Could libertarian-socialism be a thing? How would it work, theoretically?

This might have been true 20 years ago, but present use of the word Libertarian in Europe tends to be referring to those on the right. Thank Ron Paul and co.

socialism cant exist without a more powerful government, stop being retarded

I don't care about your opinion on socialism, user. What you wrote is wrong.

That's correct you dumb shit

The word "libertarian" was invented by a socialist to describe his own philosophy

Socialism is when workers share the ownership of factories and mines and plantations.

You don't need a government for that.

You realize that anarchism is a type of socialism?

>socialism=more government

He's right though. Only Americans (and Canadians, I guess) associate libertarian with some right wing wet-dream.

Nah. It's a poorly understood fringe ideology, but it is most certainly not associated with American right wingers. No one knows who Ron Paul is.

Basically wouldn't it be a Gov't that champions personal liberties and favors more public ownership of things like natural resources and the economy?

Doesn't sound so bad to me senpai.

Anarchism IS libertarian socialism

The red-and-black flag is a libertarian socialist flag

Why not?

this is how socialism ought to be

Marx envisioned something like this

who but a government can stop you from grabbing some land and stopping everyone besides people who agree to give you a share of the value of their labor from using it with force?

...

A citizen militia, worker councils, popular efforts, or vigilantes.

You don't need a state to punish criminals who try to exploit others.

The same individuals who led the revolution

Probably a bad idea to judge all Europeans together desu, in the UK it's definitely associated with the right.

As far as anarchism goes, I imagine a direct democracy government at just the local levels. Like a city state, but each community is its own one. Say there is a farm, all the workers on that farm have a say in the farms management, like a co-op.

No, but that doesn't stop the socialists from being deranged.

Has to be the worst strawman image I've ever seen, and I have seen a lot.

>implying alt right = libertarianism
You couldn't be more wrong.

True.

If anything, at this point alt-right just means internet-Nazis as far as anybody is concerned. Because all the /pol/ memes popularized that image in the minds of the media and everybody else.

/pol/ tried to make something a thing with meme magic, but all it did was create another name for Nazis because /pol/ is pure shit. If they tried to create a new wave for traditionalism, they failed hard. Nazis aren't traditionalists.

>that image

The best way for anarchism to work is if each collective is allowed to run in its own way, capitalists village and communist village can be friends.

The People.

Alt right is older than /pol/ buddy and it was always about being pro-white.

Thats the thing, /pol/ took oe thing and turned it into something else with meme magic.

The alt-right are a bunch of single childless men who masturbate to anime now, or at least that's their public image now.

And what is this "something else" you're talking about? If anything /pol/ and twitter launched guys like Spencer into the mainstream.

>something else

I meant the idea that these guys are anything to be taken seriously and not just internet shitposting /r9k/ robots.

Wow this thread pushes all my "good" buttons, libertarian socialism, anarchism, i am totally baffled :D and happy.

/r9k/ has hardly anything to do with this

>can't remove the land from the individual cause that's authority
Chomsky has always made a nice remark with regards to anti-authoritarianism/anarchism:
If there is a structure of authority/dominance, it should be challenged to legitimize itself. If it cannot do that, it ought to be dismantled. If it can, well then it's legitimate.

With regards to this, I think we could make a case for the collective in an anarchist/libertarian society to derive the individualist farmers from a part of their produce. Which was done in anarchist spain btw. The farmers who decided to not be parts of sindicates and wanted to stay individualists had to give some of their produce away (reminder there's no tax otherwise), but in turn they could walk into any shop and take what they wanted just like anyone else.

>/r9k/ has nothing to do with /pol/

Sure thing, buddy.

>someone wants to keep his land, therefore everything is ruined
Reminder:
>If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ workers. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

Pretty much. I have a hunch you're a leftist who thinks all posters who hate the left on this board are the same people.

>if I call it something other than a government, then its magically not a government

this is why no one takes these irrelevant meme ideologies seriously

>Could libertarian-socialism be a thing?
It is already

>How would it work, theoretically?
Like Libertarian capitalism only without property.

