Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[WhoWee]

"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."

Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.

Are you still talking about Russia? Who EXACTLY were these "gangsters"?

Were they former Russian officials that previously operated the Government departments or an ideological group of "American free market economists"?

Please support your comments this time also.

 

[Al68]

The free market idea is basically economic anarchism, and as such carries all of the problems therein.

Not at all. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. A free market, like a socially free society, requires law and order. Laws against fraud and theft, like laws against murder and robbery, are accepted by economic and social libertarians. Laws restricting honest trade and the right to contract privately, like laws restricting freedom of speech and consensual sex, are not. The difference between anarchism and libertarianism is obvious, and not just a difference in degree.

In a pure free market you end up with large corporations monopolising the market and bullying any potential competetors.

Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation. And the politicians favoring such regulation, then as today, claimed that they were taking the side of the "people" against big business, instead of the other way around.

And then, like today, they blamed the problems caused by their regulation on the free market, while trying to credit their regulations with the benefits of capitalism. That's the trouble with mixed economies (mix of socialism and capitalism), politicians can easily deceive people to gain power, while those that want to defend liberty are cast as "for the rich".

This is simply the M.O. of power hungry politicians that think it's government's legitimate role to control, change, shape, better, perfect, etc. society in general.

Libertarians believe the legitimate role of government is to protect liberty, not take it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation.

Standard Oil? Rockefeller and many of the other leaders of the industrial revolution owned monopolies and were the very reason for anti-trust legislation.

 

[madness]

"Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation"

The correct term was really oligopoly.

"Not at all. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. A free market, like a socially free society, requires law and order"

Anarchist societies would (should) have order, if not law. Libertarian socialism is used interchangably with anarchism:

"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production"
(From wikipedia)

The distinction really is not at all obvious. Not that all coercive intitutions would be dissolved ie the state.

 

[Al68]

[2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production"

What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking.

It's like saying my position on abortion is that it should be legal and available, but no one will have one. I'll call it "abortion-free libertarianism".

The distinction really is not at all obvious.

The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy. Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty.

 

[Al68]

Standard Oil? Rockefeller and many of the other leaders of the industrial revolution owned monopolies and were the very reason for anti-trust legislation.

A perfect example of government regulation enabling a monopoly, then creating more regulation to "fix" the problem caused by the previous regulation.

State regulations were the only reason there was ever such a thing as a "trust". There would be no purpose for a trust in a (perfectly) free market. And anti-trust legislation was to prevent trusts.

Thanks for the great example.

 

[madness]

"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking."

I never advocated this political system, I was just pointing out that the terms libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism are used interchangeably.

"The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy."

Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.

"Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty. "

As the quote from wikipedia showed, libertarian socialists believe "in a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved", ie a stateless society.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A perfect example of government regulation enabling a monopoly, then creating more regulation to "fix" the problem caused by the previous regulation.

State regulations were the only reason there was ever such a thing as a "trust". There would be no purpose for a trust in a (perfectly) free market. And anti-trust legislation was to prevent trusts.

Thanks for the great example.

A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.

 

[WhoWee]

A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust

I'm unsure if you are attempting to refute my comment. If you are...

In a common law legal system anything is legal unless there are laws or regulations which limit or prevent it. The only situation under which a law is required to allow something is if it is illegal already or is made indirectly illegal by other laws and the new law will make a distinction in legal definition to make this action exempt from other laws which may otherwise pertain. In other words, to allow the legality of something would be to deregulate it.

The ability to create a trust is not a matter of regulation other than the fact that it is limited by certain laws.

 

[Al68]

A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.

The Standard Oil trust wasn't created or enabled by regulations directly, it was created by Standard Oil because regulations made it advantageous for them to do so.

 

[Al68]

"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking."

I never advocated this political system, I was just pointing out that the terms libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism are used interchangeably.

"The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy."

Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.

"Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty. "

As the quote from wikipedia showed, libertarian socialists believe "in a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved", ie a stateless society.

I agree that the stated political philosophy is the same between "libertarian socialism" and anarchy. My only disagreement is the conclusion by "libertarian socialists" that in the absence of coercion, people will just all voluntarily choose to participate in something resembling socialism.

I was just making fun of "libertarian socialists", not really disagreeing with you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Standard Oil trust wasn't created or enabled by regulations directly, it was created by Standard Oil because regulations made it advantageous for them to do so.

So you're saying that since a corporation was hindered by laws designed to prevent monopolies it came up with a way to get around these laws and hence those laws are responsible for the monopoly? What kind of sense does that make?

 

[Al68]

So you're saying that since a corporation was hindered by laws designed to prevent monopolies it came up with a way to get around these laws and hence those laws are responsible for the monopoly? What kind of sense does that make?

No, I didn't say that. The Standard Oil trust was created prior to the anti-trust laws, but after state regulations that made the trust advantageous. Like I said, regulations were created as an attempt to fix problems caused by previous (different) regulations.

There were state laws that tried to limit the size and scale of companies in general, regulations on oil company operations, as well as the simple fact that virtually any government business regulation gives large companies an advantage over smaller companies just because they can better afford it. And the advantage of regulatory hurdles stifling their competitors often greatly outweighs their direct cost to a large company (or a trust created by several companies, like Standard Oil). And the combination of all that (and more) made it very hard (or impossible) for smaller companies to compete. Many gave up and sold their operations to members of the Standard Oil trust just to cut their losses.

 

[Mattara]

Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.

Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm unsure if you are attempting to refute my comment.

I'm just adding a definition. There may be someone who is unaware of the use/purpose of business trusts - nothing else.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Like I said, regulations were created as an attempt to fix problems caused by previous (different) regulations.

And that's what I am saying. The corporate trust was designed as a work around to laws designed to prevent monopolies. Specifically it side stepped a law that did not allow one corporation to own stock in another corporation. Standard Oil was already a monopoly and finding means of side stepping laws designed to prevent monopolies. What you seem to be saying is that the laws which prevented Standard Oil from expanding its monopoly, and which they decided to find a way around, are responsible for them trying to expand their monopoly.

There were state laws that tried to limit the size and scale of companies in general, regulations on oil company operations, as well as the simple fact that virtually any government business regulation gives large companies an advantage over smaller companies just because they can better afford it. And the advantage of regulatory hurdles stifling their competitors often greatly outweighs their direct cost to a large company (or a trust created by several companies, like Standard Oil). And the combination of all that (and more) made it very hard (or impossible) for smaller companies to compete. Many gave up and sold their operations to members of the Standard Oil trust just to cut their losses.

I see, and you don't happen to think that Standard Oil's monopoly had anything to do with their aggressive business tactics such as undercutting and buying out their competition? And it was regulations that made Rockefeller want to make his corporation ever bigger? The desire didn't exist there already. Like the mountain climber he desired to scale the walls of laws and regulations and reach ever higher merely because "it was there"?
Rockefeller didn't succeed for lack of competition, he succeeded because he nailed his competition to the wall.

 

[madness]

"Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism"

Right. To be more pedantic there is no difference between libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, which is what originally stated in the earlier post and was referring back to. It's like saying there is no difference between water and rain - actually rain is a form of water.

 

[Mattara]

"Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism"

Right. To be more pedantic there is no difference between libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, which is what originally stated in the earlier post and was referring back to. It's like saying there is no difference between water and rain - actually rain is a form of water.

Libertarianism encompasses both no state and small state political positions. It is more like saying that there is no different between a specific type of rain and water. Socialist anarchism is certainly a form of libertarian socialism, but not all libertarian socialist ideologies are necessarily anarchist in nature.

 

[madness]

I once read the back of a book when I was browsing in a shop. The book was by a Harvard professor who was defending the anarchist position and claimed that the state should only exercise coercion when preventing the harm of others. It struck me as strange that he should call himself anarchist and still call for a minimal state.

 

[madness]

While looking over Wikipedia's libertarian socialism page I found a section very pertinent to the original question in this thread:

In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[19] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."

And even more:

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[38] Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies. For these reasons the term "libertarian socialism" is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term "libertarian socialism" would be considered redundant.

 

[Al68]

And that's what I am saying. The corporate trust was designed as a work around to laws designed to prevent monopolies. Specifically it side stepped a law that did not allow one corporation to own stock in another corporation. Standard Oil was already a monopoly and finding means of side stepping laws designed to prevent monopolies. What you seem to be saying is that the laws which prevented Standard Oil from expanding its monopoly, and which they decided to find a way around, are responsible for them trying to expand their monopoly.

No, I said those laws were the reason they created a trust. Any profit making venture naturally has a motive to expand. State regulations didn't create the motive, but they helped Standard Oil succeed by providing hurdles for their potential and existing competition.

I see, and you don't happen to think that Standard Oil's monopoly had anything to do with their aggressive business tactics such as undercutting and buying out their competition? And it was regulations that made Rockefeller want to make his corporation ever bigger?

Again, no. He wanted that on his own, obviously. I think you're missing my point completely. Standard Oil wanted to corner the market and government regulations helped them do it. Not because of how they applied to Standard Oil directly, but because of how they applied to competitors who could not so easily "clear the hurdles".

The fact that Standard Oil had a desire to corner the market doesn't provide a good reason for government to help them do it. Are you arguing that we should blame Rockefeller instead of government because Rockefeller, a private citizen, acted in his own self interest instead of as an agent of the people? That just sounds silly. It is government, not private citizens, that is supposed to act as an agent of the people.

I'm not saying Rockefeller wasn't "to blame", I'm just saying that's not relevant politically because Rockefeller wasn't an agent of government.

 

[Al68]

While looking over Wikipedia's libertarian socialism page I found a section very pertinent to the original question in this thread:

In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[19] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."

A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that each person naturally owns his own body. A person's body and labor are "privately owned" by him originally, not owned "collectively" by society. Ownership means the right to sell or trade as the owner chooses. Whatever the labor is traded for is then privately owned by him.

Opposing a person's private ownership rights to his own labor, and whatever he trades it for, is anti-libertarian. Chomsky is just very confused.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, I said those laws were the reason they created a trust. Any profit making venture naturally has a motive to expand. State regulations didn't create the motive, but they helped Standard Oil succeed by providing hurdles for their potential and existing competition.

Again, no. He wanted that on his own, obviously. I think you're missing my point completely. Standard Oil wanted to corner the market and government regulations helped them do it. Not because of how they applied to Standard Oil directly, but because of how they applied to competitors who could not so easily "clear the hurdles".

As I see it the 'hurdle', or rather barrier come hurdle, was placed before Standard Oil who wished to expand by buying stock in other corporations. Standard Oil found a way around it and the circumvention did not have anything to do with the size of the company so much as having a creative lawyer. And of course once the work around was designed it could be exploited by anyone in a position to exploit it. So I don't see how this "hurdle" was any sort of hindrance to Standard Oil's competition unless they were trying to create a monopoly themselves.

And as I already pointed out Rockefeller had plenty of competition and took them out in the old fashioned way (which you apparently do not believe exists) without any need of government regulation. Of course if you really want to you could say that someone else may have been able to get in on the action and undercut Rockefeller, instead of the other way around, if only they needn't have worried about business permits or a certain level quality of product or working conditions for their employees ect ect. Certainly, and I wonder how many unskilled immigrant workers bodies they would have had to climb in order to take down Rockefeller.

 

[madness]

"A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that each person naturally owns his own body. A person's body and labor are "privately owned" by him originally, not owned "collectively" by society. Ownership means the right to sell or trade as the owner chooses. Whatever the labor is traded for is then privately owned by him.

Opposing a person's private ownership rights to his own labor, and whatever he trades it for, is anti-libertarian. Chomsky is just very confused."

It is certainly up for debate whether or not capitalism and private ownership increase or decrease our liberty, but I'm not debating this point.
You say "A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that...a persons labor is "privately owned" by him", and in a way I think socialists agree on this point, hence the motto "wage labour is slavery", ie they believe in a capitalist system your labour is stolen from you by people who own the means of production.
Besides, the point I was making by choosing those quotes from wikipedia is that the connection between libertarianism and socialism predates its connection with capitalism. Furthermore, the association with libertarianism and capitalism is almost an entirely American phenomenon. This is why it said the term libertarian socialism is redundant in Europe.

Note that I am not trying to argue for either side of the debate, but rather trying to clear up some translational issues between American and European traditions. As a European, I found it confusing that anyone would associate libertarianism with capitalism at all, they seem contradictory from what I know about libertarianism.

 

[Al68]

As I see it the 'hurdle', or rather barrier come hurdle, was placed before Standard Oil who wished to expand by buying stock in other corporations. Standard Oil found a way around it and the circumvention did not have anything to do with the size of the company so much as having a creative lawyer. And of course once the work around was designed it could be exploited by anyone in a position to exploit it. So I don't see how this "hurdle" was any sort of hindrance to Standard Oil's competition unless they were trying to create a monopoly themselves.

The hurdle you refer to is the hurdle that resulted in Standard Oil creating a trust. Obviously that's not the same hurdle(s) that held back their competition.

And as I already pointed out Rockefeller had plenty of competition and took them out in the old fashioned way (which you apparently do not believe exists) without any need of government regulation.

Are you claiming there was a shortage of potential competitors? Other rich people just had no interest in getting richer, so they just chose not to enter the market? It wasn't the regulatory barriers to entry, it was a lack of interest?

Are we talking about completely different things here? A market in which competition is hindered by any artificial means is by definition not a (completely) free market. Are you claiming that Standard Oil achieved a monopoly without any artificial barriers to entry for any potential competitor? They just decided they weren't interested in profit?

Of course if you really want to you could say that someone else may have been able to get in on the action and undercut Rockefeller, instead of the other way around, if only they needn't have worried about business permits or a certain level quality of product or working conditions for their employees ect ect.

Among other things. Does this mean that you now agree that, whether you support those particular types of regulations or not, clearly they are generally a competitive advantage for large companies over small companies?

 

[Al68]

You say "A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that...a persons labor is "privately owned" by him", and in a way I think socialists agree on this point, hence the motto "wage labour is slavery", ie they believe in a capitalist system your labour is stolen from you by people who own the means of production.

Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty.

It is certainly up for debate whether or not capitalism and private ownership increase or decrease our liberty

Capitalism and private ownership are the result of liberty, not the cause. Libertarians advocate liberty which results in capitalism, not the other way around. Capitalism is an inevitable result of a failure to restrict liberty. It's not some system cooked up by government to force on people like socialism.

As a European, I found it confusing that anyone would associate libertarianism with capitalism at all, they seem contradictory from what I know about libertarianism.

That sounds strange to me, since classical liberalism started in Europe, and most of the famous Enlightenment era classical liberals (pro-capitalism) were European.

John Locke and Adam Smith are probably considered the most influential figures of the Enlightenment, and they, and most of those with them, associated capitalism with freedom, and were European.

And that all predated the European socialist era by a couple hundred years. Marxist ideology is a relative latecomer to the scene.

Edit: According to Wikipedia: "the modern concept of socialism evolved in response to the development of industrial capitalism."

 

[madness]

From Wikipedia :

"the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism"

"Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies"

These bare statement show that what you write cannot be true. If libertarianism necessarily implies capitalism and ownership, then why were the first libertarians strongly opposed to them?
You write "Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty". Don't you understand that liberty means different things to other people? The original libertarians considered wage labour to be slavery. It's not up to you to tell them that their slavery is really their liberty.

 

[Al68]

If libertarianism necessarily implies capitalism and ownership, then why were the first libertarians strongly opposed to them?

They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves. Anyone can call themselves libertarian. They did not, however believe in the individual right to own one's labor. And although they called themselves "libertarian socialists", they were not advocates of a government imposed socialist economic system, either. They used both words very differently than commonly used today.

You write "Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty". Don't you understand that liberty means different things to other people? The original libertarians considered wage labour to be slavery. It's not up to you to tell them that their slavery is really their liberty.

They weren't the original libertarians, or libertarians at all. They just widely used the term first, while the word liberty was long commonly used to mean the opposite of what they believed in. And they used the word slavery to refer to what the word liberty had long been used to mean.

It's called propaganda.

But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor. Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation.

 

[madness]

"They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves"

This makes no sense. If they were the first people to describe themself as libertarian, then libertarian by definition pertains to their beliefs because they invented the term.

"They used both words very differently than commonly used today"

As the quotes from wikipedia show, they rather use the words differently to how they are commonly used in the US today. However they use them in both the same way as their original meaning and the majority of the worlds common usage.

"But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor."

Right. And socialists value that their labour isn't stolen from them by those owning the means of production.

"Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation."

It doesn't affect your opinion of the situation, and neither does your choice of words affect theirs. Your argument would work equally well for a socialist arguing against your "liberty", ie their slavery.

 

[jambaugh]

I'm not up to speed on the history of the use of the term "Libertarian" except as it is used by the Libertarian Political Party which is an offshoot (actually something of a heresy) of Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy. I think some here are using the term in this sense and some in a more historic sense.

With regard to Anarchy, I don't believe you can actually define it meaningfully. Whether it is formal or informal "The State" is and always will be the strongest domestic power. Drop a random collection of people on an island and "The State" is initially the biggest baddest dude willing to club you to steal your coconut. He may not bother to call it taxes or himself King but the difference is only a matter of scale.

Quickly people realize that many can overpower a few. The situation may evolve into a hierarchic tyranny or informal democracy or some other form depending on the situation and the will of those people. Until things stabilize there will be war and diplomacy and factions. Ultimately there comes formal agreements and distribution of duties where the many back up the few who deal with day to day state affairs and enforcement of agreements and rules that all must obey.

