Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron: Libertarian Socialism Debate

Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron: Libertarian Socialism Debate


“Hi there, you’ve been linked to this video
because you’ve claimed that Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron.” The reason why Libertarian
Socialism is an oxymoron is simply because Socialism seeks to completely abolish the
private sector from the economy. It’s the private sector that largely funds the economy,
after all that’s where government gets the money from in order to fund the public sector,
I will explain that in another video. The main problem is the fact that by abolishing
the private sector you’re more or less committing economic suicide and even if arguing for a
moneyless based economy, you are then faced no different to that of price fixing, you
are faced with the economic calculation problem that Ludwig Von Mises argued in 1920 that
destroyed Socialism. Now the second problem isn’t just to do with the economic calculation
problem with to do with the money but by abolishing the private sector of the economy you’re infringing
upon an individual’s right and an individual’s liberty, you’re taking away an individual’s
right to owning their own private business. What gives another individual or a group of
individuals the right to dictate and determine how another individual lives their life? What
gives them the right to dictate that you cannot own your own hair stylist business or your
own photography business or your own graphic design business, or whatever you may want
to do? To abolish private individual ownership is to take away an individuals right to doing
their own thing, to freely owning their own private business and owning or earning their
own money. The other issue is what Libertarian Socialist Rants points out here: “Libertarian
Socialists aren’t using these terms in the same way that they’re used in mainstream politics,
rather we have our own definitions of Libertarianism and Socialism that are separate from the mainstream
and not contradictory.” If you’ve ever heard of the term ‘Socialised medicine’, the word
‘Socialise’ what do we mean? Well the term ‘Socialise’ just like ‘Socialised farming’
or ‘Socialised medicine’, all it simply means is that it’s ‘Universal’. A prime example
of this would be the British NHS, it is ‘Socialised medicine’, it’s ‘Socialise healthcare’ because
it is ‘Collectivised’, that’s what ‘Socialised’ means. Socialised means ‘Centralised’, it’s
another word for ‘Centralised’. Well this is exactly where it stems from, the name ‘Socialism’,
Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism with private individual ownership whereas Socialism
is all about centralisation, it’s all about Collectivising and so this is why Libertarian
Socialism is an oxymoron because Libertarian Socialists tend to believe in this decentralised
Socialism, that alone is contradictory simply because Socialism by name, even by definition
being the opposite of private individual ownership, Socialism by name means centralism and that’s
a large part of what defines Socialism, centralisation. I will of course get around to explaining
more about the private sector, where the money comes from and of course the economic calculation
problem. The most important thing is however, if we were to use this example that if we
had no government and we had Anarchy and let’s just say for arguments sake there was no government,
you have to remember that individual’s all have their own individual self-interest and
they go and do their own thing, we’re not Chess pieces on a Chess board. So since Socialism
requires the complete abolishment of private individual ownership, there is going to need
to be an entity there to ensure that private individual ownership never returns. In other
words, you’re going to need to ‘GOVERN’ that to ensure that individual ownership never
returns. If you took away a government and had Anarchy, you would require a group or
other individual’s to use the means of violence and force to force other individual’s into
their way, after all individual’s have their own self-interest and let’s just say for example
I was an individual who under Anarchy went and done my own thing; now I could go away
and start up my own private business, they would require the use of force, the use of
violence against me in order to prevent that private individual ownership existing. If
they concede to the fact that they require force, this in itself is contradictory to
Libertarianism because that’s taking away an individual’s right and liberty to owning
and doing their own thing. So this has been brief, I hope it’s been educational for yourself,
if you’ve got any other questions, comments, any suggestions then feel free to comment
in the section below. It’s been very brief, like I say I’ll get on to explaining certain
other things, if you liked this video give it a thumbs up, anyway folks I shall talk
to you’s later, thank you for watching, cheers!

1 Comment on "Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron: Libertarian Socialism Debate"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *