Another new Brit

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Libertarian - you are at liberty to do what you want with your money
Socialist - other people are at liberty to do what they want with y0ur money

Mutually Exclusive Philosophies...

As I mentioned above, I think there are translation difficulties between UK and US in these words.

Libertarianism: living and let living, including having control of one's own money.

Socialism: working together, including pooling resources and products in mutual ownership and protection of the producer/worker.

Libertarian socialism: living one's own life and recognising that, as Homo sapiens is a social animal and that social association and structures can facilitate personal freedom, it can be personally useful in the short and/or long term to join in voluntary associations for certain activities, including protecting the members of the associations from harm by large organisations seeking to control in order to exploit.

A small-scale example: for ages, friends of mine with some good cider apple trees couldn't afford decent-sized kit and so laboriously pressed juice in small batches. They met some locals in the same position, pooled funds and got decent kit that they co-own. The kit goes round the small orchards and everyone helps out on pressing days. Sensible individuals deciding to share a specific item and activity and gaining faster, easier, more convivial pressings and, of course, both their own cider and swaps.

If you think that another term fits this theory and practice better than 'libertarian socialism' then I'd be interested to hear it, but please do me the courtesy of accepting my words at face value rather than ignoring or rejecting everything simply because of a difference in our understandings of one word.
 
A small-scale example: for ages, friends of mine with some good cider apple trees couldn't afford decent-sized kit and so laboriously pressed juice in small batches. They met some locals in the same position, pooled funds and got decent kit that they co-own. The kit goes round the small orchards and everyone helps out on pressing days. Sensible individuals deciding to share a specific item and activity and gaining faster, easier, more convivial pressings and, of course, both their own cider and swaps.

That is an example of people using their own money to benefit their business. How would this apply in government?
 
As I mentioned above, I think there are translation difficulties between UK and US in these words.

Libertarianism: living and let living, including having control of one's own money.

Socialism: working together, including pooling resources and products in mutual ownership and protection of the producer/worker.

Libertarian socialism: living one's own life and recognising that, as Homo sapiens is a social animal and that social association and structures can facilitate personal freedom, it can be personally useful in the short and/or long term to join in voluntary associations for certain activities, including protecting the members of the associations from harm by large organisations seeking to control in order to exploit.

A small-scale example: for ages, friends of mine with some good cider apple trees couldn't afford decent-sized kit and so laboriously pressed juice in small batches. They met some locals in the same position, pooled funds and got decent kit that they co-own. The kit goes round the small orchards and everyone helps out on pressing days. Sensible individuals deciding to share a specific item and activity and gaining faster, easier, more convivial pressings and, of course, both their own cider and swaps.

If you think that another term fits this theory and practice better than 'libertarian socialism' then I'd be interested to hear it, but please do me the courtesy of accepting my words at face value rather than ignoring or rejecting everything simply because of a difference in our understandings of one word.

Then your a libertarian, government socialism has nothing to do with it. Government is not involved in your free will co-op.
 
Then your a libertarian, government socialism has nothing to do with it. Government is not involved in your free will co-op.

The co-op is the socialism bit: workers owning the means of production. And, yes, government has little to do with it.

In the term, 'socialism' is the core and 'libertarian' the adjective that describes its particular type: the libertarianism is set within a strong socialist ethos and the socialism has its authoritarian and centralised state elements greatly reduced. For a more detailed introduction, if anyone is interested, the Wikipedia entry is a fairly short read. I'll quote from it re DrPrepper's government question, though:

'It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[*] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.'

I've marked [*] because I think that this is simply one strand of establishing a better society, and that other elements are needed. Tacitus wrote 'Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.' (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws; Annals 3:27). People who have a care for kindness, honesty, fairness, tolerance, etc., and the thinking and emotional skills to negotiate, need few laws but tgere will always be conflicts of interest. I suspect that people who are selfish, brutal, callous, controlling, hate-filled and aggressive want few laws, and only those that won't be used to curb them. A utopia of loveliness is impossible and, as Maverick and I agree, would probably be extremely dull.

I'm very new to taking an active interest in politics, and have only recently identified the economic/political philosophy most suited to my personal thoughts and practice. As a result, my understanding of libertarian socialism is also very new.

As I said above, LS doesn't - can't - hold all the answers, nor can any single philosophy. I can do my best to disengage from and help to dismantle practices that I find exploitative, damaging and driven by hate and fear and which I think will, if left unchecked, lead to catastrophic environmental and socio-economic collapse. By working to dismantle them and by striving to live a more socially engaged, humane, co-operative and joyous life, I improve the chances of a better life for individuals, society, and the world as a whole. I prep both for the catastrophe and in order to make it less likely.

I may not be able to take this immediate discussion much further, as I'm rather at the limits of my current understanding and ability to explain it, but thank you for the opportunity to explore and clarify my thoughts. This has been really useful, and will help me to make more progress.

Phew, I've had five hours' sleep and really need breakfast :)
 
Last edited:
I suspect that people who are selfish, brutal, callous, controlling, hate-filled and aggressive want few laws, and only those that won't be used to curb them.
So, nice, empathetic, beautiful, generous, good smelling people naturally will desire piles of restrictive laws. Got it.


[/QUOTE] As I said above, LS doesn't - can't - hold all the answers, nor can any single philosophy. I can do my best to disengage from and help to dismantle practices that I find exploitative, damaging and driven by hate and fear and which I think will, if left unchecked, lead to catastrophic environmental and socio-economic collapse. [/QUOTE]

Can you please name some examples of these practices?

[/QUOTE] I may not be able to take this immediate discussion much further, as I'm rather at the limits of my current understanding and ability to explain it, but thank you for the opportunity to explore and clarify my thoughts. This has been really useful, and will help me to make more progress.

Phew, I've had five hours' sleep and really need breakfast :)[/QUOTE]

Hmm, no. I'm not letting you off the hook because you are sleepy.

Adding " socialism" to Libertarianism sounds like a great way to co-opt, and eventually corrupt, one of the few sociopolitical theories that espouses freedom for me, AND for thee. Why? As a Libertarian, you would be free to group up and buy apple presses, no need for socialism, the definition of which is https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

I live now in a place where, depending on the season ( and some family and/or friend strife) up to eight people work together to make stuff, grow stuff, and buy stuff. Trust me, there has to be leadership, or two things get accomplished. Jack, and shit.
 
Thanks for the explanation Bluejoy. I would advise not calling that "socialist" when you are talking to an American. We know what co-ops are. At least in rural areas we do. That type of "socialism" can only work effectively on a small scale where everyone knows each other and you can quickly identify freeloaders.
 
So, nice, empathetic, beautiful, generous, good smelling people naturally will desire piles of restrictive laws. Got it.

'As I said above, LS doesn't - can't - hold all the answers, nor can any single philosophy. I can do my best to disengage from and help to dismantle practices that I find exploitative, damaging and driven by hate and fear and which I think will, if left unchecked, lead to catastrophic environmental and socio-economic collapse.'

Can you please name some examples of these practices?

'I may not be able to take this immediate discussion much further, as I'm rather at the limits of my current understanding and ability to explain it, but thank you for the opportunity to explore and clarify my thoughts. This has been really useful, and will help me to make more progress.

'Phew, I've had five hours' sleep and really need breakfast :)'

Hmm, no. I'm not letting you off the hook because you are sleepy.

Adding " socialism" to Libertarianism sounds like a great way to co-opt, and eventually corrupt, one of the few sociopolitical theories that espouses freedom for me, AND for thee. Why? As a Libertarian, you would be free to group up and buy apple presses, no need for socialism, the definition of which is https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

I live now in a place where, depending on the season ( and some family and/or friend strife) up to eight people work together to make stuff, grow stuff, and buy stuff. Trust me, there has to be leadership, or two things get accomplished. Jack, and shit.

I have no reason to trust you when you don't read for comprehension and argue poorly.