Government is the exercise of force. States form to maintain exclusive franchise on the use of force. But even in the most benign freedom loving society force must be used to deal with the individual who threatens to hit you over the head if you don't give him your coconut!

The use of force is always a factor in human interaction. Politics is how people decide to deal with this fundamental truth. You can't wish the use of force away, only abdicate the moral responsibility each individual has to decide when and why it is used.

 

[madness]

I don't think anybody is denying that force may sometimes be necessary. What anarchists (and most libertarians) are denying is that there should be a "monopoly of violence" in the state.

 

[Al68]

If they were the first people to describe themself as libertarian, then libertarian by definition pertains to their beliefs because they invented the term.

According to that logic, getting fired from your job means having your house burnt down. That's why it was called "fired" originally. And the word libertarian is derived from the word liberty which was already in common usage to mean the opposite.

"They used both words very differently than commonly used today"

As the quotes from wikipedia show, they rather use the words differently to how they are commonly used in the US today. However they use them in both the same way as their original meaning and the majority of the worlds common usage.

Well, there's no reason to argue semantics, it's just a word. People can use it as they want. I'll use it to mean an advocate of liberty.

And socialists value that their labour isn't stolen from them by those owning the means of production.

So do I, and all libertarians (classical liberals). I never said otherwise. The word "stolen" simply doesn't mean voluntarily sold. There's another word they use very differently.

Your argument would work equally well for a socialist arguing against your "liberty", ie their slavery.

OK, if I were to use their definitions, then I don't oppose what they call stealing or what they call slavery. Is that what you mean?

So they could say "Al68 doesn't oppose stealing and slavery" (meaning that I don't oppose someone voluntarily selling their own labor). Would they be informing people with that statement or misleading them?

 

[madness]

"According to that logic, getting fired from your job means having your house burnt down. That's why it was called "fired" originally. And the word libertarian is derived from the word liberty which was already in common usage to mean the opposite."

"Well, there's no reason to argue semantics, it's just a word. People can use it as they want."

Sounds like you're contradicting yourself to me. Anyway, the point is that libertarian was originally associated with socialism and still is outside of the US. Libertarianism later divided into propertarian and anti-propertarian. You are speaking about a specific type of libertarianism.

"I'll use it to mean an advocate of liberty"

Again, liberty means different things to different people. In the UK, the socialist parties are considered liberal, and more free-market parties are considered conservative.
You are welcome to argue against the tenets of socialism, but you can't argue that socialism and libertarianism are incompatible when libertarianism is a traditionally socialist ideology.

 

[Al68]

In the UK, the socialist parties are considered liberal, and more free-market parties are considered conservative.

That's pretty much the same in the U.S. The word liberal is commonly used as a synonym for "socialist" while the word socialist is frowned upon and considered derogatory by them. I've been "scolded" for using the word socialist, but the word liberal, as you point out, has multiple and contradictory meanings to different people and causes a lot of misunderstandings. I don't use the word "liberal" without quotes or some kind of modifier like "classical liberal" that makes the meaning clear. Maybe I should treat the word libertarian (and slave) the same way?

You are welcome to argue against the tenets of socialism, but you can't argue that socialism and libertarianism are incompatible when libertarianism is a traditionally socialist ideology.

OK, I agree, if you're using the word libertarian to refer to that ideology. I've honestly never heard it used that way before except as a historical reference. But the incompatibility is really between liberty and "imposed" socialism, not voluntary socialism. In that sense, the "compatibility" between liberty and voluntary socialism simply results in most people choosing not to volunteer.

I wasn't using the word liberty to mean "selling one's labor", I was using it to mean that a person could decide for himself whether to or not, and under what conditions. Choosing not to "sell one's labor" is also exercising liberty. The word liberty refers to the right to make the choice, not the specific choice made. And the word "slave" historically has been used to refer to people who were denied that choice.

Voluntary socialism is actually practiced in the U.S. by small groups (libertarian socialists maybe? I don't know if they call the rest of us "slaves" or not). There has never been any law against it in the U.S. Such a law would be equally incompatible with liberty.

The reason the U.S. associates liberty with capitalism isn't just an arbitrary association, it's U.S. history. The U.S. simply chose not to restrict economic liberty. No major restrictions on either capitalism or socialism. People were free to practice either as they chose. The overwhelming majority practices capitalism as a result of the freedom to do so. Liberty isn't synonymous with capitalism, it's synonymous with the economic freedom that allows capitalism to thrive.

In addition, the word socialism was used mostly to refer to socialist states, which restricted liberty as a means to impose socialism.