Calvin Coolidge and Bernie Sanders both came from Vermont

Calvin Coolidge and Bernie Sanders both came from Vermont.

It's because of that i wonder, throughout history, what does Veeky Forums think worked out better for the economy, libertarianism or socialism?

socialism is supreme

You see, there's two different systems marketed under the label socialism.

You have "means of production are seized for collective ownership" which will JUST you to death.

And you have "economy is managed for the common good, extensive social services, capital remains in private hands"

This second system is more accurately described as social democracy or social capitalism. It works, but you need a lot of money to fund said programs.

Pic related, if somebody tells you that government intervention can't reduce poverty, they're what you call a useful idiot.

Libertarianism is one of the dumbest memes of the past 100 years.

Yeah, but as we all know Sweden has a 70% tax rate. The question then falls on the inhabitant. Are you comfortable with giving such a massive amount of money, removing your sense of power and security, for the government?

Tax is the price you pay to live and work in a country.

Sweden happens to be an extremely profitable country to live and work in.

You wouldn't expect to live in the Ritz and pay Best Western prices, would you?

This being said, I'm glad the Sweden Democrats are starting to crack down dramatically on immigration.

>Sweden happens to be an extremely profitable country to live and work in.

I would disagree, economically.

The average swede don't have things like "flat minimum wage". It's controlled by unions, which tend to faze out the least skilled worker. Obviously, the average Swede wouldn't be able to keep his fortune if he amasses one, look at people like Notch and PewDiePie. Sweden is also very dependent on trade and has not achieved the level of autarky needed for true autonomous success.

Generally speaking, Sweden is not a proper example of socialism, in much the same way modern China is not a proper example of communism. Sweden has enacted many anti-socialism reforms, such as their current schooling system, to great success.

I'm curious on what your feelings about libertarianism are, for comparison?

Wrong quoting

Libertarianism is an incredibly simple philosophy built on intuitive, simple ideas.

it also doesn't work in practice.

It was the default policy of the United States up until the 20s, and it failed us hideously.

Libertarian foreign policy gave us the Third Reich and Imperial Japan.

Libertarian economics gave us a series of increasingly worse cyclical panics, the worst of which was the Great Depression.

>it was the default policy of the United States up until the 20s, and it failed us hideously

I would argue that the great depression, caused by international bankers funneling money everywhere during WWI, The subsequent money-printing that occurred after the war with reparations and rebuilding, and a general misinformational swing regarding the credit system, was prolonged by Hoover and Roosevelt. It had very little to do with libertarianist ideals. I'll explain later.

>Libertarian foreign policy gave us the Third Reich and Imperial Japan

Third Reich was National Socialist, and socialist ideal. If you mean because of libertarian "faults", I concede there. Many people faulted capitalism and libertarianism with what was actually creeping socialism, or cronyism (corporatism). Imperial Japan was inherently euro imperialist influence.

>Libertarian economics gave us a series of increasingly worse cyclical panics, the worst of which was the Great Depression.

Here's where I explain, because here's where you elude to the smaller depression that occurred during Hardings presidency. Which was fixed by doing nothing and letting libertarian (free-market) economics do. When the great depression came to America, Coolidge had left (him being the last president with very libertarianist ideals), and Herbert Hoover (standing president) enacted many failed socialist-esque programs that was used to "fix" the depression and expanding government. We all know FDR's "New Deal".

>If you mean because of libertarian "faults"

I mean that the neutrality acts and the general ideology of isolationism prevented the US from using its power to efficiently nip an enemy in the bud.

If the US had thrown its industrial capacity and diplomatic sway into resisting German rearmament, the reds would never have gotten handed Eastern Europe.

Europeans are worthless and everyone else is evil. This necessarily creates a place for the United States to involve itself in world affairs.

Left libertarianism

Europe always goes through continental wars with each other because of their close, contested borders. America should have used its influence to prevent Germany from depressing, but America didn't have much sway in Europe at the time. Plus, Russia and most other European powers pushed for German punishment. America also wasn't that powerful at the time, we only got powerful after WWII

That's called liberalism

Libertarian -> economic freedom (right; "a man's right to all income")
Liberal -> economic control (left; "men should get any income left")

If American public opinion had supported a military commitment to Europe at some point before 1939, Germany simply wouldn't have been able to overrun France and doom the west to 6 years of chimpening, the collapse of the old colonial powers, and a Soviet foothold in Europe.

Today, we see libertarians advocate abandoning collective security arrangements and withdrawing from global politics.

This is unlikely to achieve the desired result of making us safer. If they actually got their way, Japan and Saudi Arabia would rush to develop and field a nuclear arsenal, and in all likelihood, China would become the most powerful force in global politics.

Definitely agree with you here. We're too far in the maze to back out now. We have to use our immense power to secure our people, but we also have to face facts. America could really leave some things alone. Israel is a great example of this. We're fighting wars with middle-eastern nations on behalf of Israeli expansion, while allowing those same people we're fighting to cross our borders. I believe Israel should deal with those things on their own.

What do you think could be done to quell foreign terrorism and regulate these hostile lands. Most would say live and let live, but you disagree with that. Do you think we should still fight wars for Israel?

I think American foreign policy is okay if you remove Vietnam, Iraq, and a lot of Latin America. The key problem is that we keep electing people from Texas.

My attitude towards terrorism is that pest control is the most efficient strategy.

If an organization is losing 90% of their senior leadership every few years, that organization is going to have profound problems organizing attacks on us.

Obama has done pretty well with this. Don't send in infidels for them to shoot at, just fund people who want them dead and bomb them from a distance. They're roaches, you don't fight roaches in a fair fight.

Also, Obama was more anti-Israeli than Trump. I agree with him and Kerry that the settlements are stupid, and that Israel will eventually have to give up either the Jewishness of their state or totally abandon their democracy if they can't figure out a Palestinian state.

Left libertarianism means anarchism or democratic confederalism

That's like asking what worked better, markets or governments. They serve two different functions unless you allow them to collude and become an oppressive authority. Markets redistribute resources, governments enforce laws.

I agree with you here, man. Pest control is the way to go.

Socialism redistributes resources, it's the marriage of government and market.

>Socialism redistributes resources, it's the marriage of government and market.
You can use the government to perform market functions and the market to perform government functions but they are fundamentally two different things, unless you are actively trying to subordinate the populace to money and violence. Because that's what markets and governments are, money and violence as abstract concepts used to organize society.

But anyways, I want to take a look at the similarities between libertarianism and socialism.

1) A sense of oneself as a meaningful part of a larger picture that can be contributed to. Socialism is entirely dependent on a network of others with similar goals in mind-- making a society that can support oneself and can be supported by the labor of its constituents. Libertarianism may not put its trust in overly large collectives of government, but unlike communism, socialism does not require such a thing. A smallish group of peoples can come together to achieve collective goals while still respecting the individual privacy and rights of a libertarian.

2) With means of production open to all, the market is freer than ever. Anyone can, with enough planning and ambition, create something massive and massively beneficial to the larger group.

3) There isn't much diametrically opposed ideology here, despite everyone in this thread insisting there is. Libertarians want personal freedom and small government. Socialism wants the common man to have power and the means to live and contribute to society. These both are facets of the same need to be a person with less restrictions on what they can do to have a rich and fulfilling life. Food, shelter, and meaningful work are what people need to be happy and fulfilled with themselves, and a community of these fulfilled people has always been the end-goal of all governing ideologies.


As long as we avoid big government and red-tape on production, and the respect of personal individuality is met, we can do Social-libertarianism.

National socialism. Socialism for the folks, not for some special snowflake minorities who won't integrate/be sterilized.