I didn't ask to be 'let off the hook' for sleepiness but, rather, stated that 'I may not be able to take this immediate discussion [by which I meant the political philosophy] much further, as I'm rather at the limits of my current understanding and ability to explain it.' The tired and hungry statement was a separate paragraph, intended as a bit of daft humour.

I live in a place where my local grocer is a successful, expanding and award-winning workers' co-op with 71 members, all of whom are both managing directors and workers on equal pay. They accomplish a hell of a lot and are not alone in doing so.

Words meanings shift and always have done. The Mirriam Webster entry that you link to gives three distinct definitions of socialism, the first of which contains two options. The definition closest to that used in libertarian socialism is the first one, using the 'collective' option rather than the 'government' one. As I've explained, this is then modified by the 'libertarian' element.

Examples: acts of terrorism committed by extremists of any religion; the rise of neo-nazism; relentless overconsumption; petro-chemical fertilised mono-crop agriculture; religious fundamentalism of every flavour; religious and political hypocrisy and willy-waving; corporate greed driving down working conditions; massive global reliance on fossil fuels as if they aren't finite. All are easy to look up if you want to know more and there are few, if any, easy solutions.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation Bluejoy. I would advise not calling that "socialist" when you are talking to an American. We know what co-ops are. At least in rural areas we do. That type of "socialism" can only work effectively on a small scale where everyone knows each other and you can quickly identify freeloaders.

Thanks for the civil response and the suggestion. I don't know of a better UK English word at the moment, and wonder if there's a word in US English that covers those elements of LS without causing so much upset?

I take your point about the small-scaleness of it, but I hope that humans - so flexible and adventurous - might find a way to make it work more widely.
 
I have no reason to trust you when you don't read for comprehension and argue poorly.

I didn't ask to be 'let off the hook' for sleepiness but, rather, stated that 'I may not be able to take this immediate discussion [by which I meant the political philosophy] much further, as I'm rather at the limits of my current understanding and ability to explain it.' The tired and hungry statement was a separate paragraph, intended as a bit of daft humour.

I live in a place where my local grocer is a successful, expanding and award-winning workers' co-op with 71 members, all of whom are both managing directors and workers on equal pay. They accomplish a hell of a lot and are not alone in doing so.

Words meanings shift and always have done. The Mirriam Webster entry that you link to gives three distinct definitions of socialism, the first of which contains two options. The definition closest to that used in libertarian socialism is the first one, using the 'collective' option rather than the 'government' one. As I've explained, this is then modified by the 'libertarian' element.

Examples: acts of terrorism committed by extremists of any religion; the rise of neo-nazism; relentless overconsumption; petro-chemical fertilised mono-crop agriculture; religious fundamentalism of every flavour; religious and political hypocrisy and willy-waving; corporate greed driving down working conditions; massive global reliance on fossil fuels as if they aren't finite. All are easy to look up if you want to know more and there are few, if any, easy solutions.

Ok. No problem.
 
Welcome, I may rib ya a bit on politics, as will others here...but if we didn't have our differences, how dull would that be? Seriously though, don't ever confuse a bit of discussion and argument for dislike here. At the end of the day, we want to all just help each other prep.
 
Welcome, I may rib ya a bit on politics, as will others here...but if we didn't have our differences, how dull would that be? Seriously though, don't ever confuse a bit of discussion and argument for dislike here. At the end of the day, we want to all just help each other prep.

Gazrok, I've nothing against discussion and argument, and I try to take people at their word.

