Der Primitivismus der Politik (Anarcho-Primitivism) [Libertarianism.org]
Ich habe dieses Video mit dem Video-Editor von YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/editor) erstellt.
By: Carlo Rogall
See more here:
Der Primitivismus der Politik (Anarcho-Primitivism) [Libertarianism.org] - Video
Libertarianism and Christianity: The Tom Woods Show, April 24, 2014
Tom talks to Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tom-woods-show/id716825890?mt=2 http://www.TomWoodsRadio.com...
By: TomWoodsTV
The rest is here:
Libertarianism and Christianity: The Tom Woods Show, April 24, 2014 - Video
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2]left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common, while retaining respect for personal property, based on occupancy and use.[6] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[7] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism,[8][9] and by some as a synonym for anarchism.[1][2][10]
Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality 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.[11] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized formwhether economic, political, religious, or sexualbrutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[19] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[20]
Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[21] and mutualism[22]) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[23] and some versions of "utopian socialism"[24] and individualist anarchism.[25][26][27]
Libertarian socialism is a western philosophy with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents generally advocate a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism).[28] They propose that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).
Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.[29] Adherents propose achieving this through decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale private property and enterprise (while retaining respect for personal property). Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, viewing capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.[30][31]
The first anarchist journal to use the term "libertarian" was Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Djacque.[32] "The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when "libertarian communism" was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (1622 November 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on "Libertarian or Anarchist Communism." Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sbastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France."[32] The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[33] In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars.[2][34] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin.
The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States.[35] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and 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."[36]
In a chapter recounting the history of libertarian socialism, economist Robin Hahnel relates that thus far the period where libertarian socialism has had its greatest impact was at the end of the 19th century through the first four decades of the twentieth century.
Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872 competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937.[37]
View original post here:
Libertarianism - Markie, Dustin, Taylor
By: Julie Phelan
Read more:
Woods and Chartier on Thick/Thin Libertarianism
Gary Chartier returns to the Tom Woods Show to sort out a current controversy among libertarians. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: https://itunes.apple.com/u...
By: TomWoodsTV
See original here:
The BFP Roundtable Debates Anarchism, Socialism and Libertarianism
SUPPORT BFP: http://ur1.ca/ge4h7 In this edition of the BoilingFrogsPost.com Roundtable, James Corbett, Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins welcome Andrew Gavin Marshall for a discussion of...
By: boilingfrogspost
Originally posted here:
The BFP Roundtable Debates Anarchism, Socialism and Libertarianism - Video
Every election, America faces a battle between two dominant political parties, which in turn divides America. We bicker about the opposing partys policies and are distracted by trivial matters. We then elect a new president who typically behaves similarly to the one prior. Four or eight years down the road, half the country regrets who they cast their vote for. This scenario has essentially been an ongoing ordeal for decades. The American people have let the establishment of the two dominating parties overshadow the possibility ofnew voices in American politics. But there is a fresh alternative to the Democrats and Republicans we have all come to love and hate: Libertarians.
Putting aside talking points from watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox News, what are the legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans? Well, lets start with Americas history of military interventionism. Many people consider Democrats to be anti-war, whereas Republicans are considered warmongers hence the anti-Condoleezza Rice sentiment among the University faculty. However, since World War II, history in the White House has shown an overwhelming pursuit of war, regardless of which party held office.
For example, our current president continues Middle Eastern interventionism, global spying programs and unrestricted drone use, and he is a Democrat. Somalia intervention was under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were under George W. Bush, a Republican. The Gulf War was under the President Bush senior, also a Republican. The Vietnam War was started under John F. Kennedy and continued through Johnsons administration. Both were Democrats. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who established the Japanese internment camps across the United States through executive order. The striking similarity in both parties foreign policy suggests the need for a new party that would boldly proclaim their pro-diplomacy, pro-peace and anti-war policies.
Similarly, both political parties have enacted social programs costing the nation billions of dollars, which hinder prosperity. Social Security was established by FDR in light of the depression to secure finances for most Americans. A program generally deemed successful in the 20th century, is now seen as one of the largest threats to the nations financial wellbeing. Today, the pool of resources set aside to pay for Social Security is used for other back-door deals in Washington. We are a generation of taxpayers who are paying into a system we will not redeem the benefits from. A modern example of this is the Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare. Our current Democratic president championed this health care reform package, but the idea of universal health care in America actually stemmed from the circles of D.C. Republicans some decades ago. A social program championed by Republicans that has already failed is the No Child Left Behind Act. This system of standardized testing in public schools was scrapped under the Obama administration from the 2009 stimulus package. It was replaced by a new system of standardized tests called the Common Core. These complicated social programs work against liberty and prosperity, the essential principles of libertarianism.
