you can't really go lower than that, then that will be the generally accepted price of the coconuts. I will then buy my coconuts using seashells, since everyone on the island collectively realized that sexual favors are an unsustainable method of pricing and the guy who initially proposed it will probably not sell any coconuts since all his competitors are offering better deals. The seashell fiat turns out to be pretty successful, so in a few years many of the coconut salesmen have shifted their efforts into other ventures like construction, fishing, firewood collecting, water filtration, masonry, etc, which they all charge reasonable prices for since, again, they all have competitors who keep them in check. THAT is the free market. Your analogy relies on the ridiculous idea that all agriculture, manufacturing, marketing, and industry ventures on Earth are somehow conspiring to get you to pay them unreasonable amounts for their products, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Individuals benefit from undercutting other individuals. What you are describing is a monopoly, which is impossible in a truly free market.
The coconut analogy doesn't even make rational sense because coconuts are not even a limited resource, they're a slowly replenishing resource, as well it presumes that there is only one resource on the island that could serve that purpose, its a dumb example because any island that could support coconuts also supports a feasibly infinite variable of other potential resources, some obvious and others less obvious or specialized, and even if the monopolist establishes his coconut monopoly there is still the inherent potential in the hypothetical for you to trade for the coconuts due to how alternative comparable resources can work and exist, monopolies aren't very useful with a small economy where nobody is cooperative, because it destroys long term continuation. Its a high time preference strategy and thus is inherently destructive, especially if you're in a desperate place, before we even consider the danger of violence itself.
This idea is complete nonsense. I thought I would watch hoping it wasn't as stupid as it sounded... but no. They are legit suggesting that people will give up their stuff of their own free will for no reason... have they met a human before? Its like a lot of things with Communism, the ideas are great under the assumption that humans are like AI rather than having the errors of being human. Even if it works better on a small scale where humans are more invested like in a village, it scales up because the attachments people have in the smaller scale that would motivate selfless behavior do not apply once you get outside their immediate relationships. At the larger scale, you need the government to make you care at which point you lose your libertarian tag
He literally uses the dictionary definition of libertarian to argue against libertarian socialists (which is an entirely different ideology). It's complete conceptual mush. Here's a clue: 'libertarian' historically meant 'libertarian socialist'. The word was co-opted by the right-wing like lots of other left-wing jargon.
@@APaleDot Libertarian predates socialism by several hundred centuries at minimum. The specific word might have changed slightly since it was first coined as liberalism back with John Locke and those thinkers, but the ideology existed long before socialism was ever put forth as a legitimate idea for ruling a country. As far as I know, there aren't really any examples of it in action until then either (no early Christians were NOT practicing socialism and saying that the story of Manna is some form of socialism doesn't count either even if someone with a PhD suggests it). So no dice. No matter how you look at it, his use of the definition is correct.
@@joshsolders5543 The term 'libertarian' was coined by left-wing anarchists when the term 'anarchist' was made illegal in France, that's where the word comes from. It comes from the left-wing. That's why libertarian socialists call themselves libertarian. I didn't argue that it came before liberalism, so I don't know why you are bringing it up. In the video, he argues that 'libertarian' contradicts 'socialist' because of the dictionary definition, completely clueless to the history of the term. The history where the term literally just meant a type of socialist. Ok, language is not fixed, words can mean different things in different contexts. But then you have to let go of the idea that 'libertarian' means the one specific thing you want it to mean, and acknowledge that 'libertarian socialist' is just a completely different ideology. It's not a contradiction.
@@APaleDot The one problem with your argument is that libertarian socialism is the combination of two ideologies, liberalism and socialism. Libertarian is derived from liberalism. Its not a stealing of the term, but rather the correct use of it. After all, they took the ideology directly from some of the biggest promoters of liberalism when it was being first promoted like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. If you extract the Socialism from Libertarian Socialism, you essentially get the classic liberalism ideology that we call Libertarian today. I only say essentially to avoid any minor nitpicks. The reality is you don't understand the history of the term, not him.
@@joshsolders5543 From the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on LIbertarianism: "The word “libertarian” was first used in the 18th century to refer to a metaphysical view regarding freedom of the will, and it was first used as a political term in 19th century France to refer to communist anarchists (for example, in the journal Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, edited by Joseph Déjacque), and in the late 19th century it would be used by individualist anarchists (for example, in the journal Liberty, edited by Benjamin Tucker). In the mid-20th century, the label was adopted by liberals who wanted to resist certain political developments in many Western states following World War 2." It was not taken "directly from some of the biggest promoters of liberalism", you just pulled that out of your ass. Anarchists were blowing up some liberals in France, so they made the term illegal, so the anarchists called themselves libertarians instead (not 'liberatarian socialists' either, just 'libertarians'). That's just the history of the term. Sorry to inform you.
I’d like to say, that it is really easy to find similar videos debunking ancap. “if somebody steals/doesn’t follow agreement and you’ll either do nothing about it (so capitalism can’t exist) or you protect your property rights (so you create government). If we talk can or cannot anarchy exist we should give a definition to state. If we define state as “force to do smth people want” than anarchy in any form cannot exist (since we cannot fight against weaponized groups). I think LibSoc try to define state as “organization/corporation that control people’s lives”. So they (I think) try to create a society where everyone wants to share what they have. I can see such system can exist at small scale (friends (maybe students) that live together and share what they have, and idea is that they voluntarily join such group to work together. If they don’t want to join? They… don’t join. I guess that’s a problem if we try to expand such system to state-scale, when we have millions of people who don’t like idea, but that’s another question.
Waste my time you mean. Tl;Dr. If the videos creator, along with his googling searched for definitions of libertarianism, also looked up for leftist distinction between "modes of production" - capitalism, socialism. And how these concepts are separate from market economy, planned economy... Or at the very very least was educated enough to be aware of existence of yugoslavia. He would find out his whole video is nonsense.
@@auregamer5 In other words, you're talking out of your rear end. The idea of socialism is that the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. But since the collectives are an abstract thing, they need to be represented by someone and that someone becomes the new boss. And if we do it country-wise then it can be no one but the government in order for it to make sense. So Socialism REQUIRES planned economy and Mentis simply understood the concept and it's implications better than you did
Definitely an issue stemming from the political compass test, but I'm very left libertarian and am a strong supporter of both personal and property rights. Many people who score left libertarian on the test are. This just shows how the test and the compass itself is mostly useless. I'll often feel competely different politically from someone who's very close to me on the compass.
Can you please give some examples of left libertarian positions? Is it I guess something like Denmark or Norway? And of course the compass will always be flawed, opinions and positions are much more nuanced than can be mapped on to a 2D plane.
@jakubsevcik1392 Going by what the compass would deem "left lib:" - Strong support of personal freedoms - Strong support of property rights and the right to defend yourself - Healthcare and public education as a right So yeah, similar to the Scandinavian nations, but with a stronger emphasis on personal rights/freedom of speech than we see in Europe. Basically, the government should provide a safety net so even the dumbest, laziest person has a minimum quality of life, but beyond that I want the government out of our personal lives as much as possible. Which is why I'm as anti-cenorship and pro-free speech as you can get. And why even if a certain sexual practice disgusts me, I'd never want it banned between consenting adults.
@@jakubsevcik1392 No, it wouldn't be like Denmark or Norway. Libertarian socialists are against social safety nets because they know that handouts are just a tactic for the state to hold power over the populace. Therefore, libertarians of all kinds would be against social democratic models, otherwise they are either confused or lying. Libertarian socialists are generally closer to minarchists, but advocate for worker co-ops or worker councils.
@@amandeepsingh-mk3hy you can read "The Perils of Positive Rights" or probably any libertarian/anarcocapitalist book to understand why positive rights are wrong and, in the end, are just coercion, basically, for someone to have said right someone needs to be obliged to provide them said right, this idea is inherently authoritarian
Bro- anarcho communists were the people that created libertarianism originally 😂 capitalist libertarianism existed in the 1950s whike libertarianism socialist came around 1825
Nope, you could easily argue that US was a capitalist libertarian nation up until early 1900s/1910s. Founding Fathers themselves could easily be classified as that too.
How? A state is not needed to enforce democracy in the work place. The workers can establish a democratic system of electing bosses in their company, without government interference.
When socialists seek to abolish private property, we mean property that generates profit, examples being a factory, general store, or a farm. Marx distinguishes the difference between personal property "Property such as your house, toothbrush, and anything else that doesn't create profit" and private property (refer to what we mean by personal property). that means you can get arrested for stealing someones belongings because it is their personal property. read what are ideas are before criticizing, because what good is criticizing an idea you no nothing about.
This is a retarded distinction because anything can be used to make a profit, and my property doesn’t cease to be mine just because I do make a profit off of it.
@@ExPwnerExactly. And this arbitrary line between personal and profit making property is so undefined as to be nonexistent. I own a lot of tools for home repairs. Occasionally I will use them to help people I know for a little money in return. Would the state now be allowed to take the tools I use 99% of the time personally because I generated a profit? OP to test your ideas you need to push them to their logical edges. I know you can do it
@@JohnC875 You own those tools and the profit they create, therefore you own the means of production. It's still allowed under socialism, you idiot. What would get you in trouble is if you employed a bunch of people, and instead of them owning their own profit, YOU owned it.
@@ExPwner God, some people really can't distinguish between a corporation and a toothbrush. If you own profit these things create, you own the means of production (a.k.a. the labour force). It is therefore still allowed under socialism. What would get you in trouble is if you employed a bunch of people, and instead of them owning their own profit, YOU owned it without doing work.
The quick answer for the Upper Right corner of the Political Compass is there is the concept of Personal Responsibility. The state has an obligation to enforce both rights and responsibilities that individuals have. Particularly when it comes to matters that result in the creation of new human beings who are willed and brought into the world by their parents' actions. The child didn't chose to be created, their parents are entirely responsible for that. Hence, as a result, the State enforces Parental Responsibilities (ranging from requiring a process for a parent to give a child up for adoption before the parent no longer is responsible for the child to requiring Child Support from biological fathers, to Marriage having legal claims upon the husband and wife). This further extends to the State keeping individuals from socializing costs and privatizing benefits beyond mere property theft. Stuff like, for example, prosecuting gangs and contraband sellers to prevent the dissemination of addictive hard drugs which cripple the people that become dependent on them and who become burdens to their families and the rest of society. If anything has shown that Social Anarchism is a bad idea and retarded, its the de facto repeal by the Leftists in California and Oregon of Civil and City Ordinances for Public Order and Safety (and in certain cases even enabling drug abuse, homelessness, and avoidance of committing the mentally ill to hospitals for treatment). Discarded drug needles, feces everywhere, trash-filled tent encampments, people being randomly accosted/assaulted, and stores ransacked, are all the result of the Left's abandonment of a commitment to enforcing the Personal Responsibilities of citizens and Rules and Laws for Public Order.
i suppose if one ignores the fact the term Libertarian was first used by socialist Joseph Déjacque who inspired Anarcho-Communism one could argue it doesn't make sense but its not like Modern libertarians know what socialism is to begin with and the history of capitalism with the state playing a huge part in propping it up.
He uses the Lexico-Oxford dictionary to define Libertarianism and Socialism. Arguing from a point of historical definition is rather unimportant when the debate is regarding modern politics. Even when the history of the term is considered- the entire concept that a comunal group that requires forced collectivization to function would respect individual rights is utopian.
With freedom comes responsibility. That's why children aren't free. They have little to no real responsibility. This is such a basic thing that too many grown ass adults fail to understand nowadays and "libertarian socialism" is the shining example of this. It's a bunch of people saying "I want freedom, but no responsibility."
Actually libertarian socialism has had some interesting experiments irl. Christiania was once such town that followed the tenets of libertarian socialism but ultimately fell apart when it grew too large and outside forces started to interfere. Bad actors came in and started abusing the system as well as the government noticing that they weren’t paying taxes on land that the government was letting rot before Christiania showed up. I wouldn’t want to live there but it’s an interesting case study. Count Dankula has a good video on it.
5:32 The improved compass is better, but still not perfect. Conservatives are not necessarily against personal rights being granted *legally*. There are those of us - I would think, even the majority - who would prefer to have traditional values encouraged socially rather than enacted through government. This is no infringement of the NAP. Well, when I took the test, it put me as purely libertarian, because I didn't think most things should be banned legally, but I would fight for a society in which some things are socially very painful. Something like what we used to have. The chart itself could just mark me down as a conservatarian, right in the middle of them, but the concept of the compass doesn't seem to be able to account for that nuance.
Heard this argument many times. My brother is a Liberal that constantly talks about socialism. I asked him what the best type of Socialism would be and he said Libertarian Socialism he explained to me that in this Liberal Utopia people like Jeff Bezos and his Trillions would be equally spread to citizens that need it. This sounds great but I asked him who will take Bezos money and spread it around equally? He than said the State Of Course!!!!!! Instantly I knew he was well mislead and brainwashed. The State if given that much power in reality would pocket the money for themselves not equally spread it around to people in need. This would lead to Tyranny because if the State is the one who decides who makes money and who doesn't the people are then fucked. If you don't agree with the State they will not give you money and you will be starved. If you really believe the state cares for you you are brainwashed they do not care. You are viewed as cattle. These people who claim to be Libertarian Socialists are really just Socialist in Sheep's Clothing or their just confused it all leads back to the State.
How do you divide the money and to who? 1 Trillion dollars divided by 10 Million people means everyone gets $100,000. That money will not be used responsibly... Its Bad investing... That money should be used to fix infrastructure, rehouse people with good credit rating living in bad housing, pay off debts, and to buy land for future public development. Not redistributed because your kid needs money for lesbian art school OR a new Soccer Stadium...
Just observing the compass meme at 4:03. Wouldn't logically (by the relationship of the surrounding answers) the question of how is law and order maintained and scarcity handled by the left libertarian be No government and no property rights. Survival of the fittest and who carries the (biggest in size and quantity) sticks ? If the auth left is government, the lib right property rights, the auth right both, then the lib left by logical implication should have to be the opposite or lack of both. Which means everyone agrees to play by the rules? But isn't that just reinventing the wheel and recreating the auth left, auth right, or lib right? But "voluntarily" ? For it to be consistent with the other positions, being neither auth nor right, wouldn't it by definition be in direct opposition to both their principles? No government and no property rights? Is this the design flaw of the chart in action? That the bottom left quadrant has to be the opposite of the top right?
When Libertarian Socialists/Anarchists say “state” what they mean is an unjustified hierarchy or non-democratic governance. I just debunked your entire video, boom. I learned that the hard way by criticizing in ignorance, like how you’re doing.
After much procrastination THE MERCH STORE is finally here! mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products
Also subscribestar is open with some extra content!: www.subscribestar.com/mentiswave
Hey, Mentis. I suggest debunking that TH-camr "Left Sphere" (@LeftSphere). He seems to have (correction: DEFINITELY HAS) the mentality of a 7-year-old.
Nice. Here's my watered-down argument against libertarian socialism (sorry for poor organization).
---
If socialism was truly voluntary, it wouldn't be socialism. Also, for the argument that "sOcIALiSm hAs nEVeR bEen TrIEd," check the history of the Plymouth colony and how collective ownership failed. BTW, for the libsocs and anarchists, even if you believe capitalism is exploitative, if you understand the tragedy in Plymouth, you'd realize that under socialism, exploitation exists as by the collective against the individual. Also, for syndicalists, there are instances of union corruption and abuse. Finally, the cononut hoarding analogy, you do realize that this is unrealistic, and what if the other guy was asleep? Would you share or hoard it all for yourself? Probably, probably not. Plus, the answer reflects more about individual morality than the problems of the economic system. Remember, economics does not focus on ethical philosophy.
What's interesting is many ancoms claim work in their society would be completely voluntary, yet Kropotkin himself believed communes should kick out or "disassociate with" those who refuse to do their "fair share." Basically if you don't do the jobs the commune thinks you should be doing, you will be denied resources and a livelihood.
@@altideasfortomorrow No economic system is voluntary unless you give everyone a minimum standard of living.
@@altideasfortomorrow Capitalism is voluntary since you literally don't need to work. Technically no one forces you to do anything. Hell, there are even people who have accumulated so much wealth that they stopped working and now they chill on their private islands.
@@altideasfortomorrow The definition of slavery is that it is not voluntary and that you are forbidden to quit your duty.
Nobody is gonna stand with a gun to their head in capitalism when they try to leave their job.
This is the case under any economic system. Don’t work under capitalism? You will be denied resources you need to live
@@cyablu6538 Yes, that is my point. Unless you have post-scarcity, or some sort of generous UBI, work will always be involuntary. All economic systems are coercive.
I call it "Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll" Libertarianism. All benefit, no responsibility.
A more succinct term would be "libertinism"
@@catfishrob1 Very much agree, but many don't have a clue what the word means and won't bother looking it up either.
@@ranman7688 fair enough, haha
Right, they don't actually want or expect a free market. The intent of Libertarian Socialism is to combine libertarian social attitudes with socialist economic attitudes to create a state where you can do whatever you want at any time but are always cared for and have to suffer no social or material consequences.
This is *also* a stupid idea and basically impossible, but not so obviously contradictory as the video lets on.
y'all complain about libertarian socialism not working and yet libertarian socialist projects like the zapatista movement and fejuve had been around for over 3 decades now
Total tankie victory would be the most annoying thing ever. Because, as you stand against the wall, waiting your turn for your brain to be liberated from your skull, you'd be next to ancoms. In that moment, you'd find no catharsis, because the ancom would never be smart enough to realize they were wrong. Instead, you'd spend your final moments seething as the ancom wonders aloud, "how did the fascists manage to infiltrate and corrupt our plan?"
Dumb and ambitious.
tankies are not antcoms!
@@valentinfeusi63 they're two sides of the same retarded coin
A story for kids to learn how sometimes you can’t simply *argue* a point
@@valentinfeusi63 Ancoms empower the tankies by pushing for dumb ideas that were specifically designed to give the tankies power through deception, coercion, and manipulation. Ancoms are the useful idiots, and that's the point, often unwittingly openly handing all the power over to the tankies and yet they'll not even be intelligent enough to see this when those people get power and come to kill them off.
being an "anarcho"-communist and supporting state welfare and such
is like being an anarcho-capitalist but applauding the idea of the state making smartphones
Just because you're a fan of the end result, you don't get to support it regardless of how it's done
It's quite literally like calling yourself a vegan and eating chicken, just because you strive for vegan chicken in the grander scheme of things, but yakno, until you get some, might as well get some real chicken
I think they are only an-archy/anti-order in that they are against the CURRENT state and will promptly substitute their own power structure. It's like a warlord taking over do they think of themselves as anything remotely like the same sort of thing as the government they just displaced?
yeah, anarcho communism being in favor of socialism makes 0 sense, the whole thing about anarcho communism is that you're communist but without the socialism in the mid of the process...
Just because it's "not their brand of radical left-wing" doesn't mean they hate all other left-wing things. It makes sense for them to like welfare seeing as it culls the worst of capitalism, which is better than leaving it unhinged.
Wait... so you don't drive on the roads or buy from industries that have taken government subsidies right?
@@yungpr1ma588 I can steal your money, paint your driveway and ask you the same about driving on my paint.
You can't opt out of using their services. They have a violently enforced monopoly.
I'm an Anarcho-statist. I want anarchy with government intervention.
Minarchist lol
Yes I want the protection of a mega state and I don’t want to follow the law
Ah...The Chicago style of "governance".
How?
So like Mad Max except the police arrest Max when he defends himself from the murderous leather fetishists.
Didn’t Chomsky also simp for the Khmer rogue and denied the Cambodian genocicde
He did
Indeed, Chomsky is as much as an Anarchist as Heinrich Himmler is
He denies all sorts of genocides
He was also a Mao apologist on top at one time attempting to argue in favor of "MAPS", if you get the meaning.
Chomsky denied a lot of genocides
17:06 Also they already have this. Really if "Libertarian" Socialists don't want big government solution to achieving Socialism nothing stops them.
Infact them citing co op successes in their works only makes OUR point.
"Oh so you CAN have successful co ops without government? Then why don't you make them then? We aren't stopping you so why aren't you doing anything?"
You are stopping it. Coops work to great success in, say, spain because the government doesn't make it neigh immpossible. Same reason there's a large public banking sector in Germany, but not the US. The US government purposefully squishes every coop it can with a slough of taxes, arbitrary rules, anti labor propaganda campaigns, and plenty of collusion/acceptance with rich corporation owners (see Amazon labor union silencing). This system is far better and works in societies where the CIA hasn't been telling people liberals are socialists their entire lives. Socialism has been telling you the game is rigged since it's inception and all you can say is "if it's rigged why don't you play better?" Because the poor don't have the money to do that!
We are actively making them. That is a thing that is happening. This is a terrible gotcha.
@@luna010 I call bullshit.
@@luna010so you're a libertarian socialist while being okay with the economic laws of today? How does this make sense at all? Just say you like coops and quit the edgy ideological title.
@@lightfeather9953 IMO, the idea is that after enough time, if they prove successful, co-ops will become more popular than other models of business and thus eventually become baked into law because the majority of people would want it. It's a slow "revolution" of people's values and ideas about how the economy ought to work that ends up being borne out in experience and choice. IMO, anyone who is a "libertarian socialist" who is also proposing some sort of quick-fix gov't-overthrow-type revolution is selling you a bridge
If you leave “social security” up to the individual, like how it was decades ago, the burden of caring for the elderly would once again fall upon the family and community. We have strayed away from community and family values, which is a big shame.
We've also wrecked the tribal family structure with modern methods of transportation, that one is unfixable but also an effective form of private social security.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Hard disagree, I do not want to take care of relatives who didn't take care of me, but that doesn't mean I don't want the goverment to have adequate ways of helping the elderly
@@Sonybo100 That's the beauty of the free market and charity. You're not obligated to do so.
What if you have a shitty family/community? Also, define “community and family values.”
When I was in high school I was a "Libertarian Socialist."
Then I realized how stupid, illogical and contradictory that was so now I am just a minarchist libertarian.
Hello my brethren.
Minarchy sounds good but I'm not sure.
Actually yeah I agree, but anarchy isnt possible cause a state will form regardless
LMAO
@@56jklovelibertarian, not anarcocapitalism.
My answer to the Coconut Island analogy: "When tyranny arises, humans usually kill their overlord and divide the spoils for themselves." We only need a political system when we want to work together.
Humans usually do kill their overlords but it takes them awhile, even generations.
@@januarysson5633 Not when it's 1v1.
@@supremecaffeine2633 Which it rarely is.
@januarysson5633 In the coconut island example, it is a 1v1 from the beginning.
As my alcoholic dad would say, you have to sleep sometime. He would be one of the 150 tragically killed by coconuts every year and with no witnesses.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut
Just took the test myself and got Libertarian Anarchist... Not sure how I feel about that. I guess it fits that my biggest gripe in being born this early is that we're at least a century away before I can just blast off into space and become a space farmer or something. Light years away from the nearest bureaucrat.
Post : Also, really youtube? You're censoring my comments now?
I got the same result (libertarian/anarchist), and am not suprised. My trust in government, accelerated by how they reacted to covid, is at an all time low; I am beginning to reach the conclusion that even a "minarchist" system cannot be sufficiently constrained to prevent it from overstepping bounds.
you'll get used to it. i was an "anarchist in denial" as i called it for months and months. I was essentially a minarchist on the very edge before being in the "no more State" category.
I saw Michael Malice do a podcast appearance with What Bitcoin Did (episode is called "Understanding Anarchism with Michael Malice"), and he asked Michael about the difference between Libertarians and Anarchists and Michael just said: "6 months." and yeah, that seems about right.
what is that supposed to be? ancap?
@@Gadottinho probably
@@rarelycold6618 USA almost became an ancap land, but the founders didn't crossed the line and now the country is the representation of what is wrong with "modern capitalism".
Did anyone else hear anarcho-communism and immediately start thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Or am I old in addition to being incredibly nerdy?
COME AND SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERIT IN THE SYSTEM!!!
Anarcho Monarchism is better
“HELP HELP I’M BEING REPRESSED!”
You don't vote for kings?
you're not that nerdy. it was anarcho-syndicalism.
This always felt like a trick to me. It sounds like a dream and it mostly is. "Libertarian Socialism", like all Socialisms, cannot survive contact with reality, but "Libertarian Socialism" will bring about the worst form of State tyranny. I honestly fear this type of Socialism the most. "Libertarian Socialism" evangelizes being yourself to the fullest degree, while not having to worry about anything, because the State will handle any shortcomings.
This sounds "nice", but its effects on Society are insidious and this is seems to be by design. It creates an uncompromising nature in people, which makes it impossible for different groups to come to an understanding, while promoting schisms inside groups making them wholly weaker. Thus creating a greater reliance on the State for support as "Individuals" become increasingly isolated.
You see this today with Identity Politics and such. They seemingly want people to abandon everything in pursuit of their "True Self", and to admonish anyone who questions this. I called this a trick and I mean it. You have to understand, the part where this is a Contradictory ideology does not matter to them, its an intended quality. Socialists in general do not care for Contradictions and "Libertarian Socialism" is no different, they simply want Socialism. "Libertarian Socialism's" true intentions seem to be to fracture society to the point where any organized resistance could never form, since no one would be able to trust each other or would be too dependent on the state for support.
In its end state you'll be sad, alone, and addicted to the State. It's a trick.
If you think Libertarian socialism = state tyranny, you're terminally online.
It is anti - state.
Calling these people for supporting welfare programs because that's about as much they can do right now is just hypocrisy on your part.
American Libertarians are willingly working with the Republicans who will end up with stronger government power (project 2025). So, I guess that means that Libertarian are in fact okay with a powerful state as long as they aren't the ones being oppressed.
No, socialism doesn’t mean state. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
Really long and fancy way of saying your racist and homophobic.
Gish Gallop perfectly explains modern gender ideology. Something new every freaking day.
Femboys are based
*41 likes
@@SMCwasTakenfake and gay
@@SMCwasTaken Femboy thighs ong.
This is why political trichotomy is better than political compass
I call it the Political Triforce, but yeah. Ultimately, all forms of anarchy converge and are mutually exclusive from either progressive or traditionalist statism.
11:56 it was used in 1789 to refer to a belief in free will (this is important in praxeology)
13:20 Voluntarism sounds like a good word and it has no stigma attached to it like Anarchism or Capitalism
Yes, lets keep it that way by being informed, and poop on people who aren't informed and use the label.
its used many times as an alternative name to ancap. since its basically the same central axiom, coercion isnt a valid form of government.
Basically ancap with a better name
it'll either have the same stigma attached to it, or it'll be taken over by "voluntarist socialists" without a shred of voluntaryism in them. it's a good word, but defend the words we have from new speak.
Wow! Just found your channel and I'm impressed by how good your arguments are! Keep up the great work! Subscribed!
Marxism wanted a stateless society, because Marx saw the state's main function as to support capitalists and protect private property. So a state is no longer needed when property rights are abolished.
And yet every country that tried achieved exactly the opposite.
@@Pottsdie yeah, I'm not pro-marxism. I'm just explaining why they keep using "but marxism is stateless".