Still a fantasy but that's the theory

Libertarians and socialists are pretty much the same beyond the jargons, muh state and muh stealing of value or some shit. The only way we can be saved from this materialism is by following His Word.

>libertarian=less government
kind of

>socialism=more government
lol. Nope. Socialism is where workers control the means of production.

Don't even necessarily agree but the An-Cap's who usually bring out this argument are really hypocritical.

How do you suppose property exists without a government?

If you think really really think about it, it makes no economic sense.

>people cannot own things without a governing body
I'm not even an ancap but ancoms are literal brainlets, they think property will magically vanish once the government is gone. Well that sure as fuck didn't happen in Somalia or wherever the state stopped existing.

>not allowed
>distribution
>rationing

Sounds a lot like fucking government to me.

>Alt right is older than /pol/
That term didn't even exist until very recently. It's also almost totally meaningless, an attempt to coalesce a disparate leaderless group into a coherent body that can be defined and controlled. It's essentially the left's attempt to impose order on the chaos of a political internet. And to their credit it seems to be working somewhat since tons of mindless people have willingly embraced the the bogus term as their identity for some reason. It makes no sense to me why you'd let people who despise you define your identity, but the majority of /pol/acks are just outcasts desperate to belong somewhere so I guess they'll be glad to accept any label even if it comes from people they hate and who mutually hate them back.

If by think about you mean "never consider a societal possibility outside the current liberal consensus" then yes, it wouldn't make sense.
>not allowed
more like nobody wanted to work for someone else when it was much more beneficial to be a part of cooperative farms

>the CNT collectivized the sale of fish and eggs, slaughterhouses, milk processing and the fruit and vegetable markets, suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective
>Throughout the region, the CNT committees replaced the middle class distributors and traders in many businesses including retailers and wholesalers, hotel, café, and bar owners, opticians and doctors, barbers and bakers
>Though the CNT tried to persuade the members of the middle class and small bourgeoisie to join the revolution, they were generally unwelcoming to the revolutionary changes wanting more than just expropriation of their businesses under force or threat of force
Wow look at that, they seized people's property by force and suppressed free trade. Once again collectivism shows it is antithetical to libertarianism.

It was created by Spencer in 2009. /pol/ was created in 2011.

yeah they should have waited for them to peacefully give up their property
Do you know anything about leftist theory?

Friendly reminder that this thread has been linked on the /leftypol/ raid thread

>collective decides to not allow slavery
>b-b-b-b-b-but the government!

Private exploitation and tyranny is antithetical to libertarianism. A decentralized worker collective taking control is basically what libertarianism means.

>I've never opened a history book in my entire life: the thread
left-liberterianism long predates right-libertarianism. Proudhon, Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, all left liberterians.

>he thinks left libertarianism is about social welfare
WEW LAD

Well tell me again how "the collective" is not a government if it has the authority to legislate and enforce rules? I'm not a fucktarded anarchist, I know governments are a good thing, I just can't grasp how anyone can call anything an anarchy if it objectively features a fucking government.

>I'm not even an ancap but ancoms are literal brainlets
again don't necessarily disagree

>they think property will magically vanish once the government is gone. Well that sure as fuck didn't happen in Somalia or wherever the state stopped existing.
Property doesn't exist unless someone enforces it. In Somalia that's done by warlords. If you walked up to one of these warlords with a deed of ownership they'd laugh themselves to tears before violating the shit of your NAP.

Both ancaps and ancoms opinions regarding property are retarded, but ancoms are slightly less so.

>authority to legislate
wew
read a book

Rothbard actually never said this.

>using a retarded catchphrase instead of defending your nonsensical, cognitively dissonant ideology
I guess joke is on me for expecting more from a retard.

