Libertarianism and democratic socialism seem opposed. Both are on the rise, it seems. Can they co-exist, perhaps complement each other. Or are they both shit, and does donkey and elephant need to reign supreme... or any other system of government. Please explain....civilly please.
P.s. I believe democratic socialism can exist within broad confines of libertarianism, but not the other way around. Tell me why I'm right or wrong...civilly
I'm always amused that people get sucked in to the "democratic socialist" or "progressive" reasoning that a market-driven world is evil, but a government-driven world is compassionate. It's as though they think once people gain power they suddenly become righteous, honest, and compassionate people. Democratic Socialism is socialism. (And honestly, at least in the US, we are largely socialist with public education, market regulation, government-mandated Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes, and government licensing of business, marriage, and personal property.) I'd like to see a truly free market tried.
I like the idea of socialism but don't think it works. If the government controls production then those in charge of the government have control. It unfortunately dismisses human nature in things like greed and want for power.
I think that the US democracy was a great thing until it was corrupted. Monopoly laws are more of a suggestion now. Most production is now owned by corporate conglomerates that create the illusion of choice. Even our election system has the illusion of choice. I mean I can go to the store and pick from hundreds of styles of pants, but have two choices come November. I think the US resembles more of a oligarchy now.
I also don't think most people understand what liberty is. Liberty does not dismiss consequences, it simply elevates government interference.
I think that the republic that the US was founded on is a great system. Benjamin Franklin said it at the beginning "You have a republic if you can keep it" and I think we are losing it.
Go with libertarianism, as a good majority of them believe in individual liberty. With that said, there are libertarians who lean both left and right, but when you take into consideration the key beliefs of the LP, socialism just does not mix well into that equation. I'm borderlined libertarian myself (right-leaning registered Independent).
Modern liberitarianism, especially of the Ayn Rand variety, is the polar opposite of democratic socialism.To a great extent Libertarianism is based on self-absorption, greed, the belief that all government is bad, and extreme individualism. It favors a dog eat dog social Darwinism point of view. On the other hand, democratic socialism believes in the dignity and worth of all, equal opportunity, social justice or equality under the law, and the use of government to foster those ends. A society governed by libertarianism will inevitably devolved into oligarchic tyranny or dictatorship. A democratic socialist governmental system would tolerate libertariansm, but keep it under control and within reasonable bounds.
And, of course, libertarians will see all attempts to keep it in reasonable bounds as tyranny or government overreach. Libertarianism will always seek to undermine all true democracies, including democratic socialism.
Libertarianism is a political ideology.
Democracy is a political ideology.
Socialism is an economic ideology.
Should I assume that libertarianism includes the concept of unrestrained economic behavior? Such as removing the tops of mountains for personal gain, and no responsibility for the consequences? (Current reality.)
The only libertarian i have even been able to understand is Penn Jillette. And I have only heard him talk about the political aspects. Yet, his examples are very socially inclusive.
I have found all those running as libertarians for public office to be inarticulate, and ill-informed. And too often, religionist.
I have not heard a cogent argument of how libertarianism economics works without becoming what we are experiencing now, and have historically, in the US. The powerful proclaim their greatness as they take from everyone vulnerable, while the public square is full of homeless women and children, potholes, broken bridges, and trash.
These people are often the ones who blame children for not being able to take care of themselves. They profess they have no responsibility for the others upon whom they depend for their "blessings." (eg: the walton's, koch's)
Many historical examples of such behavior has resulted in riots, labor movements, and wars, internal and external.
However, I consider myself a liberal, combining the core concepts of classic liberalism, with the historical conservative idea of society as a family : free speech, freedom for all, personal defense, freedom from religion, limited government, right to education, and heath care. This is because i am aware that the children of today will be the doctors of tomorrow, who will tending to myself and my descendants. (Children need food, and small class sizes to learn.)
Yet, I am a small "r" republican, in that I think representative government is more deliberative than immediate democracy, not withstanding the current circumstances, which are clearly the result of corruption (eg: politicians are personally rewarded for their immoral behaviors).
Straight democracy is similar to the market place. Wrong decisions are made too quickly to assess the long term effects. The reason for the structure of the senate is to slow the mass hysteria that could be caused by the house of representatives. (Changing the rules to fit the goals of the corrupt was not anticipated.)
It would astound the founders to learn that currently all three branches of the US federal government are controlled by those without moral structure, completely shortminded, focused on personal gain, and having abdicated, as a group, their responsibility for their obligations to the nation, and to the planet.
"Let them eat cake."
I like Libertarian ideas. Libertarianism is financially conservative and socially liberal—liberal in the area of human rights and equality.
We live in an era of overwhelming material abundance, abundance created by a worldwide free market. Yet some people are complaining bitterly about “capitalism”, and calling for it’s abolishment. Capitalism is nothing more than groups of people banding together to accomplish tasks too large for individuals. Whenever free trade has been suppressed the result has been poverty.
Some social programs are desirable IMO. There is a middle way.
The only effective way to produce wealth is with capitalism and free markets.
A well-meaning genius in centralized control will do a much worse job of decision-making than millions of ordinary people with localized knowledge. This is discussed in Friedrich Hayek's classic essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society", and was illustrated during the late 1970s when Energy Secretary James Schesinger and his Harvard-trained staff allocated crude oil supplies, and led to gas lines all over the USA. Schlesinger and his staff were very intelligent and good people who meant well, but they weren't as effective in allocating oil as a free market.
The government can redistribute income somewhat by taxation without doing too much harm, to make sure that everyone has a certain minimum of wealth. It is only when taxation is excessive, or the government meddles in production or pricing, that the creation of wealth suffers. Even in the wealthy USA, government interventions in the free market like rent controls and minimum wage laws can have noticeably negative impacts.
Another role that government must play is as protector of common resources, like air and water. Even that necessary role can get corrupted by extending it to crusades against imaginary problems like man-made global warming. It is never going to be easy or even possible to attain perfection in government policies.
I have to say that pretty much any form of libertarianism is hogwash, at least as guiding principles to governing (or not governing) a society goes. There are certainly several, maybe even many, positions within libertarianism that might make sense or that I might agree with, but if it wants to make market considerations as the basis of all decisions, then I must disagree. I'm inclined to support democratic socialism, but my support would depend on the definition of liberal socialism in play. In general, I think that (largely) free market economic systems work and wouldn't want a wholesale replacement of that, but I would agree with education being free or at least much more affordable than it is (with content guided by people in the field, not politicians who define content by their own interests); single payer, aka socialized, medicine; and regulations in place to prevent discrimination, protect the environment, and watch out for monopolies or oligarchical practices. I'm not sure that libertarianism, broadly defined, is compatible with those goals, but I haven't heard of movements to end socialized medicine in the countries where it exists, so maybe libertarians don't have much of a political platform there, I'm just unaware that there is such a movement, or they are focused on other issues.
Yeah, it's a shame that the political zeitgeist is moving towards extremes. I lean center left(Obama , Hillary, Biden) , but I would have voted for Sanders in a heartbeat had he been the final nominee. I really wish Clinton would have asked him to be her VP candidate.
The one thing true libetarian ideology gets right is keeping regulations off LGBT , women's issues , civil rights etc. In theory , that's where democats stand. Liberetarianism is really just a modified form of conservatism and I don't think I know one self-proclaimed liberterian advocating for a woman's right to choose.
I don't think the two ideologie get along after that point. Democratic socialism would force corporations to pay their fair share of taxes - which would in turn fund health care for all and affordable education. Possibly free education. Liberterians don't really believe in taxes or government for that matter- so that really isn't a feasible juxtaposition.
My limited understanding of the 2 is that Social Democrats want to provide everyone with an array of services or safety nets, none of which are free, so they push for taxes to cover the costs. The Libertarians focus is on personal responsibility - you use it, you pay for it, and the market drives the costs. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't use it; if you absolutely need it and can't afford it, sucks to be you.