Democrats and Republicans have been on the wrong side of history for quite some time, whereas Libertarians have been consistent in advocating for all liberties for decades. Years before it was even mentioned in democratic circles, libertarians have been advocating for marriage rights due to their understanding that the government does not belong in ones bedroom. Similarly, as the United States has increased its war on drugs especially since the Reagan administration, libertarians have been advocating for the decriminalization of marijuana. This comes out of concern over Americas astronomical incarceration rate. In light of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when the two main parties united, libertarians stood strong and opposed the Mid-East conflicts.
The Libertarian Party has the potential to be the party of grand compromise in a time when America could use it most. As the nation is split between which liberties to advocate for, economic or social, libertarians advocate for both. Seeing liberty as a whole truth, you will always find a libertarian that stands for transparency, privacy, individual rights, prosperity and peace.
Matthew Boyer is a School of Arts and Science sophomore with a major in political science and a minor in German. His column, Legalizing Life, runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Visit link:
Libertarianism- Jeff, Ashley, Cheyenne
By: Julie Phelan
Read the rest here:
The Synthesis of Rights and Consequences (with Tom G. Palmer)
Typically we think of justifications for libertarianism as falling into one of two kinds of categories: consequentialism and rights-based. Are these two justifications necessarily at odds with...
By: Libertarianism.org
Go here to read the rest:
The Synthesis of Rights and Consequences (with Tom G. Palmer) - Video
Is Libertarianism a Utopian idea ? Countering Stefan Molyneux #39;s straw man.
Is Libertarianism a Utopian idea ? Countering Stefan Molyneux #39;s straw man.
By: notregme
Continue reading here:
Is Libertarianism a Utopian idea ? Countering Stefan Molyneux's straw man. - Video
Mark Driefus makes a post about libertarianism
ELMONT!
By: Blessy Elsa Kurian
Link:
Submitted by Logn Albright of the Mises Canada blog,
As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.
To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term libertarian, what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor. This is where the philosophy begins and ends, and although some libertarians dispute the circumstances under which force is acceptable (the Night Watchman state versus no state at all), it still has the legitimate use of force as its core.
It is not an economic philosophy, although its conclusion tends to support free market capitalism due to the lack of coercion inherent in such a system. Still, there is no dictum against collective ownership so long as it is voluntary. This is what anarcho-communism is all about.
Similarly, libertarianism has little to say about politics except for what follows directly from its central precept. Taxes are immoral because they involve coercion. Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force. And so on.
But because libertarianism has become fashionable among a certain segment of the population, and because we wish to expand the movement and convert others to it, there has been a push to expand this simple definition into a more holistic ethical code encompassing every aspect of life, almost akin to a religion. We are told that non-discrimination based on superficial characteristics like race and sex is an inherently libertarian position. It is not. So long as discrimination does not violate anyones rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)
Where these well-meaning meddlers go wrong is in assuming that just because libertarianism per se doesnt have a position on racism, that libertarians qua human beings do not have such a position either. This is absurd. Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well. Just as being a vegetarian does not exclude one from being Jewish, so does being a libertarian not exclude one from being a humanitarian.
We are more than a simple political philosophy, and while this defines the moral lens through which we see much of the world, it is not the totality of our being. For example, libertarianism has nothing to say on the subject of suicide. If we own ourselves, we have the right to terminate ourselves. Period. However, no libertarian I have ever met would encourage such an activity, and most would find it utterly reprehensible. The point is that you can hold a belief that something is wrong without having to fold it into a specific political philosophy where it has no business being.
Granted, certain ethical outlooks fit nicely within libertarianism while others do not. Kants categorical imperative that we treat humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end works well, as does the Biblical Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. They are not explicitly part of libertarian theory, but they are compatible with it.On the other hand, one would be hard pressed to combine a restrictive set of laws, such as Sharia, with the non-aggression principle.
The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be libertarian, we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.
See the original post here:
Libertarianism Good Student Speech
By: Fountainhead Press
Link:
Economist Deirdre McCloskey, a motherly libertarian, wants to be taxed to provide a minimum income (not a minimum wage), which would treat adults like adults. Photo by JACQUES DEMARTHON/AFP/Getty Images.