@@Pottsdie yeah, but what they did was create capitalism but with "elected" leaders. They were rich people that saw how they could break the broken system in their favor.
Marxism is just incoherent. So the state is supposed to just magically dissolve once it's no longer needed to enforce socialism, and then you're left with... Anarchy-capitalism.
@@PhilosophicalZombieHunter not really, he thought that to achive communism there need to be a strong socialist state to change how people thought so that communism could be achieved.
I used to be a anarchist, but after doing some research and talking with people (and growing up), I ended up being a libertarian
Imagine thinking libertarianism is growing up politically hahahahaha
@@tenanaciouz Imagine supporting radical islam.
@@truenerthus4460 I never said I did support radical islam but thanks
Anarcho collectivism you mean? Tribal and Gang warfare be liek...
@@truenerthus4460stop embarrassing libertarians kid. always deflecting to your weird obsession over culture wars
8:43 "Chad always takes control of all his projects"
This is the sentence that made me really reconsider. I am reading _The Battle For Spain_ to know what happened to the anarchists then, and what I've seen so far is that they trusted the socialists too much and were eventually invisibilised. I'll continue reading, but I still have the doubt of whether this will always happen or it could have been avoided.
This video mainly, if not entirely, criticizes the Marxian theory of socialism. Marx defined the 'state' in a way completely different from practically any other political theorist, which is where a lot of confusion and fallacious tactic stems from. However, it didn't much address other 'schools' of 'libertarian socialism', so I would say this is more leaning toward a debunking of Marxism, libertarian Marxism, and every other retarded Marxian theory. Great video nonetheless, big fan of your content so far and you've earned yourself a subscriber.
Yep. A big overarching theme of the video I was going with is pointing out how Socialism effectively requires a fairly hefty government state body or logically equivalent system for it to even operate, and thus the "LibSoc" claim of wanting a stateless society is as irrational and unobtainable as trying to get 5 from 1+1. That in a nutshell is why the concept of Libertarian Socialism is nonsense - it's doomed to either end with them ceding power to the tankies, or fail to ever get off the ground.
Marx did a lot of that, redefining things to suit his political ideas. Das Capital’s whole premise is based on that.
@@MentisWaveDo you not think citing market socialism which originated from the literal original Anarchist, Proudhon, as leading to an authoritarian state was a slippery slope, if not just a non sequitur? Have you actually come across Mutualism?
@@Oliver-qz4kf you peoppe genuinely terrify me
@@xenn4985 If the thought of lifting govt control and democratising large workplaces scares you, then I'd suggest reading some essays by Proudhon or listening to videos from Gary Chartier. These aren't extreme ideas. They're market based libertarian solutions to modern capitalist state problems.
Liberation socialism?! Wtf, those two words imply 2 different sets of ideologies that are almost the polar opposite of each other. . . .
funny thing is I've seen leftists call libertarianism "fascism", because apparently wanting limited government is the same as wanting the government involved in everything
By his definitions in the video, they aren't inherently contradictory. Community/worker managed production can and does still occur in free markets.
@@TheOverseerDDFby definition socialism is state owned
@@GenericUsername-o7d "Socialism is an economic system in which major industries are owned by the workers, rather than by private businesses or the state. It is different from capitalism, where private actors, like business owners and shareholders, can own the means of production." the wikipedia definition.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." the Oxford definition
"(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism." the Oxford definition, again
@@TheOverseerDDF Who gets to make the decisions for the workers/owners?
I hate to have to reiterate the obvious, but.....they can't all be bosses? Because with more than one person, you will always have not just differing, but opposing values, preferences, tastes, ways of thinking, priorities, desires, needs, and quirks, or traits & opinions that seem unreasonable or silly to others. No group of people can agree on any specifics if they all have the same power. There have to be boundaries & limitations, and someone has to set & enforce them, while everyone else agrees to them. If everyone tries to set boundaries and laws you will chaos and fighting.
I was given the most circuitous nonsensical arguments when I told libertarians on Reddit that libertarian socialism was an oxymoron, another contribution from the party of mental disorders.
This video is one of them. Socialism isn't always "state-ran", contrary to what right-wingers might say. As a bonus, libertarian socialist communes have existed in the past!!! (such as the CNT/FAI anarchists in Catalonia, before they made the mistake of collaborating with the totalitarians and liberals due to the nationalist threat)
@@TheOverseerDDF Socialism is always "state-ran", unless you are talking about Communism, you are simply wrong.
@@nasfoda_gamerbrbigproducti5375 It's simply not? Market socialism exists, search it up. "You are simply wrong."
@@TheOverseerDDF The video covers what you're saying. If you and some of your friends want to voluntarily give up your property and found a commune, then that's something you're allowed to do in the present-day US, no move away from capitalism necessary. But since most people, or at least most of those who control a disproportionately large share of resources and have the most to lose, wouldn't do so voluntarily, it couldn't yield the results you're probably hoping for without resorting to violence, such as physical violence or forcibly taking their property.
You might respond, "It's not the state that would do the taking! It'd be a well-organized group of people!" But one fairly common, and commonsense, definition of a state is that which has a monopoly on violence, meaning it's hard if not virtually impossible to distinguish this group from a state. At this point, denying that this brand of socialism is state-ran would boil down to a dumb semantic game.
@@TheOverseerDDFLol you're literally committing the exact fallacy he predicted in the video. Socialists will never change
I always wondered why the lib left bothered me the most. Informative video
Some of the most unbearable people on the planet, at least auth left are more honest and straightforward.
Lib left? Liberals are left wing my guy.
@@clowncargaming8046don’t liberals believe in a free market? Seems pretty rightist to me.
auth right people may respect property right more than auth left people but thats a very low bar to clear. most authy right people I know are classical corporatists.
If they’re corporatists then they must be authcenter, not authright.
@Nowhennowherenoworry classical corporatism was invented in the literal medieval ages. What are you talking about?
@@tavernburner3066 well I haven’t heard of classical corporatism until now. I thought you were just referring to corporatism as in economic fascism (which many people believe is a mixed economy, making fascism authoritarian and economically centrist.) I did look it up and it says that communists, economic liberals, fascists and socialists have advocated for corporatist models, all of which have varying degrees of economically left and right policies. So I’m not sure either.
Great video. Tired of fake “libertarians”.
Libertarianism literally started on the left before you guys co-opted the term, keep coping
@@sorendipitous no it didn’t. It was coined decades before the left tried to claim it, and it was meant originally as a lover of liberty.
@@sorendipitous Why do you guys keep making this argument as if it's a good thing. Left libertarianism failed due to the inherent contradictions. That's like saying "ships literally started as wood before you made cruise liners" - yeah it was replaced with something radically more advanced. Seethe more.
@@eleccy I mean, right libertarianism also fails due to contradictions, so you both are in the same boat.
@@2vexy doesn't seem like the person ever referred to themselves as a right libertarian.
Personal Rights stem from Property Rights.
The self is the first thing any of us own.
what about in slavery? slaves' human rights are being violated but any government intervention would be infringing upon the slave owners' private property rights
@@captainketchuphater63 no. Humans can't be property. You calling a human property doesn't make them one.
Humans have self ownership rights which are inherent in their humanity.
So you can't bypass the human in the conversation... Same with abortion.
Slavery can't exist with a right wing worldview which is why slave owners were openly socialist and 99.9% were democrats.
You are violating the natural rights of the human being kept in bondage against his or her will.
Natural law theory vs Legal Positivism...
This is the dichotomy between the left and right.
On the right we believe in human rights. Aka natural law theory.
Democrats do not. They believe the government gives you your rights so they can take them away.
@@marcusdavenport1590 also, libertarians believe in homesteading and trade. it's impossible to separate a person from their self-ownership unless you turn them into a body or robot. same as how ideas cannot be property due to the nature of ideas, people cannot be property due to the nature of free will.
@@marcusdavenport1590all i here is spook after spook. there is no such thing as inherent rights.
'im 37, im not old'.
The anarchist just change the name of the state to "union", "comune" or "syndicate".
A syndicate is democratic and ran collectively by the workers. A company is not democratic and is ran by the rich founders and their children, basically a monarchy.
@LeoJimenez-j8j is the same propaganda than the state "is semocratic and ran by the people." You literally confirm my point. Not because you believe that your union wouldn't make the same crimes than the state it would be truth, I'm from south america, I know very well what those hollingangs can do, in the countryside of my homeland Perú they forced with violence people to march, and in the 80's they killed people. In Argentina those b*statds take money from workers by the force of the state and the law. Unions are as worse as the state. And yes not all of them are bad, but guess what, all of those who don't follow a left idiology and are nor related with the state are the only ones that I respect. But the same logic works for companies. The worse thing is that I already read your books, Koprotkin, Chomsky, Proudhon, Malatesta, Bakunin etc. But the ancoms never, and I mean never tried to read Bastiat, Mollinari, Huerta de Soto, Anxo Bastos, Bagus or even basic authors like Rothbard, Mises or Hayek. Is upsetrong because I feel that we (libright) treat this midwits with the respect that they don't show or they deserve.
Great video. Too bad no one cares about politics anymore. Ride the collapse. Maybe next time the parasites will be eradicated.
This is what I call a "closed communist". They don't want to admit to being communist, or might not be aware of it. But maybe they'll manage to have a coming out one day.
The point of getting anyone like this to at least accept anti-statism is the golden arches theory. We must prevent conflict with Popper's peacefuls and coalition form to dismantle the state's monopolies and machinations.
6:30 "Noam Chomsky - anarcho syndicalist". How that makes any sense? Syndicate by definition is a group of companies who united to destroy any competition and form a monopoly,
they control resources and giving them based on needs or importance of companies inside syndicate. So how it can be anarchic and why it is considered as part of Libertarian/Socialism? Isn't it Cyberpunk dystopia? Where no State (anarchism) and Megacorporations are making monopolies?
Syndicalist mostly want the Government to be ran by a collection of small localized unions, which make up a bigger centralized government.
I suppose anarcho syndicalist want a government ran by a democratic union of workers, which wouldn't make it any more different then communism, except how the classless utopia is ushered in.
@@rorrim0we usually refer to this as democratic confederalism.
The thing that I find really funny about the “coconut island” analogy is that, pushed to its natural conclusion, all the other guy without the coconuts would have to do is just… find a big and/or sharp stick, go back to the guy with the coconuts and say “share or get shanked, your choice”. Like… all you would have to do in that situation is find a weapon and force the bastard to share. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that. It’s not even that good of an analogy my guy
I recently discovered your channel and you have a lot of great videos. I was an "anarcho-communist" for 8 years and I'm still trying to understand more about other political ideologies I shunned out, I've been particularly gravitating to minarchism or right winged libertarianism. Do you have any recommendations for channels similar to yours?
Keep up the good work
Read Hoppe’s books
@@cringeproof100 Hoppe is just a feudalist
From Least to More Radical:
- Stephen Michael Davies
- Kirk Willcox
- Libertarian Scot
- PraxBen
- Liquid Zulu
Libertarian Socialism is not only effective, but the most successful form of organisation we have.
Families, Amish, open source, burning man, literally any small community. That being said, libertarian socialism is only possible for small communities. Libertarian Socialism essentially lifts the free market one rung up and puts the individual into small, socialist communities where everyone is capable of knowing everyone else's needs and society is based on humanities innate goodness.
It's essentially 'love thy neighbour', however this is predicated on 'knowing your neighbour'.
16:38 Wrote this comment before getting to this part of the video.
My point is, we have this. People do this. To the extent that people do it, it's effective. To the extent that people don't, it isn't.
Any community that operates in a socialist way must be done in a free market, where successful communities rise and fall based on their own merit. Those communities can have whatever rules they want, with members being free to leave at any time.
@@humanperson8418 This implies that in your family, you give give give, and there is no transactional nature to it, which is just false. My family has decided that my privilaged brother gets everything, even though he created his own problems. He will inherit the property and the money, despite impregnating two different women as a triple felon. Is that the sort of libertarian socialism you want to enact? If I find such a system intolerable, is it because I'm failing to "love thy brother" or "honor thy father and thy mother" enough?
What a total load this post is.
Good video explaining the internal contradictions of libertarian socialism.
Ok, extremely well spoken, uses memes to explain things, and Touhou? You've got my sub. Especially so for pointing out fake arguments that look way smarter in the moment than they actually are
Communes, co-ops, unions, etc. are legal in a free-market society. Private businesses are illegal under socialism. 'Nuff said.
Market socialism so your wrong.
@@ryanosterman2651 "Secular theocracy so your wrong."
@@duffthimblespork that has nothing to do with socialism.
@@ryanosterman2651 My point is, "secular theocracy" is about as plausible as "market socialism." You are combining mutually exclusive concepts.
@@duffthimblespork no your just playing semantics like mantis here.
In fact honestly I prefer the Political compass made by nick land with 3 sides Socialist, Classical Liberals, Conservatives...
I'm a libertarian nationalist...
Sounds like a fascist in practice but ok
@@janfungusamon4926 Fascism is just a holistic, schizophrenic form of Socialism that happens to be nationalistic. Fascism is not compatible with anything remotely Libertarian.
@@janfungusamon4926 ok jew
I think for border securety you need a state !
@@janfungusamon4926fascists are pro state and advocate for a strong one... Libertarians dont.
I love that "Rabbit" is just Big Chungus
19:12
The Coconut Fallacy can be used to "show" why pure or direct democracy doesn't work just as well. All it takes is a third survivor who conspires with the first one; they both vote that you're their bitch and have to do whatever they say, and, well, the majority decided it so what are you complaining about, fascist?
There's a lot of political ideologies that are just "we're changing the theme of the entire world"
Plus not seeing how deranged it is
I tried that test, I was confused when it gave me conservative until I realized I interpereted the opposite of what the personal uestions were asking.
Scratch a libertarian socialist, find a tankie.
I really appreciate how well done this and your other of your videos are.
Not allowing them to play into their false word games, redefinitions, etc. is one of the best ways to lay bare there idiocy and deception.
I'm a slight right leaning Libertarian on a standard political compass quiz and Libertarian on the border of progressive on the advocates quiz. It's interesting that one quiz says I'm on the right and the other says left.
Libertarian socialism, is fascism in practice. Mussolini's government was basically unions being organized under the state. "A bundle of sticks" is the basic idea.
I think you dropped your brain sir. I can recommend a place to have it put back.
Mussolini gave his power to the papacy who tried to convince him to kill the Protestants during WW2.
Oh my god, that’s corporatism. Syndicalism is collectively owned workers unions, who democratically vote on decisions. Syndicates are not controlled by the state, “corporations” in corporatism are.
But did Mussolini's Italy have government-owned businesses, or did the state simply own the trade unions that operate within private businesses in order to exert their influence?
@LeoJimenez-j8j In that case all syndicates become corporations. When considering human nature and the fact that humans will only work or innovate when reward is in reach, democratically owned businesses are garunteed to collapse and the unions will fall under the state, so all businesses owned by syndicates results in said syndicates becoming a corporation.
I feel like libertarian socialism works in communes full of people that actually voluntarily work and buy into the ideology. They can kick people out and people can leave voluntarily whenever they want.
Basically, a bunch of ideologists larping as socialists in a wider society. Which would basically need to be a non socialist libertarian one if they are going to be allowed to do this stuff without getting more resources extracted from them from someone higher up.
I actually can somewhat agree with the philosophy behind revoking unproductive lands, but i prefer to work through the market and TAX it with georgism
Right, economics is not a zero-sum game, you can always produce more of a good
But land is actually zero-sum, there's just so much land on earth, unless the sea levels fall, we make artificial islands or we colonize another planet
@@KanzlerOttoVonBismarck Land is more than enough. It's possible to build more than 10x the buildings the whole world have, our underground also can be more explored and populated.
A problem with these compasses is putting libertarian and authoritarian as the equal but opposite terms... yes they are opposites as authoritarians cannot be libertarians and vise verse.. but authoritarian is something that can encompass multiple political philosophies and just means total government control.. libertarianism is a specific political philosophy (yes it has multiple branches) not every philosophy that hates government is libertarian
Libertarianism is about no force, and socialism requires force, so libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.
i knew i was gonna get centrist on the compass quiz you linked. centrist does not equal bad.
I personally thought I'd be more conservative turns out im libertarian but on the edge to conservative
What's quite weird and fascinating (mostly in regard to how stupid its believers are), is that anarcho-communism regarding its literal definition is technically just the original communism since Marx's original incarnation of communism advocated for a no-government series of communes. However, the interesting stupidity aspect comes from how ancoms want more government...aka the "anarcho" part is completely removed which defeats the entire point of the name.
I would like to point out that if you flip the revised political compass across the conservative-progressive axis, then rotate it forty-five degrees counter-clockwise, you get pretty much exactly what the poltical compass is, except you've changed the ways people define all the connecting attributes. You replace Auth-Right with conservative, Auth-Left with Authoritarian, Lib-Right with Libetarian, and Lib-Left with Progressive. For the most part, these classifications are preserved and just redefined. The axises even just switch terms. Instead of calling you either economically right or left, it calls you either pro or anti economic freedom. Instead of calling you either libertarian or authoritarian, it calls you either pro or anti personal freedom.
It's functionally a libertarian biased political compass. You can even see this in the design, putting libertarian on the top, desipte the fact that two axises are almost always put in an x/y coordinate plane. The only reason you could argue that design choice would be to make a scale of more versus less freedom going up or down, but even this fails when you notice that it implies that someone who is completely for personal freedom and completely against economic freedom (100,0) is more pro freedom than someone who is mostly for both (70,70), while also implying that they are more anti freedom than someone who is mostly opposed to both (30,30). It unironically implies a radical progressive or conservative is more pro freedom than a moderate libertarian, while also implying that they are more anti freedom than a moderate authoritarian. It literally says Mod-Libereratrian
About 4 funny square Political Compass, the up/down axes only refers to restriction of personal liberties and increase in government control over people.
Aka down axes just refers to how little government control over your personal freedoms you want. Technically Libertarian Socialism could exist... But technically it would just be a bunch of Libertarians who voluntarily agreed to run their businesses on co op model.
Also we technically have AuthRight states rn, Singapore is an example, they have strict control over personal freedoms but businesses have way more freedoms then in other nations(Singapore ranked #1 on economic freedom index several times, hope you cover it someday)
The 4 quadrant spectrum isn't accurate.
You're limiting your thinking by using this flawed spectrum
The person who thinks that free humans can't work out how to trade for healthcare is authoritarian...
If you vote for something like Medicare for all... you're saying you want to more than DOUBLE my taxes (according to the study that Bernie Sanders uses) and if I don't pay you'll send men with guns to lock me in a cage just for wanting to be free and live my life the way I did yesterday.
If I say no, you'll have me killed via your vote.
Economic freedom and personal freedom are bound together.
The people who would trample economic freedom are also trampling personal freedom.
I took the quiz. It’s really easy. All I had to read was the first few words ‘the government should not….’ AGREE. The government should not ‘anything ever at all’
Wait a minute... I'm a libertarian?!? I thought I was classified as a conservative what with my "the less of the state, the better" and all that. Maybe I'm a center/right kinda guy.
Thanks for that political quiz! I took it and I think it might've been decently accurate. (I got strong libertarian slightly to the right.)
I took another political quiz and it said me not wanting to give welfare to illegal immigrants was "nationalist." That's a pretty low bar for "nationalism" if you ask me.
refusing to give welfare to people who escaped from the poverty and tyranny of their home countries just because of imaginary lines in the sky is not nationalism, but possibly even racism
I mostly agree with this video, but conservatives (at least in America) are usually not socially authoritarian, they're just less libertarian than the libertarians, and libertarians only see them as authoritarian because they use themselves as the reference point instead of centrists
5:32 The main thing I disagree with with your "better political compass" is terminology. In my experience most people that call themselves and other people call conservative value personal rights more than government control with only a few exceptions (mainly gay marriage).
If conservative applied to people who didn't value personal rights then Orwells 1984 would be about a conservative dystopia, with all the spying in meddling in the characters personal lives in order to find nonconforming thoughts, when it is conservatives who cry that 1984 is what we want to avoid
I think the separation of the two into whole different quadrants rather than being just slightly different points in the same quadrant is just to make conservatives look bad
yes, you're using the better chart! i spam that thing when i can
although as mark passio points out it's actually a binary: those who believe in the legitimacy of authority and those who don't. 😎
I don’t believe you can have a meaningful political compass with any less than three axes. But considering only personal and property rights is an interesting way of putting things. Your diamond combines the economic axis with the authoritarian axis, unlike the conventional square, which nonsensically combines economic with cultural.
1. You can't just take the compass that fits your case to "debunk" it and 2. that definition of "Libertarian is ancap which is a very different thing. Libertarian socialist is bad wording as they are actually communists concerned with the UNRESTRICTED state power. Hence "anarcho-communists" 3. Then why did the Catalonian, Ukranian and Kurdish societies work and upkeep the highest possible living standarts in times of chaos and civil war, despite NOT being helped, or rather being actively crushed by the worlds biggest powers (especially the USSR) 4. Stop arguing against statist communism, we hate tankies all the same and don't support their methods that always lead to authoriarian state-capitalism. 5. You are marked free from class-consciousness
1. There's no way in hell you can achieve muh "true socialism" without the tyrannical tankie way.
2.There's no such thing as state capitalism, what you mean by that is cronist state funded corporatism.Very popular in the modern day West and China.
Something I realized after listening to a few videos of yours, that kind of explains my own thoughts in a good way about the fact that if violence is committed against you or your family, then obviously that person has given up their rights by committing that violence, i.e it is no longer wrong for you to commit violence against them in return. Most sane people understand this and agree whether they are libertarian, progressive or anything.
So the part that was really making me struggle was how to reconcile that with the fact that in the world we live you cant actually act on that freedom of violence against this person, because that would put you yourself in trouble instead. Obviously if the legal system can find fault in that person they will get punished by the collective of society through the laws we have in place. But what happens then if the legal system cant prove that violence was committed against you? You know it happened and want to do something about it, but you cant and if you do it anyways youre the criminal. Listening to you has made me realize that this is effectively the rest of society voting that you didnt have ownership of yourself, and the other party had the right to harm you. I.e it is the democratic system, by majority decision, deciding that you have less rights.
The issue this takes me to however is that there isnt really any other way either. Its not like a more libertarian state could actually solve this, since if you cant prove it then that more libertarian state would still be forced to treat you as the perpetrator of violence against an innocent victim, i.e youd still be the one breaking the NAP. You also cant really solve this in a more tribal, might makes right society (which I take issue with some of your characterisations of might makes right as wrong, since it is ultimately what all of society is based on even now.) where if you take matters into your own hands others around you who might be individually stronger than you, or if not then still stronger together than you are alone might still decide that youre the one in the wrong because they dont have proof that the other guy did anything wrong in the first place to justify your violence, or because its a more tribal society they might also just not care, i.e it might lead to a blood feud for all youre in the right.
Contemplating what Ive heard has given me a bit more clarity, but I really cant figure out any true solution in the end, beyond the ridiculous idea of an absolute surveillance state which cant really be justified and still wouldnt actually solve anything because there are always flaws. So in the end I still cant see any other solution than some amount of egoism in your personal ideology to go through life with. I.e if you cant solve things in any other way you have to take things into your own hands despite the consequences or beliefs of the rest of society, you have to do it despite the rest of society then seeing you as the aggressor for it. Its reality coming in the way of ideology, something that cant be solved in any way except personal strength and action, there is no ideology that can solve imperfect information.
Liberals who thought libertarian was a meme ideology ,now seeing libertarian socialism 🤦
Realistic libertarian Socialism just means a more decentralized form of welfare. So a city manages the specifics of how a welfare is implemented independently of the state. The point is that the community is more involved and has to take responsibility in the care of their dispossessed neighbors. In that system people can't just blame the state for the poverty in their community and call it a day, while not having to take any responsibility for it themselves. This is basically how "welfare" (where it existed) in the past has always functioned.
no it don't mean that, read anything by emma goldman or errico malastesta(forgot how you spell his name) and look at projects like fejuve or the zapatistas for example, realistic libertarian socialism never was just welfare like you inplying
I think there is only One Place where Socialism or Communism might 'MAYBE' work.
In family units and Tribes of less then 100 people. That tend to have to live in cordination with one another or im wrong
Anarcho-primitivism is the way forward as industrial society has been proven to be a disaster that will only create more existential threats to all living organisms on planet Earth.
That is why they want 15 minute cities. Communities of 20 to 200 up to 1000 or so people. Easily controllable.
@@justjoking5841 it’s not because it’s just generally better for people if they don’t need a car to live
Zapatistas have existed for 30 years now what do you mean?
@@justjoking5841right, because Europe is being controlled by a small group of communist Jews? Keep coping, fashie.
This video is very entertainingly narrated!
Can you do a video on agorism?
I do plan to cover cryptocurrency a bit more as time goes on, currently only have one video that makes mention of it. Agorism and counter-economics will likely get a mention in that.
The fundamental issue with this is that Marx didn't know what he was talking about and so the read is fundamentally biased and slanted towards saying a left wing position like this can exist becuase there is no analysis that the tankie who believes this can do to understand its in compatibilities.
Beautiful video
I think it's important to point out that private property and personal property are two different things under socialism. Private property most often refers to large assets, or capital, etc, in socialism.
I'm an IT freelancer. I work on my private laptop doing IT stuff for whoever hires me, then, when I'm free, I play Fallout or whatever game I'm currently interested in. Is my laptop a private property or personal property?
"Large capital" is so incredibly vague that it could mean anything
What is considered large capital? A house, car, conputer, apple?
What is the difference between a 300k house and a 2m house?
For that definition to even be considered plausible we need a specific definition that holds up to scrutiny
It is simple, libertarianism is about limited government while socialism is about the collectivization of private property, they are mutually exclusive. How are you gonna prevent someone from owning private property without a state?? You CAN'T
You all CHOOSE to share the property bro. Pretty simple concept no? Thats the LIBERTARIAN part of lib soc. Everyone CHOOSES to participate in the system. There is democratic control of the workplace… how are these hard for you guys to understand
@@altideasfortomorrow But what if an individual chooses to have their own business or property outside of the collective commune, how can you stop me from freely trading like a capitalist.
Will you expropriate my property like a marxist-leninist or excommunicate me from your voluntary planned economy like some kind of left-wing hoppean?
@@SpencerYT138 if you choose not to participate in the community, you have the right to leave. How would it be any different under a capitalistic system, where you either work, own the means of production yourself, or leave? Id imagine in a libsoc commune, you’d do your share of work, or leave? No economic system is voluntary unless your base needs are met. What would you do under capitalism if you didnt want to participate in the system?
@@SpencerYT138 also why wouldnt you be able to start your own business as long as members of your business have equal say as you? The assumption is that youre partaking in the commune the same as everyone else, and hiring from the commune. Assuming you chose to be in the commune (community of choice) then why not leave anyone? You used commune resources (in the form of food, labour, housing) then claim the results as your own (assuming thats what you meant by a business)? Could you elaborate though so I can respond more directly?
