Libertarian Party Uk

[DotCommunist]

expedience, apologism for for inequity, or even straight up 'were just bastards with blokes who'll dress philosophy in terms we can buy and sell'

as for the gas, it ceased to be a valid fear midway through the war and yet was still pushed as a credible fear by a government intent on overstating the threat to control a populace. Twas ever thus

 

[Knotted]

You're changing your argument again!



Errrr...what?



Again, what?


I don't understand most of your posts knotted tbh. Maybe I'm thick or something.

I'm being cryptic.

Kropotkin (Communism and Anarchy):

Thus we find no other definition of liberty than the following one: the possibility of action without being influenced in those actions by the fear of punishment by society (bodily constraint, the threat of hunger or even censure, except when it comes from a friend).

Possibility of action without fear of punishment by society. Note by society, not by the state. Libertarianism is not just an anti-state ideology it is an anti-society ideology. Thatcher - "there is no such thing as society".

So the freedom to cross a picket line is a liberty. The right to abortion is a liberty. The freedom to migrate is a liberty. The freedom to sell drugs is a liberty. The freedom to not pay taxes is a liberty. The right to bare arms is a liberty. The freedom to run a capitalist enterprise without interference from the workers is a liberty. Libertarianism is anti-compulsion fundamentalism. Libertarianism seeks to maximise personal liberty.

Anarchists do not seek to maximise personal liberty in the immediate, and a good thing too! Proper libertarians, who actually live by libertarian slogans, are all far right.

 

[Knotted]

Here's Bakunin on liberty (Marxism, Freedom and the State):

No, I mean the only liberty which is truly worthy of the name, the liberty which consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers which are to be found as faculties latent in everybody, the liberty which recognizes no other restrictions than those which are traced for us by the laws of our own nature; so that properly speaking there are no restrictions, since these laws are not imposed on us by some outside legislator, beside us or above us; they are immanent in us, inherent, constituting the very basis of our being, material as well as intellectual and moral; instead, therefore, of finding them a limit, we must consider them as the real conditions and effective reason for our liberty.

Kropotkin has the merit of straight talking. Bakunin is far dippier. Vague religious hand-waving that sets high principles in such a way as to be completely open to interpretation. There is no liberty or anything else worthy of any name in the above. Just communistic platitude. There is no concept of liberty, hence no concept of libertarianism to be highjacked here.

 

[Knotted]

In conclusion:
Sometimes anarchists don't mean anything at all by 'libertarianism', in which case they should not be too bothered about who else uses the word.
On other occasions they mean exactly the same thing as the libertarian right.
Either way the genuinely libertarian right are not abusing the word 'libertarian'. However it should be noted that the UK Libertarian Party are not genuine libertarians.

 

[rekil]

The freedom to run a capitalist enterprise without interference from the workers is a liberty.

That's the ticket. What all "libertarian" nonsense boils down to is that workers are the property of capitalists. What do you mean by interference from the workers and how does one go about preventing it?

 

[greenman]

It boils down to the ego of the "libertarian" - as in they are sooooo superior to everyone else. Of course this does not always come out, but I like it when they start ranting on about "losers" as this is the real psychological basis of the ideology peeping through. It is this psychological basis that links the ideology to Ayn Randists (her books are an interesting psychological case study indeed) and the "superman", ubermensch ideologies of the far right.
And of course, with this holding to a conviction of one's own innate superiority is the repressed self doubt and awareness of inadequacy that makes the whole thing so deliciously unstable

 

[tangentlama]

That's the ticket. What all "libertarian" nonsense boils down to is that workers are the property of capitalists. What do you mean by interference from the workers and how does one go about preventing it?

Vivat Instrumentum Vocale!

 

[tangentlama]

In conclusion:
Sometimes anarchists don't mean anything at all by 'libertarianism', in which case they should not be too bothered about who else uses the word.
On other occasions they mean exactly the same thing as the libertarian right.
Either way the genuinely libertarian right are not abusing the word 'libertarian'. However it should be noted that the UK Libertarian Party are not genuine libertarians.

5% for spelling anarchist and libertarianism correctly.
Fail. Please resubmit.

 

[Knotted]

That's the ticket. What all "libertarian" nonsense boils down to is that workers are the property of capitalists. What do you mean by interference from the workers and how does one go about preventing it?

Strikes, go slows, occupations and the usual management responses. Whenever there is a real conflict whether industrial or military or whatever there is coersion (or as Kropotkin might put it - preventing the possibility of an action by fear of punishment) by both sides against both the other side and their own side. Consistent libertarianism is necessarily pacifist. Not that there are many consistent libertarians. When push comes to shove, anarchists usually engage in an 'authoritarian' struggle on behalf of the workers, right wing libertarians usually champion the 'authoritarian' struggle of the bosses. Libertarianism is almost always just a type of demogogy.

 

[smokedout]

The plain fact is that the market mostly works very effectively. And boy do the antis hate this...!!!

a third of the world's population dont have enough food, the world is riddled by wars over resources, the environment is on the brink of collapse and even in the rich west half the population lives in relative poverty whilst the other half are so stricken with stress and neurosis they spend half their lives at a shrink/plastic surgeon/witch doctor or in the bottem of a bottle/wrap of coke

added to that many of the worlds governments have been driven to near bankruptcy to bail out the banks

if thats working very effectively id hate to see a fuck up

 

[Blagsta]

I'm being cryptic.

Kropotkin (Communism and Anarchy):


Possibility of action without fear of punishment by society. Note by society, not by the state. Libertarianism is not just an anti-state ideology it is an anti-society ideology. Thatcher - "there is no such thing as society".

So the freedom to cross a picket line is a liberty. The right to abortion is a liberty. The freedom to migrate is a liberty. The freedom to sell drugs is a liberty. The freedom to not pay taxes is a liberty. The right to bare arms is a liberty. The freedom to run a capitalist enterprise without interference from the workers is a liberty. Libertarianism is anti-compulsion fundamentalism. Libertarianism seeks to maximise personal liberty.

Anarchists do not seek to maximise personal liberty in the immediate, and a good thing too! Proper libertarians, who actually live by libertarian slogans, are all far right.

You're concentrating solely on negative freedoms. The anarchist position is that these negative freedoms don't mean very much without postive freedoms as well. The freedom to cross a picket line may be a liberty for the individual crossing it, but it's not not for the people who are striking. The conception of freedom you have is one based on abstract individualism. If you actually read anarchist theory, you'll see that it disagrees with this. Read the faq again, it's quite a good explanation, it'll correct your misconceptions.

 

[Blagsta]

Strikes, go slows, occupations and the usual management responses. Whenever there is a real conflict whether industrial or military or whatever there is coersion (or as Kropotkin might put it - preventing the possibility of an action by fear of punishment) by both sides against both the other side and their own side. Consistent libertarianism is necessarily pacifist. Not that there are many consistent libertarians. When push comes to shove, anarchists usually engage in an 'authoritarian' struggle on behalf of the workers, right wing libertarians usually champion the 'authoritarian' struggle of the bosses. Libertarianism is almost always just a type of demogogy.

So as far as your concerned, consistent freedoom is the freedom to be exploited?

 

[Knotted]

You're concentrating solely on negative freedoms. The anarchist position is that these negative freedoms don't mean very much without postive freedoms as well. The freedom to cross a picket line may be a liberty for the individual crossing it, but it's not not for the people who are striking. The conception of freedom you have is one based on abstract individualism. If you actually read anarchist theory, you'll see that it disagrees with this. Read the faq again, it's quite a good explanation, it'll correct your misconceptions.

But I've already said that anarchists don't support liberty in the immediate. They use libertarianism to propagandise for communism. Nothing you say above contradicts me.

 

[Blagsta]

But I've already said that anarchists don't support liberty in the immediate. They use libertarianism to propagandise for communism. Nothing you say above contradicts me.

But they do though. Hence their involvement in things like LCAP, strikes etc.

 

[tangentlama]

So as far as your concerned, consistent freedoom is the freedom to be exploited?

Yes, which is why I wrote

Vivat Instrumentum Vocale!

which means

Long live the Slave (bonded human, exploited until death, denied liberty etc)

 

[Knotted]

So as far as your concerned, consistent freedoom is the freedom to be exploited?

Consistent opposition to coersion means the failure to oppose exploitation. Having said that there are virtually no anarchists who consistently oppose coersion. Tolstoy maybe?

 

[Knotted]

But they do though. Hence their involvement in things like LCAP, strikes etc.

Yes, they are socialists/communists.

 

[Blagsta]

Consistent opposition to coersion means the failure to oppose exploitation. Having said that there are virtually no anarchists who consistently oppose coersion. Tolstoy maybe?

Rubbish. Consistent opposition to coercion includes the right to resist coercion and self defence.

 

[Blagsta]

Yes, they are socialists/communists.

I think you'll find that they'll disagree with you!

 

[tangentlama]

You're really screwed up in your thinking, knotted. You write a paradox in nearly every post.

Being consistently opposed to coercion = failure to oppose exploitation?

