Socialist Libertarians

A group for left leaning libertarians. We stand for minimalist government, and social safety nets like socialized education, healthcare, and welfare. Contradiction? We think not.

Members: 54
Latest Activity: Oct 10

Discussion Forum

Hi my name is ryan cool group

Started by Ryan doh. Last reply by Robert Havens Sep 8. 1 Reply

I always wanted to learn about Socialist Libertarism. I realy like how you beleive in helping people but at the same time not infriging on Individual freedoms, peronal choices and libetries. Not sure…Continue

Sarah Palin's Tea Party Speech

Started by Anwar Diamante. Last reply by Michelle Jul 23, 2010. 2 Replies

Yesterday,I was anticipating to see a documentary on Martin Luther King Jr. Instead, I saw Sarah Palin's speech for the Tea Party Movement. Palin, is a train wreck that I cannot look away from. The…Continue

How can we take back anarchism? (With some reading materials)

Started by Sitakali. Last reply by Anwar Diamante Feb 7, 2010. 9 Replies

I just left the "anarchist atheists" group because I'm frankly sick of loud, obnoxious "anarcho"-capitalists preaching their complete ignorance of anarchism. And I do mean ignorance, because it looks…Continue

Tags: socialism, libertarian, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Socialist Libertarians to add comments!

Comment by Structure Theory on January 20, 2010 at 9:39am
The Nerd: Libertarianism is about providing personal freedoms by removing restrictions on personal freedoms which currently exist in government. Libertarianism strives for minimalist government.

Socialism is about providing people with personal freedoms by giving them the means of production.

Both aim to take away power from those who don't deserve it. Both aim to redistribute that power back to the people.

In reality, what we're really talking about here is the oldschool of socialist, libertarian, and anarchist theory, which all got along back when they spawned. They were all anti-authoritarian movements that felt that people needed more say in the world. They all felt that wealth and power was too top-heavy, and that hoarding of resources was immoral and oppressive.

All hell broke loose on the socialist side with Lenin and his likeminded contemporaries. He decided, in his infinite wisdom, that the best way to impliment socialism was to force state socialism on the people. Instead of letting the people democratically build a socialist system where the people controlled the resouces, he decided that it was the state's job to enforce such a system on the people. According to Marx, the state would indeed control the means of production in a communist society, but this would ONLY work because in a communist society, the working class had become the state. In a communist society, EVERYONE is the state... and the state worked only for the people. Functionalitywise, it was a minimalist state, just like a libertarian state. It would be a tool of the people, not a ruling body.

Hell also broke loose on the libertarian side with the advent of capitalism. The new libertarianism has been hijacked by the idea that financial freedom is all that's needed to make people truly free. This was driven by the neoliberal ideals of free market capitalism, and the writings of such philosophers as Ayn Rand. Gone were the days where libertarianism was linked primarily with social freedoms. Libertarianism had now become big business's bitch.

So, if you look at the history, marxist socialism and classical libertarianism were essentially the same thing. There was a divergence on both sides from their roots... but most of the modern adherants of socialism actually fall more in line with classical libertarianism than most self proclaimed libertarians.
Comment by Db0 on January 13, 2010 at 11:40am
and that Db0 is still completely full of himself

Say what now?
Comment by Ben on January 13, 2010 at 9:02am
I think it's like anarchists getting together to sing Kumbaya...
Comment by Sitakali on November 17, 2009 at 12:41am
In the society we live in today, we have created a system where we relinquish any form of individual responsibility by making moral matters up to the law. Humans are perfectly capable of being decent without the law, but the societal structure has to support it.
Comment by Sitakali on November 17, 2009 at 12:40am
Just so you know, the music industry is thriving more than ever, despite piracy. This is because a lot of pirated music wouldn't be bought anyway; I know I sure wouldn't. If I want an entire album, I will buy it, and so will most people. If I want one single song and don't want to pay a ridiculous $2 for it, I download it.
Comment by John C on November 10, 2009 at 8:01pm
Hi folks! Socialist ideals through non-coercive means. Is that the idea here?
Comment by Structure Theory on November 9, 2009 at 7:02am
I never said piracy was in the moral clear... I just wanted to point out that your argument regarding police and fear of repercussions was flawed. I don't think people download music because they feel they've got less chance of getting caught.... I think they download music because they consider it morally superior to stealing a physical product. It's pretty plain to see that it's dreadfully easy to get caught downloading music.

I'm also a musician, and I've decided that when I release my first album, I'm uploading it to the torrent sites and leaking it on soulseek myself... I'm going to include a link to a website that has a donate button. I'm also going to spend quite a bit of time marketing the album online. It's going to be a 100% free "donationware" release. I'm thinking that providing various goodies on the site, like multitracks, an "audiophile" version high quality flac release of the album, and various other stuffs, may entice people to stay long enough to click the donate button. The way I see it, I might as well use piracy as a tool rather than let it defeat me before I start. People like free music because it lets them try before they buy.... so I might as well let people do that, and pay if they like it enough.

Do I think some people are greedy bastards, and will never pay? Yes. However, I consider them listening to my album to be a bit of payback anyway, because every new fan may help another fan find my music.... and not everyone is a greedy bastard that doesn't want to pay.
Comment by Edward Teach on November 6, 2009 at 10:10am
True, no physical product and no reproduction cost. Still, the music itself is a product, albiet not a physical one. And, every downloaded album could have been a potential album sale.

Sucky time to be in the music business! My son and I are both musicians and song writers. The motivation for spending money to produce an album has gone down the tubes for me. Why buy what you can get for free?

If I invented a new kind of revolutionary telephone, but did not produce the new phone, should I get any compensation from the phones that are produced by someone else?
Comment by Structure Theory on November 6, 2009 at 9:34am
That said, I personally think police are a good thing... I just think we need to stop making shit that doesn't harm anyone else illegal. Stupid laws are stupid. The "nanny state" that anti-socialists talk of all the time.... that "nanny state" is inherent in anti-drug legislation.... it's inherent in the move to ban gay marriage.... it's inherent in the movement to ban abortion.

If you want liberty, it has to be across the board... not just financial.
Comment by Structure Theory on November 6, 2009 at 9:30am
//Folks illegally download music//
Because there's no physicality to the product. You're jumping the gun when you presume it's because of law enforcement. When you steal something physical, something that cost money to make a physical copy of, and cost money to ship, you're actually making the producer of that product take a monetary loss by stealing the product.... just like damaged goods are a loss. You're removing that physical copy of the product from the market, thus removing any chance of it being sold to anyone.

When you make a digital copy of a digital product, however, you're not stealing a physical product... therefore you're not costing the producer anything. For that copy you downloaded, there was no physical replication costs... there was no shipping costs... there was no retail costs. In fact, the original copy of the media was most likely purchased.

Furthermore, there's just as much risk of getting caught downloading as there is shoplifting... if not more. There's a permanent digital trail of evidence left behind with everything you download... a trail that's significantly more damning than the evidence left behind from most shoplifting experiences. Shoplifters just need to avoid cameras and people... downloaders need to use proxies and encrypt their entire hard drives to get away without hard evidence against them.

Members (54)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service