Regarding property, I think if you use it, its yours. You live in your house, you use your tools to utilize your labor to make a living, etc. vs where you just owning unused EXTRA land and renting it out is where Id imagine a commune or community of individuals would draw the line when that land can do far more?
Lmao, how can you have property rights without a state to enforce them and keep track of who owns what?
4:27 "Imagine you did not have the right to defend your house from a robber" - I don't have to imagine, I live in Britain where it is fully illegal to use "excessive force" or "force that exceeds necessary force" in any situation. If the court rules that you used too much force in defending your house you go to prison
See also: New York or any Democrat majority US state
It's simple then, use the required amount of force. You said it yourself
Also, isn't the problem with coconut island analogy is that it is technically the direct outcome of idea of labour being equal to value? The guy put labour into collecting coconuts, so now he should own 100% of fruits of his labour, shouldn't he?
(Analogy also completly ignores that part of property rights is ability to defend said property rights, so the moment the guy would walk to sleep he's refusal to buy defense agreement from you would result.in him getting robbed. Which would not prove socialism is right, just that natural monopolies are impossible to maintain.)
So you believe in property rights until you don't like them and then you say it's morally justified to redistribute wealth because he should have defended him self and might makes right and still don't see that that is exactly the point of the thought experiment.
@@justantoThe thought experiment doesn't work as an analogy because it purports that pleasuring the coconut man is the ONLY means of surviving. In a real free market this is never the case. Therefore the analogy is meaningless.
@@nathancollins1715 lol. how do you aquire the basic necessities of life outside of the capitalist system in the real world? how do you get food? shelter? are you going to just will some free land into existence and start farming? Where are you going to get the seeds or livestock? You live on coconut island and you don't realize it because you already have a source of coconuts.
@@justanto Actually, I live on a version of coconut island where rather than one man offering me coconuts, there are thousands, and they're all constantly trying to outbid each other to get me to purchase their coconuts over the others. Eventually, the cost of these coconuts will settle into (labor value + marginal profit per unit) and, since you can't really go lower than that, then that will be the generally accepted price of the coconuts. I will then buy my coconuts using seashells, since everyone on the island collectively realized that sexual favors are an unsustainable method of pricing and the guy who initially proposed it will probably not sell any coconuts since all his competitors are offering better deals. The seashell fiat turns out to be pretty successful, so in a few years many of the coconut salesmen have shifted their efforts into other ventures like construction, fishing, firewood collecting, water filtration, masonry, etc, which they all charge reasonable prices for since, again, they all have competitors who keep them in check.
THAT is the free market. Your analogy relies on the ridiculous idea that all agriculture, manufacturing, marketing, and industry ventures on Earth are somehow conspiring to get you to pay them unreasonable amounts for their products, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Individuals benefit from undercutting other individuals. What you are describing is a monopoly, which is impossible in a truly free market.
The coconut analogy doesn't even make rational sense because coconuts are not even a limited resource, they're a slowly replenishing resource, as well it presumes that there is only one resource on the island that could serve that purpose, its a dumb example because any island that could support coconuts also supports a feasibly infinite variable of other potential resources, some obvious and others less obvious or specialized, and even if the monopolist establishes his coconut monopoly there is still the inherent potential in the hypothetical for you to trade for the coconuts due to how alternative comparable resources can work and exist, monopolies aren't very useful with a small economy where nobody is cooperative, because it destroys long term continuation. Its a high time preference strategy and thus is inherently destructive, especially if you're in a desperate place, before we even consider the danger of violence itself.
This idea is complete nonsense. I thought I would watch hoping it wasn't as stupid as it sounded... but no. They are legit suggesting that people will give up their stuff of their own free will for no reason... have they met a human before? Its like a lot of things with Communism, the ideas are great under the assumption that humans are like AI rather than having the errors of being human. Even if it works better on a small scale where humans are more invested like in a village, it scales up because the attachments people have in the smaller scale that would motivate selfless behavior do not apply once you get outside their immediate relationships. At the larger scale, you need the government to make you care at which point you lose your libertarian tag
He literally uses the dictionary definition of libertarian to argue against libertarian socialists (which is an entirely different ideology). It's complete conceptual mush.
Here's a clue: 'libertarian' historically meant 'libertarian socialist'. The word was co-opted by the right-wing like lots of other left-wing jargon.
@@APaleDot Libertarian predates socialism by several hundred centuries at minimum. The specific word might have changed slightly since it was first coined as liberalism back with John Locke and those thinkers, but the ideology existed long before socialism was ever put forth as a legitimate idea for ruling a country. As far as I know, there aren't really any examples of it in action until then either (no early Christians were NOT practicing socialism and saying that the story of Manna is some form of socialism doesn't count either even if someone with a PhD suggests it). So no dice. No matter how you look at it, his use of the definition is correct.
@@joshsolders5543
The term 'libertarian' was coined by left-wing anarchists when the term 'anarchist' was made illegal in France, that's where the word comes from. It comes from the left-wing. That's why libertarian socialists call themselves libertarian.
I didn't argue that it came before liberalism, so I don't know why you are bringing it up. In the video, he argues that 'libertarian' contradicts 'socialist' because of the dictionary definition, completely clueless to the history of the term. The history where the term literally just meant a type of socialist. Ok, language is not fixed, words can mean different things in different contexts. But then you have to let go of the idea that 'libertarian' means the one specific thing you want it to mean, and acknowledge that 'libertarian socialist' is just a completely different ideology. It's not a contradiction.
@@APaleDot The one problem with your argument is that libertarian socialism is the combination of two ideologies, liberalism and socialism. Libertarian is derived from liberalism. Its not a stealing of the term, but rather the correct use of it. After all, they took the ideology directly from some of the biggest promoters of liberalism when it was being first promoted like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. If you extract the Socialism from Libertarian Socialism, you essentially get the classic liberalism ideology that we call Libertarian today. I only say essentially to avoid any minor nitpicks. The reality is you don't understand the history of the term, not him.
@@joshsolders5543
From the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on LIbertarianism:
"The word “libertarian” was first used in the 18th century to refer to a metaphysical view regarding freedom of the will, and it was first used as a political term in 19th century France to refer to communist anarchists (for example, in the journal Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, edited by Joseph Déjacque), and in the late 19th century it would be used by individualist anarchists (for example, in the journal Liberty, edited by Benjamin Tucker). In the mid-20th century, the label was adopted by liberals who wanted to resist certain political developments in many Western states following World War 2."
It was not taken "directly from some of the biggest promoters of liberalism", you just pulled that out of your ass. Anarchists were blowing up some liberals in France, so they made the term illegal, so the anarchists called themselves libertarians instead (not 'liberatarian socialists' either, just 'libertarians'). That's just the history of the term. Sorry to inform you.
I’d like to say, that it is really easy to find similar videos debunking ancap. “if somebody steals/doesn’t follow agreement and you’ll either do nothing about it (so capitalism can’t exist) or you protect your property rights (so you create government).
If we talk can or cannot anarchy exist we should give a definition to state. If we define state as “force to do smth people want” than anarchy in any form cannot exist (since we cannot fight against weaponized groups).
I think LibSoc try to define state as “organization/corporation that control people’s lives”. So they (I think) try to create a society where everyone wants to share what they have. I can see such system can exist at small scale (friends (maybe students) that live together and share what they have, and idea is that they voluntarily join such group to work together.
If they don’t want to join? They… don’t join. I guess that’s a problem if we try to expand such system to state-scale, when we have millions of people who don’t like idea, but that’s another question.
“Libertarian Socialism” is an Oxymoronic Belief System for the Politically-Schizophrenic.
It is the very definition of the “Midwit” Meme, personified.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a book.
7:56 Exactly, they're interchangeable with each other
22 minutes to explain you don't understand libertarian socialism
Do you?
better than this guy for sure
@@auregamer5 Explain then
Waste my time you mean.
Tl;Dr. If the videos creator, along with his googling searched for definitions of libertarianism, also looked up for leftist distinction between "modes of production" - capitalism, socialism. And how these concepts are separate from market economy, planned economy...
Or at the very very least was educated enough to be aware of existence of yugoslavia.
He would find out his whole video is nonsense.
@@auregamer5 In other words, you're talking out of your rear end. The idea of socialism is that the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. But since the collectives are an abstract thing, they need to be represented by someone and that someone becomes the new boss. And if we do it country-wise then it can be no one but the government in order for it to make sense. So Socialism REQUIRES planned economy and Mentis simply understood the concept and it's implications better than you did
I think there should be a government, but it should be small and should be the last resort.
Definitely an issue stemming from the political compass test, but I'm very left libertarian and am a strong supporter of both personal and property rights. Many people who score left libertarian on the test are.
This just shows how the test and the compass itself is mostly useless. I'll often feel competely different politically from someone who's very close to me on the compass.
Can you please give some examples of left libertarian positions? Is it I guess something like Denmark or Norway? And of course the compass will always be flawed, opinions and positions are much more nuanced than can be mapped on to a 2D plane.
