Welcome to Gaia! ::

It seems it's an oxymoron. I'm well versed in all of the anarchist literature and it seems so incoherent to me. If you want to stop people from trading and owning property don't you have to use coercion? Liberty historically meant being free from coercion by someone or group of people and what's so libertarian about socialism? I think all of left-wing anarchy is equally stupid so don't get mad if i ignored your version.
Ray Cest
It seems it's an oxymoron. I'm well versed in all of the anarchist literature and it seems so incoherent to me. If you want to stop people from trading and owning property don't you have to use coercion? Liberty historically meant being free from coercion by someone or group of people and what's so libertarian about socialism? I think all of left-wing anarchy is equally stupid so don't get mad if i ignored your version.


Anarcho-Syndicalism confuses me most of all.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Yes it is.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

6,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Ray Cest
It seems it's an oxymoron. I'm well versed in all of the anarchist literature and it seems so incoherent to me. If you want to stop people from trading and owning property don't you have to use coercion? Liberty historically meant being free from coercion by someone or group of people and what's so libertarian about socialism? I think all of left-wing anarchy is equally stupid so don't get mad if i ignored your version.

It depends on how you define 'libertarian.' As you are ruled by the rich, most political terms involve finances, so yes, in the context of the ruling class, it's completely an oxymoron. Freedom of trade and regulation of the economy? Just doesn't work.

On the other hand, there's no reason why individual liberty is incompatible with economic regulation to a degree.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Well yeah.

But that's just irony for you.
Christ the Holy Son
Ray Cest
It seems it's an oxymoron. I'm well versed in all of the anarchist literature and it seems so incoherent to me. If you want to stop people from trading and owning property don't you have to use coercion? Liberty historically meant being free from coercion by someone or group of people and what's so libertarian about socialism? I think all of left-wing anarchy is equally stupid so don't get mad if i ignored your version.


Anarcho-Syndicalism confuses me most of all.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a system of syndicates that bases itself on the pluses of anarchism. Pure anarchy is unfeasible because it's the total absence of government, leading to a situation of warring factions and "might makes right", due to resource management, etc. when anarchy is caused by syndicates, a similar situation arises, except in this case peace is easier to maintain than before because there is already a stable hierarchy within the syndicates, anarchy is what permits the syndicates to thrive. the only problem with anarcho-syndicates is that if they don't serve the people they are relegated to some kind of quasi-capitalistic power suck.
Ginger Spice Isle's avatar

Obsessive Player

Where are they teaching this stuff? or is it in vogue to create akk sorts of oxymoron concepts now?
No more so than "intellectual conservatism". Don't mistake the movement as it is with the strict definition of the word. Libertarianism by definition is associated with the protection of certain liberties. In its extreme Capitalism allows those with money to essentially pay to have your liberties removed. So libertarianism does not "inherently" support capitalism even if in practice that is what most libertarians are really all about.
Nothing is worse than idiots trying to talk politics wahmbulance

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games