...

goodreads.com/quotes/3194162-one-gratifying-aspect-of-our-rise-to-some-prominence-is
mises.org/library/betrayal-american-right-0
Page 83

sure
mises.org/files/betrayal-american-rightpdf-0/download?token=0iU2CWZ_
p. 83

Read Stirner
archive.org/details/egoandhisown00byingoog

Read Rousseau
earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/DiscourseonInequality.pdf879500092.pdf

>implying Im an ancap

>Stirner
sure
>Rousseau
ew

>read Stirner
You do know that you're just regurgitating a Veeky Forums meme simply because some shitposters on a leftist board thought it would be funny, right?

Sure, in the same sense that a random dude is part of "the government" in a direct democracy.

>Rousseau
Egalitarian enlightement drivel. Can't believe we actually had this faggot as a required reading in high school.

Stealing people's property and then shutting down their way of making a living is not libertarianism. It's tyranny.

Don't knock him till you try him. I've found that in my experience most people who teach Rousseau vastly misrepresent his arguments compared to the actual text.

The "direct democracy" will still need someone to enforce what they vote on, like say a militia or a police force. That is very much a government.

>but slavery is my way of making a living

If they have a militia or police force to enforce their decisions then yes they are a government.

Nice strawman. Is this the only way you can defend your ridiculous, self-contradictory ideology? I'm talking about a real example, an example you provided, wherein the "libertarian" socialists ended up having to steal property and suppress trade to have their way. Because in the end, they were not willing to respect individual liberty.

Apparently having people voluntarily agree to work in order to get a voluntarily agreed upon sum of money at a voluntarily agreed upon business is slavery. Good to know that you admit to being retarded.

you should have paid more attention.
At the very least, he is the most convincing social contract theorist. Hobbes and Locke don't even compare. If we are to believe that legitimate authority is even possible, I think we should listen to him.

>reeeee that man agreed to work for an hourly wage for another man!
>clearly this gives me the right to steal that slaver's property and suppress any attempt of his to do business!
Truly the collectivist mind is a cramped and hoary place devoid of reason or compassion.

is that camus?

Legitimate authority comes from God and equal opportunity is literallan abomination.

If me and my friends beat up a guy who raped my sister, are we a government?

>voluntary
love this meme

Indeed, the liberty to exploit others is not part of the individual liberties anarchists accept.

>selling your labor force is voluntary

You're missing the point that that exact same argument was used to defend slavery. And anyway, if someone voluntarily agreed to slavery that wouldn't make it any better. Only a madman would freely give up their freedom.

Then go live in Iran if you want a theocracy that bad, cuck.

>the liberty to exploit others
Forming mutual agreements is not exploitation you imbecile. If you negate even the ability to form a basic contract of labor then you undermine the agency of the individual at its very core: he does not even have ownership of his own body and is not allowed to sell its use as he chooses. You are literally saying that in your "individualistic anarchism" the individual does not have any propriety rights. What a fucking joke.

>love this meme.
Well unless you are living on North Korea then no, you aren't forced at gunpoint to work for them. You can simply deny them your services and they can't do shit about it.

Are you really going to be retarded enough to claim that needing to eat instantly means it is impossible for it to be voluntary?

Except that slavery ISN'T voluntary, which is the whole reason behind it being morally wrong. You can't just randomly redefine words just so it would suit you.

These. I don't understand why they call themselves anarchists, just call it democratic socialism or something.

Well I live in Russia and hopefully we'll be reestablishing Orthodoxy as the only allowed church soon.

>Forming mutual agreements is not exploitation you imbecile.
Of course it is if the alternative is starvation. The majority of workers during the catalonian revolution were anarchists, yet they "agreed" to work for others before the revolution, are they schizophrenic?

It's never a truly mutual agreement when one party holds infinitely more bargaining power than the other.

>Are you really going to be retarded enough to claim that needing to eat instantly means it is impossible for it to be voluntary?
If you need to work for others to survive, working is not voluntary. This is pretty obvious.

Well then by that logic, simply existing is exploitation because even if you simply live in the forest and do not work for anyone but yourself, you will still starve if you do not work. Hunting and gathering are both labour no matter how you put it and therefore you should hang yourself to free yourself from exploitation.