How did you manage to conclude that?
I'm amazed.

 

[Knotted]

Rubbish. Consistent opposition to coercion includes the right to resist coercion and self defence.

The libertarian right would say exactly the same thing.

 

[Knotted]

I think you'll find that they'll disagree with you!

Really? I'm genuinely surprised.

 

[Knotted]

You're really screwed up in your thinking, knotted. You write a paradox in nearly every post.

Being consistently opposed to coercion = failure to oppose exploitation?

How did you manage to conclude that?
I'm amazed.

I assume (maybe I shouldn't) that to oppose exploitation means the use of coercion. I assume that talking sweetly doesn't work.

 

[nino_savatte]

The libertarian right would say exactly the same thing.

Ah, the usual dichotomy between deeds and words. They give the impression that they want 'freedom' but their ideas would seriously erode freedoms for the majority.

 

[Knotted]

To repeat:

The difference between right wing libertarians and anarchists is that the former try to maximise liberty in the immediate whereas the latter have a long term strategy of communism. Neither is really coherent about what it means to maximise liberty.

To expand:
Anarchists don't try to maximise liberty in the immediate. They have a long term strategy of communism in which to realise greater liberty. They are willing to coerce now in order to achieve greater liberty later.

I hope that's clear. I am aware that I am generalising and that anarchists are a diverse bunch and that the above is not applicable to all anarchists. I reach the above conclusion by looking at Kropotkin, who in my opinion is the most interesting and coherent anarchist theoretician. Perhaps it is an odd and dated take on anarchism...

 

[Knotted]

Ah, the usual dichotomy between deeds and words. They give the impression that they want 'freedom' but their ideas would seriously erode freedoms for the majority.

Agree absolutely!

 

[tangentlama]

I assume (maybe I shouldn't) that to oppose exploitation means the use of coercion. I assume that talking sweetly doesn't work.

Assumptions are dangerous here.

I am demonstrating against exploitation (say, reducing my pay and increasing my working hours).

Let's say you want to coerce me into stopping my demonstration by having me removed from the premises.

I sit down to resist with my hands in the air.

You then resort to physical force - you kick me or batter me to make me move.

I am still demonstrating against exploitation. You turned the demonstration into one that now is against exploitation and resists coercion.

You used coercion.

Whose freedom is to be secured? Your right to exploit me, or my right to demonstrate against your exploitation and your desire to use force to protect your right to exploit?

Who here is against exploitation and coercion? (Me)
Who here is an exploiter and coercer? (You)

Who here is ethical? (Me)
Who here morally moribund? (You)

 

[tangentlama]

To repeat:



To expand:
Anarchists don't try to maximise liberty in the immediate. They have a long term strategy of communism in which to realise greater liberty. They are willing to coerce now in order to achieve greater liberty later.

I hope that's clear. I am aware that I am generalising and that anarchists are a diverse bunch and that the above is not applicable to all anarchists. I reach the above conclusion by looking at Kropotkin, who in my opinion is the most interesting and coherent anarchist theoretician. Perhaps it is an odd and dated take on anarchism...

You've generalised so much you're basically making it up.

What you say about anarchists is grossly incorrect. Also, you keep trying to pretend that anarchism=communism. Another big mistake.

 

[Knotted]

Assumptions are dangerous here.

I am demonstrating against exploitation (say, reducing my pay and increasing my working hours).

Let's say you want to coerce me into stopping my demonstration by having me removed from the premises.

I sit down to resist with my hands in the air.

You then resort to physical force - you kick me or batter me to make me move.

I am still demonstrating against exploitation. You turned the demonstration into one that now is against exploitation and resists coercion.

You used coercion.

Whose freedom is to be secured? Your right to exploit me, or my right to demonstrate against your exploitation and your desire to use force to protect your right to exploit?

Who here is against exploitation and coercion? (Me)
Who here is an exploiter and coercer? (You)

Who here is ethical? (Me)
Who here morally moribund? (You)

Assumptions are dangerous. What I am assuming in this case is that demonstrations by themselves will not make any difference. I think this is a safe assumption. The exercise of your freedom to parade with a banner does not change things unfortunately. Look at the demonstrations against the Iraq war.

Of course the police use coercion against demonstrators. But being morally moribund does not make them any less of a police force.

 

[Knotted]

What you say about anarchists is grossly incorrect. Also, you keep trying to pretend that anarchism=communism. Another big mistake.

I'm really curious about this one. Which anarchists are not communists? I don't mean this as a criticism of anarchists - quite the opposite.

[I can understand that not many would want to call themselves communists after Stalinist abuse of the term.]