@jakubsevcik1392 Going by what the compass would deem "left lib:"
- Strong support of personal freedoms
- Strong support of property rights and the right to defend yourself
- Healthcare and public education as a right
So yeah, similar to the Scandinavian nations, but with a stronger emphasis on personal rights/freedom of speech than we see in Europe. Basically, the government should provide a safety net so even the dumbest, laziest person has a minimum quality of life, but beyond that I want the government out of our personal lives as much as possible. Which is why I'm as anti-cenorship and pro-free speech as you can get. And why even if a certain sexual practice disgusts me, I'd never want it banned between consenting adults.
@@amandeepsingh-mk3hy"Healthcare and public education as a right "
That doesn't sound very libertarian and just sounds like standard liberal statism.
@@jakubsevcik1392 No, it wouldn't be like Denmark or Norway. Libertarian socialists are against social safety nets because they know that handouts are just a tactic for the state to hold power over the populace. Therefore, libertarians of all kinds would be against social democratic models, otherwise they are either confused or lying. Libertarian socialists are generally closer to minarchists, but advocate for worker co-ops or worker councils.
@@amandeepsingh-mk3hy you can read "The Perils of Positive Rights" or probably any libertarian/anarcocapitalist book to understand why positive rights are wrong and, in the end, are just coercion, basically, for someone to have said right someone needs to be obliged to provide them said right, this idea is inherently authoritarian
This is exactly what Shoe said she was in a recent video lol.
Bro- anarcho communists were the people that created libertarianism originally 😂
capitalist libertarianism existed in the 1950s whike libertarianism socialist came around 1825
And?
Nope, you could easily argue that US was a capitalist libertarian nation up until early 1900s/1910s.
Founding Fathers themselves could easily be classified as that too.
@@AFT_05G I literally have proof it came out of the French in the 1800s
Your history is all fucked up
"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron in it's purest form.
How? A state is not needed to enforce democracy in the work place. The workers can establish a democratic system of electing bosses in their company, without government interference.
When socialists seek to abolish private property, we mean property that generates profit, examples being a factory, general store, or a farm. Marx distinguishes the difference between personal property "Property such as your house, toothbrush, and anything else that doesn't create profit" and private property (refer to what we mean by personal property). that means you can get arrested for stealing someones belongings because it is their personal property. read what are ideas are before criticizing, because what good is criticizing an idea you no nothing about.
This is a retarded distinction because anything can be used to make a profit, and my property doesn’t cease to be mine just because I do make a profit off of it.
@@ExPwnerExactly. And this arbitrary line between personal and profit making property is so undefined as to be nonexistent.
I own a lot of tools for home repairs. Occasionally I will use them to help people I know for a little money in return. Would the state now be allowed to take the tools I use 99% of the time personally because I generated a profit?
OP to test your ideas you need to push them to their logical edges. I know you can do it
@@JohnC875 You own those tools and the profit they create, therefore you own the means of production. It's still allowed under socialism, you idiot. What would get you in trouble is if you employed a bunch of people, and instead of them owning their own profit, YOU owned it.
@@ExPwner God, some people really can't distinguish between a corporation and a toothbrush. If you own profit these things create, you own the means of production (a.k.a. the labour force). It is therefore still allowed under socialism. What would get you in trouble is if you employed a bunch of people, and instead of them owning their own profit, YOU owned it without doing work.
The quick answer for the Upper Right corner of the Political Compass is there is the concept of Personal Responsibility. The state has an obligation to enforce both rights and responsibilities that individuals have. Particularly when it comes to matters that result in the creation of new human beings who are willed and brought into the world by their parents' actions.
The child didn't chose to be created, their parents are entirely responsible for that. Hence, as a result, the State enforces Parental Responsibilities (ranging from requiring a process for a parent to give a child up for adoption before the parent no longer is responsible for the child to requiring Child Support from biological fathers, to Marriage having legal claims upon the husband and wife).
This further extends to the State keeping individuals from socializing costs and privatizing benefits beyond mere property theft. Stuff like, for example, prosecuting gangs and contraband sellers to prevent the dissemination of addictive hard drugs which cripple the people that become dependent on them and who become burdens to their families and the rest of society.
If anything has shown that Social Anarchism is a bad idea and retarded, its the de facto repeal by the Leftists in California and Oregon of Civil and City Ordinances for Public Order and Safety (and in certain cases even enabling drug abuse, homelessness, and avoidance of committing the mentally ill to hospitals for treatment).
Discarded drug needles, feces everywhere, trash-filled tent encampments, people being randomly accosted/assaulted, and stores ransacked, are all the result of the Left's abandonment of a commitment to enforcing the Personal Responsibilities of citizens and Rules and Laws for Public Order.
i suppose if one ignores the fact the term Libertarian was first used by socialist Joseph Déjacque who inspired Anarcho-Communism one could argue it doesn't make sense but its not like Modern libertarians know what socialism is to begin with and the history of capitalism with the state playing a huge part in propping it up.
He uses the Lexico-Oxford dictionary to define Libertarianism and Socialism. Arguing from a point of historical definition is rather unimportant when the debate is regarding modern politics. Even when the history of the term is considered- the entire concept that a comunal group that requires forced collectivization to function would respect individual rights is utopian.
"The term was utilized first by someone on the left therefore my ideology makes sense"
Were you on drugs writing this?
Judging from their PFP, probably yes.@@Maceta444
Dejacque wasn’t the first person to use it
Did you even watch the video?
With freedom comes responsibility. That's why children aren't free. They have little to no real responsibility.
This is such a basic thing that too many grown ass adults fail to understand nowadays and "libertarian socialism" is the shining example of this. It's a bunch of people saying "I want freedom, but no responsibility."
Actually libertarian socialism has had some interesting experiments irl. Christiania was once such town that followed the tenets of libertarian socialism but ultimately fell apart when it grew too large and outside forces started to interfere. Bad actors came in and started abusing the system as well as the government noticing that they weren’t paying taxes on land that the government was letting rot before Christiania showed up. I wouldn’t want to live there but it’s an interesting case study. Count Dankula has a good video on it.
Much better examples are the CNT-FAI, Makhnovia & the Zapatistas.
5:32 The improved compass is better, but still not perfect. Conservatives are not necessarily against personal rights being granted *legally*. There are those of us - I would think, even the majority - who would prefer to have traditional values encouraged socially rather than enacted through government. This is no infringement of the NAP. Well, when I took the test, it put me as purely libertarian, because I didn't think most things should be banned legally, but I would fight for a society in which some things are socially very painful. Something like what we used to have. The chart itself could just mark me down as a conservatarian, right in the middle of them, but the concept of the compass doesn't seem to be able to account for that nuance.
Heard this argument many times. My brother is a Liberal that constantly talks about socialism. I asked him what the best type of Socialism would be and he said Libertarian Socialism he explained to me that in this Liberal Utopia people like Jeff Bezos and his Trillions would be equally spread to citizens that need it. This sounds great but I asked him who will take Bezos money and spread it around equally? He than said the State Of Course!!!!!!
Instantly I knew he was well mislead and brainwashed. The State if given that much power in reality would pocket the money for themselves not equally spread it around to people in need. This would lead to Tyranny because if the State is the one who decides who makes money and who doesn't the people are then fucked. If you don't agree with the State they will not give you money and you will be starved. If you really believe the state cares for you you are brainwashed they do not care. You are viewed as cattle. These people who claim to be Libertarian Socialists are really just Socialist in Sheep's Clothing or their just confused it all leads back to the State.
Did you ever mention your opinions to your brother?
@@alostusb5999Na man he’s totally gone he starts to shake and get aggressive if I simply disagree with him. He also always starts to cry in arguments.
How do you divide the money and to who? 1 Trillion dollars divided by 10 Million people means everyone gets $100,000. That money will not be used responsibly...
Its Bad investing... That money should be used to fix infrastructure, rehouse people with good credit rating living in bad housing, pay off debts, and to buy land for future public development. Not redistributed because your kid needs money for lesbian art school OR a new Soccer Stadium...
I generally find the political triangle to be more of an accurate representation of politics.
That’s the dictionary definition of an oxymoron
The existence of worker co-ops just debunks this. Worker management, in a free market, without being upheld by the state!?! (no waaay)
fejuve, rojava, the zapatistas, etc disprove this
Just observing the compass meme at 4:03.
Wouldn't logically (by the relationship of the surrounding answers) the question of how is law and order maintained and scarcity handled by the left libertarian be
No government and no property rights. Survival of the fittest and who carries the (biggest in size and quantity) sticks ?
If the auth left is government, the lib right property rights, the auth right both, then the lib left by logical implication should have to be the opposite or lack of both.
Which means everyone agrees to play by the rules? But isn't that just reinventing the wheel and recreating the auth left, auth right, or lib right? But "voluntarily" ?
For it to be consistent with the other positions, being neither auth nor right, wouldn't it by definition be in direct opposition to both their principles? No government and no property rights?
Is this the design flaw of the chart in action? That the bottom left quadrant has to be the opposite of the top right?
When Libertarian Socialists/Anarchists say “state” what they mean is an unjustified hierarchy or non-democratic governance. I just debunked your entire video, boom. I learned that the hard way by criticizing in ignorance, like how you’re doing.
So, just to get this right, you think a non-democratic, and therefore authoritarian state, is what socialist libertarians want in control?
Exactly
Can you prove that?