Libertarian vs Socialism

[Thalmor]

 

Capitalism will collapse under its own weight, it's only a matter of time. Crisis after crisis will happen, as history has proven, until it can't be sustained any more. Things will only get worse, and people will simply become fed up. There wouldn't really be a need to convince anyone. Plus, it should be pretty obvious that if we can adopt a system where everyone gets everything they need, we should go for it, we'd be crazy not to.

 

''...until it can't be sustained any more.'' Can you please elaborate on that? I don't see how a system as simple as ''you give me X for Y'' will become unsustainable.

 

 

They are indeed exploited, because capitalism leaves everyone who's not a capital owner or investor with only one choice: to rent yourself out as a worker. It is essentially wage slavery.

 

I suppose we're at an ideological stonewall then. I just don't see anything wrong with someone working for other person voluntarily. I mean, it's only natural for humans to form hierarchies and for people to rule over another.

 

I mean, I see where you're coming from, I think. I just don't see an issue that need fixing. At least, not fixing now.

 

 

And then the employer takes a share out of everyone's work, pretty much leeching off of them. In a communist society, there wouldn't be a need for anyone to be in the position your mother has, because the workers would be quite capable of managing themselves, without having anyone in a position above them to take a piece of their work. Choosing between working for a wage or living in poverty and starving, is not really a choice at all.

 

The employees do two different things. First, they ''work up'' patients by going in, seeing the initial issues, and then they leave a chart for my mother to see. The second thing the employees do is organize the charts by the information given by the patients and by what treatment my mother prescribes for them. We have to organize everything the way we do to both provide the best care, and to meet state and federal standards.

 

With my mother's employees helping, we wouldn't be able to do that. We'd go out of business, and then suddenly, hundreds of people in lose quality healthcare.

 

But hey, at least the worker's aren't exploited, right?

 

By the way, those two comics are extremely biased and really don't paint the issue fairly. The first comic is literally ''Capitalism is bad, communism good! And the second one portrays all employer's as greedy and arrogant.

 

 

That is literally exactly the point Marx was making in that quote.

 

If the objection that in a communist society, everyone would succumb to laziness because they already have what they need is true, then the same should be true for the capitalists, who have everything they need. But it's not true, they still work. I'm in complete agreement with you on this, and so is Karl Marx.

 

Thank you for clearing that up. For some reason, I had trouble following and thus deciphering the quote.

 

 

Theory is rarely created without supporting evidence. It's not like Marx got all these ideas out of nowhere, he didn't draw his conclusions based on thin air. Capitalism most definitely started out as a theory too, along with the gravitational theory and the theory of evolution. A lot of things start out as an idea, or a hypothesis, and then they are put into practice. Just because true communism has never been put into practice before, doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed.

 

Capitalism is a simple idea, though. ''You give me X for Y.''

Gravity can be observed.

Evolution is backed up by fossils.

 

Yet, again, I bring up the fact that you yourself said that true communism hasn't been practiced. So, where's the supporting evidence?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Socialism doesn't abolish private property. You can still own stuff and have personal possessions. The important part for socialists is that the means of production are under collective control. No one would suggest that you can't own your own house or property, or that you shouldn't have the freedom to "do things" on your own property. That would be absurd.

 

What you've described above is more akin to totalitarianism, not socialism, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Collectivism is perfectly reasonable and desireable, because it provides literally everyone with literally everything they need. The benefits should be obvious.

Is not collectivism a Totalitarian ideal? And is not Collectivism subjective in its own ideology, as who determines what the whole may require? This is the biggest flaw I find in Socialism, as Socialist "planners" can never make the planning system remain in place long enough for the eventual "Paradise" to develop.

 

As for not owning my own "stuff", it is true for having personal belongings, but as far as homes and property, it depends on what definition of Socialism you adhere to. Most forms reject private property rights(land ownership) and for that reason alone I do not adhere to most forms of Socialism.

[Big Brother]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Communists are most often in favor of abolishing private property, but socialists are most often not in favor.

 

What socialists don't want to fall into private hands, is stuff like oil wells, mines, certain types of factories, pretty much just stuff that's important to the economy of the nation, because they believe that the resources and wealth of a nation should benefit the entirety of the nation, and not just some schmuck who's only interested in filling his own pocket while contributing as little as he possibly can to the rest of society.

 

Not every variant of socialism uses a planned economy either, that depends a lot on which variety of socialism is adhered to. The Chinese for example, control the important parts of their economy by simply owning majority shares, not complete government ownership, and not through planning.

 

Collectivism is not a totalitarian ideal, it's more like its own ideology, like you said:

 

Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and in some cases stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined).

 

You can be a capitalist, a liberal, a socialist, a Christian democrat, a totalitarian, and at the same time be in favor of collectivism. It's basically just the idea of putting the group or groups above the individual.

 

 

 

''...until it can't be sustained any more.'' Can you please elaborate on that? I don't see how a system as simple as ''you give me X for Y'' will become unsustainable.

 

Well... Engels probably explains it better than I possibly could so:

 

What were the further consequences of the industrial revolution?

 

Big industry created in the steam engine, and other machines, the means of endlessly expanding industrial production, speeding it up, and cutting its costs. With production thus facilitated, the free competition, which is necessarily bound up with big industry, assumed the most extreme forms; a multitude of capitalists invaded industry, and, in a short while, more was produced than was needed.

 

As a consequence, finished commodities could not be sold, and a so-called commercial crisis broke out. Factories had to be closed, their owners went bankrupt, and the workers were without bread. Deepest misery reigned everywhere. After a time, the superfluous products were sold, the factories began to operate again, wages rose, and gradually business got better than ever.

 

But it was not long before too many commodities were again produced and a new crisis broke out, only to follow the same course as its predecessor.

Ever since the beginning of this (19th) century, the condition of industry has constantly fluctuated between periods of prosperity and periods of crisis; nearly every five to seven years, a fresh crisis has intervened, always with the greatest hardship for workers, and always accompanied by general revolutionary stirrings and the direct peril to the whole existing order of things.

What follows from these periodic commercial crises?

First:

 

That, though big industry in its earliest stage created free competition, it has now outgrown free competition;

that, for big industry, competition and generally the individualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter;

 

that, so long as big industry remains on its present footing, it can be maintained only at the cost of general chaos every seven years, each time threatening the whole of civilization and not only plunging the proletarians into misery but also ruining large sections of the bourgeoisie; hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.

 

Second: That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.

It thus appears that the very qualities of big industry which, in our present-day society, produce misery and crises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and these catastrophic depressions.

 

We see with the greatest clarity:

 

(i) That all these evils are from now on to be ascribed solely to a social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of the real situation; and

(ii) That it is possible, through a new social order, to do away with these evils altogether.

 

 

I suppose we're at an ideological stonewall then. I just don't see anything wrong with someone working for other person voluntarily. I mean, it's only natural for humans to form hierarchies and for people to rule over another.

 

Your mistake is thinking it is voluntary. Like I already mentioned, choosing between selling your labor or poverty and starvation, is not a choice. It doesn't become voluntary, it becomes a necessity to survive.

 

The worker, or proletarian, sells him or herself daily, hourly. The proletarian has no secured existence, his labor is only bought when someone needs it. "The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product."

 

And no, it's not natural for human beings to form hierarchies, that's only your subjective opinion. Even if it were true, human beings are not slaves to our nature. We constantly do things that contradict any natural or physiological principles. We have the ability to ignore such things, and do so frequently.

 

 

The employees do two different things. First, they ''work up'' patients by going in, seeing the initial issues, and then they leave a chart for my mother to see. The second thing the employees do is organize the charts by the information given by the patients and by what treatment my mother prescribes for them. We have to organize everything the way we do to both provide the best care, and to meet state and federal standards.

 

With my mother's employees helping, we wouldn't be able to do that. We'd go out of business, and then suddenly, hundreds of people in lose quality healthcare.

 

But hey, at least the worker's aren't exploited, right?

 

You.. wouldn't go bankrupt because.. no one would have to get paid.. You're thinking in terms of capitalism and economics simply wouldn't function the same way in a communist society. There wouldn't be a need for any businesses to compete or survive on a commercial basis, there would actually not be anything like a "business" in the traditional sense of the word at all.

 

And even in capitalism terms, the employers are the people who make the most money. If the employees got rid of the employer, and thus got rid of having to pay and give up part of their product to the employer, and simply assumed and shared the responsibilities and tasks of the employer between themselves, they would have less expenses, and most certainly would be less likely to go bankrupt.

 

But again, I really have to stress that the situation you described could never happen in a communist society, only in a capitalist one.

 

 

By the way, those two comics are extremely biased and really don't paint the issue fairly. The first comic is literally ''Capitalism is bad, communism good! And the second one portrays all employer's as greedy and arrogant.

 

Do you know why it says capitalism is bad? Because capitalism is bad. The comics portray capitalism exactly as capitalism functions. It's not attempting to portray every single employer as greedy and arrogant, it is simply portraying how capitalism works.

 

Every employer takes a piece of the wealth and products their employees create, and that is exploitation. It's a defining principle of capitalism that you have a boss or capitalist at the top, that takes a share out of what everyone single person beneath him produces. The point is, you don't need that boss at the top leeching off of the work of others and that such a system, is unfair.

 

 

Capitalism is a simple idea, though. ''You give me X for Y.''

Gravity can be observed.

Evolution is backed up by fossils.

 

Yet, again, I bring up the fact that you yourself said that true communism hasn't been practiced. So, where's the supporting evidence?

 

Not all evidence has to derive from putting things into practice. Tell you what, why don't you read some of Marx' and Engels' works (both of them studied capitalism extensively and are considered to be authorities on the subject to this day), study their observations, their theories, their reasons behind creating the ideas and making the assumptions that they have. I recommend this to get you started, very easy read:

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

 

The Communist Manifesto is also worth checking out:

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

 

And if it still holds your interest after those two, take on The Capital:

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

 

We both know that you're probably never going to agree with me, and I'm probably never going to agree with you. I'm honestly getting pretty tired of being the middleman between you and what Marx and Engels wrote and I feel like I'm repeating myself. It's less time consuming for the both of us if you check out those links, it'll take you maybe half an hour, tops.

 

You can keep asking me about these things you want, but I can't promise that I can be bothered to reply and there's nothing I could tell you that Marx & Engels couldn't explain more accurately.

[WISD0MTREE]

I am asking you to add those costs together and divide by the federal budget. 

 

Feel free to select as many as you desire if you have the backup mice to handle it. 

 

You also appear to have a hypothesis, specifically that those costs are not significant.  Just trying to help you.

I am well aware. 

 

They are pretty expensive. 

 

Yeah. Projects like Aurora are expensive and we don't even know what they are. It could be the supersonic recon airplane like the tinfoils say, or it could be mapping birds or some !@#$ like that. 

 

EDIT: Wikipedia link to Aurora plane thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

Edited July 12, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Phaik]

''...until it can't be sustained any more.'' Can you please elaborate on that? I don't see how a system as simple as ''you give me X for Y'' will become unsustainable.

I invite you to partake in a little experiment. Ready? Stand up. Just stand there for as long as you can. I bet you can stand for quite a while. Over a short period of time, your position is quite sustainable. In the long run, not so much. Your muscles will tire and give out. The workers in the capitalist society are the muscles.

 

As far as choosing to work. I work in a factory that produces propane tanks. I do not voluntarily choose to work there because I love propane tanks. I work there to put a roof over my head and food on the table. If I had a choice in what job I did, an actual choice where getting paid wasn't a factor, I'd work as a special effects technician in Hollywood. What job would you do if pay wasnt a factor? Is it the same job you do now?

Edited July 12, 2015 by Phaik

[LordRahl2]

I invite you to partake in a little experiment. Ready? Stand up. Just stand there for as long as you can. I bet you can stand for quite a while. Over a short period of time, your position is quite sustainable. In the long run, not so much. Your muscles will tire and give out. The workers in the capitalist society are the muscles.

 

As far as choosing to work. I work in a factory that produces propane tanks. I do not voluntarily choose to work there because I love propane tanks. I work there to put a roof over my head and food on the table. If I had a choice in what job I did, an actual choice where getting paid wasn't a factor, I'd work as a special effects technician in Hollywood. What job would you do if pay wasnt a factor? Is it the same job you do now?

 

I would work in a factory that produces propane tanks ofc.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Human greed is a great motivator. It's why capitalism has produced such prosperity.

Ah, conservative thinking.  Following the economic ideals of an 18th century economist.  "Invisible Hand" is a silly idea.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Bored now Leafing]

Socialism and it's more extreme counterpart communism can not exist without government for a very simple reason Big bro, the force needed to make everyone do what the central planners say requires an army and armies cost a lot, for if even one person decides not to follow the will of the central planners then the plan is ruined, very odd how so many think communism and it's lesser cousin socialism are the way forward when there is nothing more backward then a system that advocates a small elite choosing for the masses it almost sounds like... Feudalism, but that can't be right they always put up pictures about the future and how every thing will be wonderful and...progressive...?

 

Funny thing about the word progress and it's political name sake Progressivism, the word on it's own does not inform what is being progressed toward so the term can literally be applied to every political movement all the way back to the beginning of time and still retain it's mean, why? because progress only means movement/change even if that change is right back into the hole of barbarism from which humanity has slowly crawled out of.

 

Invisible hand refers to the unseen activity of every individual person, do yourself a favor Aisha and drop the magic act, says much about you that you would reach back to the first page to swipe at a person who has not participated much in this thread.

[Big Brother]

Socialism and it's more extreme counterpart communism can not exist without government for a very simple reason Big bro, the force needed to make everyone do what the central planners say requires an army and armies cost a lot, for if even one person decides not to follow the will of the central planners then the plan is ruined, very odd how so many think communism and it's lesser cousin socialism are the way forward when there is nothing more backward then a system that advocates a small elite choosing for the masses it almost sounds like... Feudalism, but that can't be right they always put up pictures about the future and how every thing will be wonderful and...progressive...?

 

Funny thing about the word progress and it's political name sake Progressivism, the word on it's own does not inform what is being progressed toward so the term can literally be applied to every political movement all the way back to the beginning of time and still retain it's mean, why? because progress only means movement/change even if that change is right back into the hole of barbarism from which humanity has slowly crawled out of.

 

If you believe that communism cannot exist without government when the lack of government is an inherent part of the ideology, then your comprehension of said ideology is insufficient.

 

You make all these assumptions, like the assumption that all communists are in favor of central planning. This is nonsense, in a truly communist society there would be no central government to do any central planning. You don't need to use force, you don't need an army, all you need are the workers and for history to progress.

 

Oh and, the notion that if a single person abandons this "plan" that you've conjured up out of thin air, the entire plan will fail, does not make a single shred of sense.

 

I also have no idea where you get the idea that socialism and/or communism advocates the rule of the few over the many. This is simply a lie, and if you believe it you are deceiving yourself.

 

Communists and socialists seek to remove the the rule of one class over another, and this is why communists also seek to abolish government. If anything is similar to the feudal system of the past, it's capitalism, where wealth is concentrated on the rich elite, while everyone else sells their labor and receive scraps in return.

 

I'm not a communist, I have only presented the ideas of communists in a factual manner. You however, seem more keen on indulging your own presumptive misconceptions than actually absorbing any new knowledge.

 

And finally, "barbarism" is only a term created by one culture to ridicule and discriminate against another culture. There are no barbarians, only different cultures.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Big Brother

[LordRahl2]

If you believe that communism cannot exist without government when the lack of government is an inherent part of the ideology, then your comprehension of said ideology is insufficient.

 

You make all these assumptions, like the assumption that all communists are in favor of central planning. This is nonsense, in a truly communist society there would be no central government to do any central planning. You don't need to use force, you don't need an army, all you need are the workers and for history to progress.

 

Oh and, the notion that if a single person abandons this "plan" that you've conjured up out of thin air, the entire plan will fail, does not make a single shred of sense.

 

I also have no idea where you get the idea that socialism and/or communism advocates the rule of the few over the many. This is simply a lie, and if you believe it you are deceiving yourself.

 

Communists and socialists seek to remove the the rule of one class over another, and this is why communists also seek to abolish government. If anything is similar to the feudal system of the past, it's capitalism, where wealth is concentrated on the rich elite, while everyone else sells their labor and receive scraps in return.

 

I'm not a communist, I have only presented the ideas of communists in a factual manner. You however, seem more keen on indulging your own presumptive misconceptions than actually absorbing any new knowledge.

 

And finally, "barbarism" is only a term created by one culture to ridicule and discriminate against another culture. There are no barbarians, only different cultures.

 

You are skipping ahead in the theoretical model.  Although the final synthesis which was very loosely defined by Engels might be interpreted as lacking a government the interim thesis would theoretically involve either a global alliance or a one world government.  The antithesis that would arise to challenge a classless one world socialist government was unclear in the writings.

 

//////////////////////////////////

 

As fascinating as it is to churn through all three volumes of Das Kapital I would only do so knowing that the theory has played out in the real world as utter rubbish.  So unless you are delving into a deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of Soviet Russia then I am unsure why you would even attempt to try.

 

You are making a bold effort to educate but maybe it is not particularly valuable to try to correct people who have chosen not to spend the time, a wise choice I might add, to understand the finer points between the Hegelian Dialectic and Dialectical Materialism.  Frankly, they seem to have a general -although not nuanced- understanding of the actual form of government that arises when people attempt to apply and accelerate Engel's theory (Marx was just the figurehead btw).  For 99.9% of the world it matters little if they do not understand the theory as long as they can grasp the practical impacts.

 

The practical impacts of attempts to apply apply Communist theory did, in fact, almost universally include centralized authority and often centralized planning.  Why were they forced to abandon the theoretical model?  Because, as I said, it is rubbish.

[Adama]

You are skipping ahead in the theoretical model.  Although the final synthesis which was very loosely defined by Engels might be interpreted as lacking a government the interim thesis would theoretically involve either a global alliance or a one world government.  The antithesis that would arise to challenge a classless one world socialist government was unclear in the writings.

 

//////////////////////////////////

 

As fascinating as it is to churn through all three volumes of Das Kapital I would only do so knowing that the theory has played out in the real world as utter rubbish.  So unless you are delving into a deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of Soviet Russia then I am unsure why you would even attempt to try.

 

You are making a bold effort to educate but maybe it is not particularly valuable to try to correct people who have chosen not to spend the time, a wise choice I might add, to understand the finer points between the Hegelian Dialectic and Dialectical Materialism.  Frankly, they seem to have a general -although not nuanced- understanding of the actual form of government that arises when people attempt to apply and accelerate Engel's theory (Marx was just the figurehead btw).  For 99.9% of the world it matters little if they do not understand the theory as long as they can grasp the practical impacts.

 

The practical impacts of attempts to apply apply Communist theory did, in fact, almost universally include centralized authority and often centralized planning.  Why were they forced to abandon the theoretical model?  Because, as I said, it is rubbish.

 

I think his point was the attempted hypothetical goal in Communism is the abolition of degrees of power in society, leading us to a place where everyone is in fact equal. Of course this is where the contradiction lies, in that to create absolute equality one must be given absolute authority and absolute authority corrupts absolutely. This is what led to the despotic state of affairs in Soviet Russia as the rule of law was not flexible enough in the eyes of the dictators or the party to respond to the changes in society in which to either maintain their power (most often the case) or maintain the degree of perfection the soviet state was supposed to be.

[LordRahl2]

I think his point was the attempted hypothetical goal in Communism is the abolition of degrees of power in society, leading us to a place where everyone is in fact equal. Of course this is where the contradiction lies, in that to create absolute equality one must be given absolute authority and absolute authority corrupts absolutely. This is what led to the despotic state of affairs in Soviet Russia as the rule of law was not flexible enough in the eyes of the dictators or the party to respond to the changes in society in which to either maintain their power (most often the case) or maintain the degree of perfection the soviet state was supposed to be.

 

Emmm, he was giving you a theoretical argument and you are again replying with a mostly historical concrete reply.  'Abolition of degrees of power' is close but not really what he was saying...but again I would need to talk to you a lot about theory to explain why. 

 

From sentence two on: You are not wrong -you are generally correct imho-, however, you fail to understand his POV in trying to convey the theory that they base their ideology on.  He conveys an accurate enough conceptual/theoretical summation of Marx/Engels theory.  Try replying that you accept the theoretical educational posts he has provided.  Then point to the history of the actual application of that theory and clearly delineate between the two.

 

I am all for a perfect society of equals.  That utopian ideal is unfortunately unattainable and we must live in the real world.  So communism is theoretically unsound when put into practice.

Edited July 17, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Bored now Leafing]

(1) If you believe that communism cannot exist without government when the lack of government is an inherent part of the ideology, then your comprehension of said ideology is insufficient.

 

(2) You make all these assumptions, like the assumption that all communists are in favor of central planning. This is nonsense, in a truly communist society there would be no central government to do any central planning. You don't need to use force, you don't need an army, all you need are the workers and for history to progress.

 

(3) Oh and, the notion that if a single person abandons this "plan" that you've conjured up out of thin air, the entire plan will fail, does not make a single shred of sense.

 

(4) I also have no idea where you get the idea that socialism and/or communism advocates the rule of the few over the many. This is simply a lie, and if you believe it you are deceiving yourself.

 

(5) Communists and socialists seek to remove the the rule of one class over another, and this is why communists also seek to abolish government. If anything is similar to the feudal system of the past, it's capitalism, where wealth is concentrated on the rich elite, while everyone else sells their labor and receive scraps in return.

 

I'm not a communist, I have only presented the ideas of communists in a factual manner. You however, seem more keen on indulging your own presumptive misconceptions than actually absorbing any new knowledge.

 

(6) And finally, "barbarism" is only a term created by one culture to ridicule and discriminate against another culture. There are no barbarians, only different cultures.

 

(1) People of today are not the kind of people that would support communism thus you would need an army and thus a government to impose it or impose the social engineering required to make people accept it to the degree that it would become self perpetuating.

 

(2) Without Central planning Economies have a habit of becoming quite free market.

 

(3a) The failings of the Soviet Union and other Socialist/Communist experiments were often blamed on the machinations of a few lone capitalist rouges thus denying the mass of the people the boon that Socialism/Communism claims.

(3b) The government imposed efforts to bring about Socialism/Communism ether by direct control of the economy or by reeducation of the masses will always be vulnerable to singular members of the planning committees engaging in what would be thought of as corrupt actions and if one is going to do it others will as well because the first thief in a world without thieves can steal quite a lot so the first successful corrupt action will gain the largest return.

There is that darned market popping up again.

 

(4) It is required in order to impose the control of the economy or reeducation of the masses.

 

(5) If this were true of the political communists (the only ones anyone is at odds with) they would live there ideals instead of trying to impose there Utopia on others and be an example of that Utopia communism claims as it's own.

 

(6) Tell that to the cannibal tribes before they eat you if you can.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Quew

[Lan]

[Kyoko]

Please stop using the term "Libertarian", you clearly have no idea what it means. Libertarian is a term coined by Anarchist-Communists in France after the French state banned the use of the word "Anarchist" and has had a long history of being a term to describe the radical left.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-150-years-of-libertarian

[LordRahl2]

Please stop using the term "Libertarian", you clearly have no idea what it means. Libertarian is a term coined by Anarchist-Communists in France after the French state banned the use of the word "Anarchist" and has had a long history of being a term to describe the radical left.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-150-years-of-libertarian

 

Words and the meaning behind them changes over time.  This is particularly true in politics.

[Aesir]

Words and the meaning behind them changes over time. This is particularly true in politics.

It is very true in politics. I know Libertarians who prefer to call themselves Classical Liberals. In politics words that describe groups change in meaning constantly as new generations get involved.

[Lan]

Please stop using the term "Libertarian", you clearly have no idea what it means. Libertarian is a term coined by Anarchist-Communists in France after the French state banned the use of the word "Anarchist" and has had a long history of being a term to describe the radical left.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-150-years-of-libertarian

 

Words and the meaning behind them changes over time.  This is particularly true in politics.

 

It is very true in politics. I know Libertarians who prefer to call themselves Classical Liberals. In politics words that describe groups change in meaning constantly as new generations get involved.

 

Libertarianism does not refer to right or left politics at all nor is it synonymous with either. Libertarianism traces back to the late enlightenment as a term used to describe personal liberty which is still what it means today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology

 

You're all probably thinking of a select small branch of libertarianism, known as American Libertarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#U.S._libertarianism

[LordRahl2]

So you quoted but did not read my post. Again, words and their meaning change. Entomology is interesting. However, in this case like many others it is irrelevant.

[Crust]

LordRahl2 is right, most people (even outside of america) think of anarcho-capitalists when they hear the term libertarianism. However there was one thing I noticed in a previous post that I don't completely agree with

 

 

The practical impacts of attempts to apply apply Communist theory did, in fact, almost universally include centralized authority and often centralized planning.

 

 

There's been a few communist/socialist societies/communes who've been decentralized or operated in a similar vein as what Marx called a "proletarian dictatorship".

 

One of them was the Paris commune, which unfortunately didn't last long. The commune's council was elected by a popular vote, with up to 60 council members. Some abstained from voting and the turnout was around 48% but considering how the turnout of USA's election in 2012 was 57% that shouldn't totally discredit the election.

 

I think there's been a few after Marx wrote the communist manifesto as well but I sadly sold all my political science books writing about the topic.

[Chickensguys]

When talking about passionate issues it is most important to appeal to our common intuitions. Most agree that it is wrong to commit theft or steal from our fellow peers. The bible preaches the wrongness of this, our common sense tells us so, and society benefits from a honorable system as it builds trust. But for some odd reason Bernie Sanders and his goons have no problem stealing from the rich. Electing a person to do your stealing is the worst kind of theft as the government has a monopoly on power. Electing someone to steal shouldn't give stealing any extra legitimacy but those of the nightmare left seem to think so. 

 

Stealing should be opposed by all persons, minority rights can't be destroyed (Including the rich) 

 

Protecting Rights is the role of the Libertarian. 

[LordRahl2]

There's been a few communist/socialist societies/communes who've been decentralized or operated in a similar vein as what Marx called a "proletarian dictatorship".

 

One of them was the Paris commune, which unfortunately didn't last long. The commune's council was elected by a popular vote, with up to 60 council members. Some abstained from voting and the turnout was around 48% but considering how the turnout of USA's election in 2012 was 57% that shouldn't totally discredit the election.

 

I think there's been a few after Marx wrote the communist manifesto as well but I sadly sold all my political science books writing about the topic.

 

Hence why I apply caveats to my statements.  Almost means almost.  However, I would note that the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule' strongly applies here since that is the best you can come up with.

[Lan]

So you quoted but did not read my post. Again, words and their meaning change. Entomology is interesting. However, in this case like many others it is irrelevant.

No, I read it. I was just informing you that your assumption is wrong. Up still means up doesn't it? Or does it mean down these days? Damn kids.

[Crust]

Hence why I apply caveats to my statements.  Almost means almost.  However, I would note that the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule' strongly applies here since that is the best you can come up with.

 

I don't know how you define almost. There's been a handful of socialist communes in america throughout its history, Venezuela has around 200 socialist communes within its country, there's been a couple of others globally these last century.

 

Sure, the biggest self-proclaimed communist/socialist states throughout the world have been totalitarian countries with central planning. That doesn't mean those are the only examples of socialist communities.

 

Also you're using the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" wrong. The exceptions are suppose to be in contrast to the things that fall under the rule. Example: "parking allowed on weekdays". Not being allowed to park during the weekends is the exception that proves the rule. Saying "there's practical implements of communism that haven't involved central planning proves the fact that practical implements of communism has only involved central planning" makes no sense because one of the things contradicts the other.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Just gonna pop in on the medical wait stuff here.

 

Ok so as many of you know I'm an American but have lived in the UK. Well, while I lived in the UK I got into a rugby accident where a cleat stud went through my bottom lip. When I got to the hospital in Belfast they put me in a waiting room next to the automatic doors which opened about every minute. It was 7C outside and the room was filled with everything from broken bones to blood poisoning. I sat in that room for 15 minutes before I was reached. You might think: "oh, that's pretty quick." When I say reached, I mean noticed and had my injury noted. After this they sent me back to my seat. They didn't give me anything for my still bleeding lip. They didn't even ask if I cleaned it. They simply sent me back. I waited 2 hours before they called me to go see a doctor. And when I say see, I mean SEE. I walked into that room, they established my injury and what I needed, and sent me out. No stitches, no tissues, no clotting solution. I sat outside for 3 more hours until they finally had a nurse stitch me up. I was so pissed off I didn't even want to wait for a painkiller or numbing solution. But of course my mother forced me to and we waited ANOTHER hour in the !@#$ room while she went to go get a painkiller. Again, not giving me anything to stop the bleeding. This entire time I had been leaking blood as the wound wouldn't close because of its location. I had to find toilet paper to stop the bleeding.

 

The long and short of it is that I waited 6 hours in the EMERGENCY ROOM with a bleeding wound before I was treated. Of course it was free, but that's the only reason we didn't sue after I got sick from the cold.

 

Back in America about 8 months ago my sister got her finger stuck in a doorway. We went to the hospital and she was treated within 30 minutes. We were at the hospital for a total of an hour. Yes the American medical system is extremely overpriced, but I'd pick it over the UK's any day.

I want to answer this as I live within the Aneurin Bevan NHS area(I.e I come from the same area as the founder of the NHS, a hero amongst many down here).

 

 

The first thing I want to say is that the NHS can be very variable, waiting times can be long or they can be short. If you go to Brighton on a friday night with a relatively minor injury, you will wait for a long time. If you were to go to Guildford you might be in and out within half an hour. Belfast is a big city so I presume it would be similar to Brighton. Because of this we now have minor injury units, which are nurse led and have much shorter waiting times, 1.5 hours max being average.

 

Second thing

 

When you say you were noticed and seen. You were seen by a triage nurse. It is her job to assess every casualty that arrives in Accident and Emergency. Your injury, although it might not seem it to you, was deemed to be minor and you could be expected to wait. Bleeding doesn't necessarily need as urgent treatment as let say blood poisoning or broken bones. Remember that most A+E units have medics working overtime with understaffing being a major issue thanks to lack of money from government.

 

Thirdly the weather

 

In Britain we have plenty of it. Britain is frequently cold. We say there is no such thing as bad weather just the wrong clothing. Most rugger players have warm clothing at hand for the end of the match and I am sure the NHS staff would have expected the same. I agree that six hours is a long wait and it was unfortunate that you had a bad experience. However I would place the blame on a government that has for the last 5 years been ideologically opposed to the NHS and all it stands for.

 

I will finish with my experience:

 

I have been to pretty much every hospital in South Wales and also three hospitals in the South-east, due to medical issues genetic and otherwise. I find that the staff(on the whole) are friendly and helpful, often overworked and tired. The only hospital where I experienced any grumpiness was at East Surrey, which serves a massive population and is constantly busy. In Guildford I was able to get medical supplies from the hospital within 30 minutes of arriving, compared to the 3 hours in Brighton - I was very low on the triage list and got semi forgotten as shift change occurred. The nurse who dealt with me was on overtime.

 

As I say the NHS is very variable. If you have a rare genetic condition it is brilliant, as they have the specialists - but don't expect to see them straight away. The biggest problem with today's NHS seems to be bureaucracy.