Of course everyone thinks that their own team is best, otherwise we wouldn't have teams, but many Republicans seem to take this to baffling lengths, refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of less-than-saintly behaviour in their own ranks as well as amongst Democrats. Threads on this forum talk of 'obumer' and 'rag heads' and, re the SCOTUS hearing, describe women as 'hose bag' and 'miserable excuse for a bimbo' and wish of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that 'the bitch would just die'. This language doesn't speak of courage, strength or honesty. It speaks of nasty, frightened belligerence, of trying to make oneself feel big and secure by making others feel small and unsafe. It's dishonourable, dehumanising and degrading, not to those at whom it's directed but to those who use it.
 
but many Republicans seem to take this to baffling lengths, refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of less-than-saintly behaviour in their own ranks as well as amongst Democrats

In past years, I may have agreed with you, but the Dems have caught up (and surpassed them) quite handily since Trump first ran for office. The level of hatred liberals now exhibit to those who disagree with them is far more vehement than any recollection I have from the GOP.

I am not a Republican. I'm a former Dem who was abandoned by my party. If anything applies, I'm more Libertarian than anything. Socially, I'm all for equal (not special) rights, etc. However I'm also for as little government involvement as possible, and for upholding the principles of our founders in the Constitution.

Threads on this forum talk of 'obumer' and 'rag heads' and re the SCOTUS hearing describe women as 'hose bag' and 'miserable excuse for a bimbo' and wishing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that 'the bitch would just die'.

Nor will you see those kinds of comments from me (in current, or past threads). (though a bit of ribbing at RBG would just be in fun).

I actually lived with so-called "rag heads" in the Middle East for about 3 years, Saudi Arabia to be exact, so I have a bit of perspective there. Most are some of the nicest folks you'd ever meet, and hospitality is a big part of the culture there. But, that doesn't negate the very dangerous element of that population that you and fellow Europeans have invited in, and are in danger of losing your identity to. I also understand the desire to not have that happen here.

I'm not so much defending Trump, as I am condemning the actions of the press and others where I see the normal processes we have being completely undermined by playing on emotions and inciting hatred for the other groups. Not to mention the complete leave of folks' common sense when it comes to these issues. It's appalling. (and while often on both sides, these days, it seems far more one-sided, when it comes to violent and desperate opposition).
 
And on behavior, whether Dem or Rep, I'm all for folks getting justice. But to that end, coming out with accusations DECADES after an incident (especially one where both were minors, and the statute of limitations has been far exceeded, and politically timed) is not justice, it's ridiculous. And this includes folks of any party.

And yes, I have no problem victim blaming, when a victim's silence may have contributed to more and more women being victimized, when something could have actually been done about it.

As for this particular case, so far, the lack of clarity, the acute political timing, and political affiliations of the accusers are far more than just suspicious, they are glaringly obvious. And yet folks are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.... And THAT is the scariest part of this whole thing.
 
In past years, I may have agreed with you, but the Dems have caught up (and surpassed them) quite handily since Trump first ran for office. The level of hatred liberals now exhibit to those who disagree with them is far more vehement than any recollection I have from the GOP.

I am not a Republican. I'm a former Dem who was abandoned by my party. If anything applies, I'm more Libertarian than anything. Socially, I'm all for equal (not special) rights, etc. However I'm also for as little government involvement as possible, and for upholding the principles of our founders in the Constitution.



Nor will you see those kinds of comments from me (in current, or past threads). (though a bit of ribbing at RBG would just be in fun).

I actually lived with so-called "rag heads" in the Middle East for about 3 years, Saudi Arabia to be exact, so I have a bit of perspective there. Most are some of the nicest folks you'd ever meet, and hospitality is a big part of the culture there. But, that doesn't negate the very dangerous element of that population that you and fellow Europeans have invited in, and are in danger of losing your identity to. I also understand the desire to not have that happen here.

I'm not so much defending Trump, as I am condemning the actions of the press and others where I see the normal processes we have being completely undermined by playing on emotions and inciting hatred for the other groups. Not to mention the complete leave of folks' common sense when it comes to these issues. It's appalling. (and while often on both sides, these days, it seems far more one-sided, when it comes to violent and desperate opposition).

Sorry, yes, I did mean to say that I hadn't seen that type of language from you.

The Democrats are coming out with foulness but that does not let other sides off the hook. I consider myself a libertarian socialist*, and I'm not a US citizen, so other than being a human and, I hope, humane being I don't have a horse in the US race. From listening to and reading Mr Trump's words, especially when he's speaking unscripted, I think that the foulness comes right from the top.

* Cue folk leaping in to tell me its a contradiction in terms. Hey-ho, as Walt Whitman would say: I am large, I contain multitudes :D
 
I could definitely go with a libertarian socialist as a contradiction in terms, but reading through your intro thread, I feel I have a better grasp on your definition of socialism, and I'd agree it fits you.

From listening to and reading Mr Trump's words, especially when he's speaking unscripted, I think that the foulness comes right from the top.

No disagreement there. I didn't vote for him as the winner of a popularity contest. I voted for him to shake up the status quo, and see if we get different results, and a better economy, by electing a non-politician. So far, at least that much has come to pass.

However, I also voted for him in the hopes he would lay off Twitter, tone it down a bit, and be a bit more serious and diplomatic. That has NOT come to pass, nor does it seem it ever will. And yet, we no longer have North Korea rattling their saber, etc. To be honest, I'm still a bit puzzled by it all, lol.

While I would have loved to see us get our first female POTUS, I'm not going to vote for (or against) someone just because of their genitals. While on paper, Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates we've ever had, she also represented a continuation of the (non-working) status quo, and while Trump may be corrupt, he's strictly an amateur in terms of global corruption compared to Clinton, so it was indeed a lesser of two evils vote here.
 
I could definitely go with a libertarian socialist as a contradiction in terms, but reading through your intro thread, I feel I have a better grasp on your definition of socialism, and I'd agree it fits you.

Thank you for taking the time to do that ☺

No disagreement there. I didn't vote for him as the winner of a popularity contest. I voted for him to shake up the status quo, and see if we get different results, and a better economy, by electing a non-politician. So far, at least that much has come to pass.

However, I also voted for him in the hopes he would lay off Twitter, tone it down a bit, and be a bit more serious and diplomatic. That has NOT come to pass, nor does it seem it ever will. And yet, we no longer have North Korea rattling their saber, etc. To be honest, I'm still a bit puzzled by it all, lol.

While I would have loved to see us get our first female POTUS, I'm not going to vote for (or against) someone just because of their genitals. While on paper, Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates we've ever had, she also represented a continuation of the (non-working) status quo, and while Trump may be corrupt, he's strictly an amateur in terms of global corruption compared to Clinton, so it was indeed a lesser of two evils vote here.

Haha, I'm pretty puzzled myself! While I couldn't go with Mr Trump as being the lesser of two evils, I certainly agree that voting on the basis of genitals is daft.
 
Gazrok, I've nothing against discussion and argument, and I try to take people at their word.

Of course everyone thinks that their own team is best, otherwise we wouldn't have teams, but many Republicans seem to take this to baffling lengths, refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of less-than-saintly behaviour in their own ranks as well as amongst Democrats. Threads on this forum talk of 'obumer' and 'rag heads' and, re the SCOTUS hearing, describe women as 'hose bag' and 'miserable excuse for a bimbo' and wish of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that 'the bitch would just die'. This language doesn't speak of courage, strength or honesty. It speaks of nasty, frightened belligerence, of trying to make oneself feel big and secure by making others feel small and unsafe. It's dishonourable, dehumanising and degrading, not to those at whom it's directed but to those who use it.

I would agree with Gazrok on his political outlook.
Although I don't use name calling as you mentioned, I do support people's right to use it. It maybe "dishonorable, dehumanizing, and degrading", but it is a form of expression on how people feel. We should honor that, regardless if we agree with it or not. People have their own experiences in life that have lead them to feel the way the feel. If we try to shame people or enforce political correctness things only get worse... at least that is what I see here in the U.S. If you think the foulness comes right from the top after listening to Trump, you may be right, but remember there is a reason he got elected. If people would listen and not be offended by what they hear, they might understand why Trump got elected.
 
While I couldn't go with Mr Trump as being the lesser of two evils

Who do you want to steal from you?

An amateur, or professional thief?

I pick the amateur.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top