They cannot really exist together. There are similarities. Both want little to no state at all. Both seem to disagree with imperialist foreign policies and they both promote a more non-interventionist policy to foreign affairs. Both want individual personal freedoms. Both want economic freedom, but they disagree on how that is achieved.
Modern libertarianism is virtually unrestricted capitalism, which is marked by private control over the means of production. Democratic socialism is marked by democratic control of the means of production. Maybe in a global collapse of all nation-states we could get pockets of libertarian societies and pockets of democratic socialist societies, but having both inside a nation-state would not really work.
I once was a Libertarian, or at least l thought l was, then l found out they're for open borders to any and all, and l realized they're just as fucked up as the Socialists and progressive Liberals.. Now l'm an unaffiliated free market Capitalist that leans EVER SO SLIGHTLY Libertarian.
I lean more towards the libertarian stances for most things but also agree with some of the dem-socialist ideas. Things like healthcare, education, and a basic standard of living are a no brainier to me but for the most part I am for smaller government with less taxes and more personal freedom.
First, there needs to be some definition of what is meant by libertarianism because this ideology is fractured into three fairly distinct camps. I say 'fairly distinct' because there is some overlapping that blurs the change from one to the next. So, which form is it? Left leaning, middle of the road (mainstream), or right leaning?
I don’t think utopia or even a more stable economy or society is the outcome of embracing a particular political ideology but the culture of that society. There are many places that are considered to have freer markets than the US by the UN, like Sweden and Denmark, that still have high taxation and social welfare. There are nations which claim to focus on social welfare, like Cuba or Venezuela, where citizens live in extreme poverty.
If the politicians are corrupt, the police abusive, the wealthy overly influential, it doesn’t matter by what ideology your country self-identifies as, it’s going to be a shitpile.
I don’t know that what we have been missing all along is simply the best or the correct -ism.
As a classical liberal my leaning would be towards libertarianism with the stipulation that I’m not against the existence of the state like anarcho-capitalists which is what I suspect most people who label themselves as libertarians advocate for.
Now to address your point. In short no, they could not coexist. While both would advocate for decentralization of power they differ fundamentally on property rights: the democratic socialists would contend that you do not own the tools of your labor( though I think in practice you wouldn’t have the state appropriating the tools), nor do you own the fruits of your labor( here is where the state would come in heavily and where you’d find a lot of libertarian shouting the battle cry of revolt); thus, they must be distributed so that no inequality can exist because this is the most moral condition (not something I’m at all convinced is the case).
Note, this is fundamentally different than a social democracy which is still capitalist, but simply pushes for the establishment of a strong welfare state. Again, you’d find Libertarians disagreeing with the strong welfare state, but you these two groups could coexist rather nicely since they both respect private property rights and at the end of the day their disagreement is in the level at which the government is involved in the market whereas with the democratic socialists, there wouldn’t be a market.
In summary, democratic socialism could not exist within the confines of any liberal state whether libertarian or otherwise due to its illiberal nature regarding property rights: the two systems are incompatible on a fundamental level.
First it was religion that was used to keep the masses in check, then politics, now is
s consumerism. They all have the same purpose. They are there to keep the masses fighting each other over trivial crap so no one is paying attention as they slowly consolidate all of the world's wealth. Enjoy the World Cup, tune into your favorite "reality" show, get good and angry about theothers
coming hereillegally`, whatever it takes to get us to pay attention while we are slowly robbed blind and the Empire crumbles around us. Its all just opiates for the masses.
Enjoy your cake!
Libertarianism ignores the injustices of history that have produced inequality. Injustices such as slavery, conquest, imperialism and dispossession. As a result, there is no level playing field. Libertarianism also ignores that for over 95% of human existence, we were social animals who lived communally. This is ingrained in our nature. Dog-eat-dog competitiveness leads to alienation, crime, suicide, and violent aggression. Unrestricted Capitalism is also destroying the planet… The market cannot prevent that. Only social decision making can!