A Note from Paul Solman: Deirdre McCloskey is a freshwater economist with a twist. A career that began on the banks of Lake Michigan at that bastion of free market economics, the University of Chicago as opposed to those saltwater havens of bi-coastal Keynesianism, Harvard, MIT and Berkeley continued at the University of Iowa, where McCloskey became one of the countrys foremost economic historians and a prolific and esteemed writer on the rhetoric of economics. The byline for all this work was not Deirdre McCloskey, however, but Donald.
In 1995, at age 53, with a wife and two grown children, all of whom he loved, Don changed his gender identification and name. She says now that leaving Chicago for Iowa may have been impulsive, but she has never doubted the wisdom of acting on a lifelong drive. Some family and friends were freaked out. But as Deirdre (Dee) tells it in her 1999 memoir, Crossing, the response of the first administrator she came out to, the dean of Iowas business school, Gary Fethke, was not untypical of the reaction within economics.
One day, as McCloskey had begun the process of what she calls gender-crossing, Fethke noticed McCloskeys ear studs, small, but both ears. McCloskey and Fethke had known each other since 1980 and were on man-to-man terms. Fethke thought he knew that McCloskey was straight, even macho. I met McCloskey earlier that same year and thought the same.
Fethke smiled and said jocularly, Whats this, Don? The earrings! Have you turned gay?
You want to know, Gary?
Uhyes. Come into my office. He shut the door.
Dee spoke with his ironic, tough-guy demeanor, the last defenses of masculinity. He admitted to being terrified at how the university community might react.
Gary sat stunned for a moment. They were both economists, conservative by academic standards, free-market enthusiasts. Then:
Thank god.I thought for a moment you were going to confess to converting to socialism!
View original post here:
Why this gender-crossing economist prefers motherly libertarianism to government paternalism
Is Income Inequality a Problem? (with Brink Lindsey)
We know income inequality exists, that some people are very rich and others very poor. And this bothers quite a lot of us. Aren #39;t we right to be concerned ab...
By: Libertarianism.org
Excerpt from:
Is Income Inequality a Problem? (with Brink Lindsey) - Video
You Can Always Leave - An animated film about libertarianism the non-aggression principle
You Can Always Leave - An animated film about the philosophies of libertarianism the non-aggression principle.
By: ScottWillis
View post:
You Can Always Leave - An animated film about libertarianism & the non-aggression principle - Video
Conservative tries to understand libertarianism
At CPAC 2014, someone overheard another interview and wanted to get kokeshed too. This brave conservative volunteer gets kokeshed really, really good. Send y...
By: AdamKokesh
Originally posted here:
(CNN) Sen. Rand Paul penned an op-ed for the conservative outlet National Review Online, responding to critiques of the Kentucky Republican from the very same publication and other right-leaning commentators who disagree with his non-interventionist views.
Paul, who's considering a presidential bid, argued that conservatism has long had a "strain of libertarianism" on the topic of foreign policy. To back him up, he referenced NRO's own founder, conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr.
"With regard to the Iraq War, Buckley came to believe not only that it was a mistake but that it was not a 'conservative' approach to foreign policy," he wrote. "In fact, in discussing foreign policy Buckley sounded quite the realist."
Paul has come under hot water after a 2009 video surfaced in which he made a speech suggesting that former Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for the Iraq War out of his own corporate interests with Halliburton, an oil field services company where he once served as CEO.
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, published an opinion piece last week titled, "Rand Paul's Foreign Policy: For the Situation Room or the Dorm Room?"
Lowry referenced the 2009 speech but also hit Paul over his record on foreign policy issues involving Russia, Iran, and Syria, blaming Paul for "dewy-eyed foolishness" and saying his views are "immature."
"Rand Paul is running in a party that, while chastened on foreign policy, still has a hawkish reflex and not because it is beholden to Halliburton," Lowry wrote.
Swinging back, Paul argued that Buckley himself did not agree with the Iraq War, and he invoked another conservative legend, Ronald Regan, saying the former president was criticized for not being as hawkish as some had hoped.
"So as today's young aspiring Buckleyites sharpen their knives to carve up conservatives who propose a more realist and nuanced approach to foreign policy, they should realize they're also pointing daggers at some of their own," Paul wrote.
See the rest here:
Rand Paul responds to GOP criticism of his foreign policy views
In Praise of "Thick" Libertarianism
Written by Sheldon Richman Read by James Tuttle Edited by Nick Ford Online article: http://c4ss.org/content/26094 "The freedom philosophy is intimately relat...
By: c4ssvideos
Originally posted here:
Millennials and Immigration (with Alex Nowrasteh)
Alex Nowrasteh returns to the show to answer student questions about the philosophy of free immigration at the 2014 International Students for Liberty Confer...
By: Libertarianism.org
See the rest here: