Agnostic.com

22 7

One might say that there is an air of intellectual superiority about enthusiastic libertarians, mocking the "socialist" beliefs and emphasizing the problems while ignoring the efficiency of the mechanism to create a fair society.

Another might say there is an air of intellectual superiority about enthusiastic liberals, mocking the "capitalist" beliefs and emphasizing the problems while ignoring the efficiency of the mechanism to create a strong economy.

Why not a bit of both to create socially sustainable strong economy? Would it be pragmatically plausible?

Jetty 7 Apr 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

There are already successful models of the the combining of Socialist ideals with Capitalist economics. In the happiest and wealthiest countries in the world, in Scandinavia, that is already their model...it’s called Social Democracy. Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden all practice it, and that is why they are wealthy and happy. Incidentally they also have some of the largest percentage of atheists per capita!

Good to hear.

Yes, there is no new wheel to invent here.

@Jetty the struggle against right wing dismantlers of the mixed economy goes on here, like elsewhere. Stupid people vote for them, contrary to their interests, for some inexplicable reasons.

6

All I know on this is that the Kochs, Mercers, and others like them spend enough money to keep us all from having essential services for everyone and that total amount spent would cover everyone. They waste billions on campaigns of hate and misinformation.

3

I always thought the idea of socialism was intellectually elevated.
Does it not take a certain level of maturity and intelligence to be able to rise above the "hooray for me and Fuck you" mindset?
I'm still in awe of people who insist on defending the very systems that screw them.

Like gay Republicans?
They'd seem to be, or should be, a dying breed.

3

Libertarians have nothing to feel superior about. Their entire premise is based on flawed and specious grounds. And the type of people who are drawn to Libertarisnism have hidden agendas that have nothing to do with an economic philosophy.

@Jetty

They generally tend to be people that resisted anyone telling them what to do their entire lives. They never liked having to be accountable for their actions at any level. So Libertarianism is a simple way to say, "I do not need to be accountable to my community and my fellow humans. I do not have to share my resources with others, after all it's their fault that they are in the situation they find themselves in, not mine," attitide.

@t1nick Great insight. Thanks.

@t1nick I still don't know what Libertarianism is, because they never define it as a political philosophy, but I think your characterization is about right -- a kind of self- righteous individualism. It's not like progressive politics is not compatible with individual freedom; it certainly is.

@David1955

They tend to believe that the mythological ragged individuality exists and it's them. Look up Ayn Rand and Objectivism. It's based on her writings, but they alter her philosophy to justify their self-centeredmess.

@t1nick yes, look at my humorous comment earlier below to David Le Deau about Libertarians getting a high from smoking Ayn Rand books. She's philosophical drivel.

3

That's exactly what we have in the USA and many other countries. A free market economy coupled with a relatively generous safety net.

That's why people around the world have been trying to immigrate here for the past 100 years.

There will be a constant battle about how free the markets should be, and how generous the safety net should be. You just have to accept that as the cost to living in the USA or in other similar countries.

BD66 Level 8 Apr 12, 2020

@Allamanda If the US is so terrible, why don't you move to another country? Where would you move?

3

Libertine bourgeois are only slightly less stupid and greedy than Philistine bourgeois.

Libertine: a man who ignores/flaunts moral principles.
Philistine: one who has no appreciation of culture and the arts.
Care to explain your statement?

@Storm1752 Bourgeois thought fallsi into two camps--Libertine, and Philistine. I.e. pretty stupid, and extremely stupid. In the United States, the Democratic Party represents the Party of the pretty stupid rich people; while the Republican Party represents the extremely stupid rich people.

2

The libertarian I know believes that people should be placed in a position where they have to participate in helping themselves without government interference. I believe there are many people who will either not participate in such a society or take advantage of it. He also believes that would be the only possible solution to our current inequities. I believe he is a well meaning nut.

2

I think it is the ideological divide, which is faith-based like religion, that won't allow a meeting of minds.

2

There is and has been, particularly post 1930s Depression. It is called a Mixed Economy, a balance of public and private enterprise, which is the basis of social democratic political and economic ideology, much maligned by the Right as 'Socialism" which they falsely equate to Communism. It was particularly effective in the post WW2 decades, in both economic and social outcomes, until the rise of economic rationalism and its ilk in the late 1970s which has been disastrous, again both in economic and social outcomes. So, it is not a matter of creating something new in economics, but returning to economic theory that balances both economic and social outcomes. Simply put, the contagion of extreme Right Wing ideology needs to be neutralized in much the same way that the current viral contagion needs to be.

2

i don't see liberals mocking capitalism, unless you count satire, which mocks everyone. complaining, and rightfully so, isn't mocking. i certainly don't see airs of intellectual superiority. i see fristration and despair. i also see that the mechanism for creating a strong economy is absolutely MISSING from unbridled capitalism. making things comfortable for a tiny percentage of the population while everyone else struggles is only a strong economy for that small comfortable percentage. the stock market's soaring is not a sign of a strong economy. people not starving is a sign of a strong economy.

so no, based on your misapprehension about capitlism, no, it is not pragmatically plausible. free enterprise could work, but capitalism isn't free enterprise. it is only free for those at the very top. monsanto, for example, makes sure that the market in which it deals isn't free for anyone but itself. and free enterprise should not apply to such things as health care. health care should not be a business.

g

@Jetty I do not agree that the failure of capitalism to produce an economy that benefits the people, rather than the powers, of a country, is a disruption of the cycle. The reason it doesn't work is greed. It is that simple.

g

@Jetty I do I do not, however, call that a good economy. It is an economy but not a good one. Calling that a good economy is like calling a bullet in the head a good cure for a headache. It did the trick all right; the headache is gone. Isn't the survival of the patient rather basic to the claim of success?

g

1

The US is already a combination of both. I get your point though, and that's a noble attitude to take, to strive for fairness.

1

It's what we already have.

1

Not sure, but I don't think so.
I'm a democratic socialist liberal, and the laissez-faire capitalism they espouse amounts to an economic darwinism which is like the worst idea ever. It's a main reason I'm so fervently anti-libertarian- conservative-Republican.
So liberalism is an economic model as well as a social one.
I can't see a reproachment between the two---they're exact opposites.

1

Only if the scale of those in power changing laws to help the rich lass than the poor is tipped the other direction.

1

I don't care for extremes in any direction.
The best answers are usually found somewhere in the middle.

Making compromises to achieve positive movement has become a lost "art".
People are too often taking the "all or nothing" approach, and nothing is being
accomplished.

Libertarians, socialists, and capitalists, all have aspects to their methodologies
that make good sense. Conversely, they all have aspects that are straight-up
counterproductive.
We are currently seeing the harm that rampant capitalism does.
Libertarians are short-sighted in the benefits of a strong government response to
a serious event(s).
Socialists cannot fix everything for everyone.

I prefer moderation in most things.

1

So you are proposing a capitalist socialist society? How does that work?

America lives in one right now. Notice those roads near where you live that are owned by everyone collectively through our government? Those taxes that you may or may not pay that are taken for everyone and used for everyone through the use of the government? The court system, the military system? All collectively owned by the citizens. Meanwhile, we all buy, sell and trade routinely.

@david75090 Yes, but with certain RULES we buy, sell and trade. Libertarians want there to BE no rules...how's that grab you?

@Jetty, @david75090 I agree, the USA is more socialist than capitalist but definitely a hybrid. I think it is feasible but neither desirable nor efficient. Additionally, there is no such thing as fair in the absolute. Fairness is a matter of perspective and who is judging it (i.e. What is fair to you may not be fair to others).

@Storm1752 There are always rules. It is a question of the applying the rules. What is the capability and how far will one go to ensure others follow the rules. Governments have shown the capability and will to extinguish life in making others follow the rules.

@beenthere America has been an amalgamation of systems since day one but the ignorant don't recognize that. To them, socialist and socialism are dirty words rather than a legitimate part of the system. The problem is caused, mainly, by one political party and their cable news network. They prey on the ignorance of Their Sheep. They keep the anti, fear based, rhetoric going.

1

One might say there's an air of intellectual superiority among those who believe the middle ground is superior…

1

Absolutely! Even China, a communist country, has its free market side. We should try not to attack each other because of opinions. Arguing is ok.

A combination that I like is state capitalism as it exists in Norway. Governments might acquire partial ownership of publicly owned corporations and manage the holdings for the benefit of the citizens.

William, I sincerely doubt libertarians would approve of partial state ownership of ANYTHING. We're talking compromise, not capitulation, and libertarians are too bad-ass for that.

@Storm1752 I don’t see how anyone could object to a government buying and selling stocks and bonds on the market so long as the government was forbidden to own a controlling share in any one corporation. I am not advocating Cuban style confiscation where the government owns 51% of all businesses.

The management of the government fund would have to be strictly controlled and isolated from government’s regulatory function. Canada funds its pension fund with the stock market, and Alaska has its Permanent Fund, so the idea is not all that far-fetched.

The big hurdle would be to get ahead enough to start the fund. The first step would be a balanced budget, and that seems very elusive.

1

The answer is in the party platform. I have been a card holding member of the Libertarian party. What you have written does not jive. The Libertarians are normally considered socially liberal and fiscially conservative. This means many do want the best of both worlds. It is a mistake to see them somewhere in the middle. They actually could be better understood as a third point of a triangle with the other parties being at the other points. They do have in many cases differing approaches to acheiving these goals.

You know I like your contribution on this site very much David, but reading your comment I have absolutely no idea what you meant, or indeed what libertarianism is. Socially liberal but fiscally conservative describes more Conservatives that I've heard than I could possibly count. That's the truth.

@David1955 Yep it is a mess to discribe. I once was told by a prestigious leader of the Libertarian party that it should actually be called the Ultra Liberal Party. It actully was a good point....chew on that! The republicans that claim those traits are usually just moderate conservatives. Not to make the claim that they are just "shills"? As you folks might say.

@Jetty The Libertarians usually want an unrealisticly small government. But just because baseball players and football players like gaderaide does not mean they play the same sport so to speak.

@Jetty good question.

@DavidLaDeau a wit once described libertarians as people who buy Ayn Rand books, smoke them and get a high. But that would be unkind, perhaps. 🙂

@Jetty Moderate conservatives? Liberal conservatives?
Let's just throw around labels like confetti!
Libertarians are ULTRA-conservative fiscally, ULTRA-liberal socially. It's wacky garbage! It's throwing up your hands and saying, "What the hell! Let's REALLY throw everything we got at the fan and see if anything sticks!"
Will somebody please get serious here?
Libertarians and socialists have WAY too little in common fiscally, and in general just because socialists are more liberal than conservatives (of course) it doesn't mean they want everybody to do whatever they want, no consequences.
It's ludicrous to even entertain the notion a Grand Compromise is even thinkable.

@Storm1752 Libertarians are serious and I think should be taken as seriously as the other parties. I am sure there were many at one time that many thought that it was imposible for anything but a Monarchy to work. Yet here we are. Just because one does not understand something does not mean it is wrong. Lobertarians are not extremist or wackos. They simply have a different opinion of a more ideal system. That does not mean that it is the best, we have yet as a species conducted that experiment.

@David1955 Thats a load of crap. They taste funny when smoked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1

And who "might say" this load of crap?

1

I like that.

0
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:483602
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.