15 votes

The Case Against Socialism

Positive Energy – Love, Freedom, and Liberty
Positive energy individuals allow others the freedom to make their own choices. The USA was founded on the principal of free choice of the individual, provided those choices did no harm to another person, or their property, or the planet. Everyone is allowed freedom of choice and the individual must be responsible for the consequences that follow those choices.

The only penalties in this kind of system come in restraining those who do HARM by their choices. People are meant to make choices, learn from their choices, and then try again for better results. In this system you take care of yourself and your own needs. There are no handouts.

Negative Energy – Fear, Power and Control Over Others
Negative energy individuals feel it is their right to control others. In fact they get ENERGIZED by creating FEAR in others. For example a rapist gets lots of energy from his brutal act, and seeks more energy by repeating the aggression. The Taliban, communist nations, Nazism, Fascism, are more examples of power control people. They rule by creating FEAR in people. Negative energy people feel entitled to force others to serve them and their belief system. The consequences for not following the belief system can be death, as happened in Hitler Germany if you did not perfectly fit their idea of someone worthy to live. Being old or disabled is not being worthy to live. The Taliban shoot those who speak out for a belief other than what THEY teach.

Socialism starts out benevolently but it leads to communism. It reduces everyone to the same level of subsistence poverty. Remember feudal Britain and Europe? Our ancestors came to North America to start again FREE of that enslavement and taxation system implemented by the ruling class. Brutality, power, control is a dark thread throughout history from the pharaohs to the present day communist nations, where people live in FEAR of having a wrong look on their face that might be interpreted as speaking against the government. In this system even thought and speech are controlled.

These two types of ENERGY are at the opposite ends of a dipole. Most people fall somewhere between the two extremes. Hitler was one extreme of negative controlling energy. Jesus was the other extreme of loving compassionate energy that allowed others choices and did not judge. There are basically two opposite paths back to God, the positive-love energy path and the negative-fear energy path.

The negative path is dark because it does not seek the light of God. It places its own wisdom above the wisdom that comes from seeking God's light and guidance within. God allows free choice and the dark path is allowed. The Earth is a free choice planet.

There are forces in the present world that wish to reduce the entire planet to a fascist negative energy system with the masses treated like a herd of cattle in an industrial complex, all headed for the slaughter as they lose their “usefulness” as workers and providers for the negative energy, power-control, elite of the world.

Those who are choosing socialism would be wise to look at the larger picture of where the “freebies and gifts” are leading. There are many negative entities who actually want to make the world exactly like Hitler Germany. Take a look at some of the death panels being established in Britain and the USA to determine WHO is worthy to live. Take a look at those clauses already in Obamacare.

Now I guess this is preaching to the choir, because everyone here knows this stuff, and we will never give in to loss of freedom. This post is just on the off chance others who need to know might read it and not vote for the nanny state that leads to communism, and a brutal system our ancestors came here to escape.
Yours in Liberty

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Difference between forced socialism and voluntary socialism

In a free market voluntary socialism can exist and is not necessarily a bad thing if everyone involved is ok with it and participates of their own free will. For such a thing to work though you would need a society totally devoid of things such as pride, ego, greed, covetousness,lying, cheating, stealing, fraud, sloth, gluttony, arrogance, lust for power and control etc. or at least have those those natural tendencies voluntarily restrained by all those involved. I don't know of too many if any societies like that. For voluntary socialism to work it requires a humble, generous, loving, trusting, free, voluntary, compassionate, family like society that is more concerned about other's well being than themselves. Basically a society of saints and angels. Without a society like that it falls apart. That is why forced socialism doesnt work. It tries to force benevolence on a society that is not prepared for it or necessarily desiring it. It doesnt account for those aforementioned evils. Socialism breaks apart when people take advantage of the system. People lie cheat and steal to get what they want out of it. People covet, people over indulge, people commit fraud, people are greedy arrogant and prideful. Some are slothful and arrogant and self entitled. All these things make forced socialism collapse and why it is evil to attempt it.

Socialism if it is to be any good necessarily needs to be voluntary otherwise it is evil.

Now I don't know of too many saints and angels. Pulling off such a society with your average every day folk would be quite an undertaking if not impossible. So barring that, I believe free market capitalism is the next best thing. That is because it takes into account these evils (forgive the term). In fact it actually harnesses these natural tendencies as its engine. In a nut shell, self interest. In the name of self interest people provide services to others in order to satisfy their own needs, wants and desires. If you want food you must grow it yourself or provide a service or product for it. If you want a shiny new car you make or work for it. House, healthcare, security, entertainment, etc. You must work for it and provide a service. In this way the natural tendencies are accounted for and harnessed like a carrot in front of a horse. Failure to work = failure to survive so other evils such as sloth are naturally punished as well. However there are some who cannot work due to health issues physical or mental who are reliant on assistance from others. The concept of self interest can still help those people as well, though in a less altruistic way perhaps. It may be in self interest to help those dependent on assistance for various reasons, socially, politically, economically, spiritually. That said there are still some that slip through the cracks so free market capitalism, self interest based economy, isnt perfect but it does provide the most services to the most people in the most fair way than any other kind of economy not run by angels. In an imperfect world this is the best kind of economy we can hope for.
Perhaps in smaller communities a free voluntary socialism could exist and thrive, but on a large scale natural tendencies tend to erode the very moral foundation on which it needs to stand. Forced socialism on the other hand doesnt just erode the foundation, it's straps dynamite to it and blowing it to smithereens. It just doesnt work.

It boggles my mind why generally good natured and well intentioned people would ever vote for forced socialist legislation and candidates. Do they not understand history and human nature? That such a thing can not be enforced and succeed? That it in fact does more harm than good? Perhaps it is the sense of control people feed off of. A sense that they think they are doing something good and therefore you should also participate, or else!

Very interesting points on positive energy people and negative energy people. You can see that readily in the people around you and even in ourselves. May we all continue positive path.

Voluntary socialism.....

Voluntary socialism..... Sure, but if you're referring to voluntaryism, not many market socialists will be on board with it. It doesn't remove all authority, including social stigmas.

Some authors and activists we should familiarize ourselves with if we want to be more intellectually honest about the term 'socialism' are Pierre Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, later Voltairine De Cleyre and even today's Kevin Carson.

It's not just that

While I agree with much of what you are saying (self-interest, human nature, corruption, the need for human beings to be angelic), the fact remains that were humans actually angelic, a socialist system still would not work.

This is due to what L.V.Mises called 'The Calculation Problem'. In any society, decisions need to be made in order to direct resources. We need to produce the appropriate number of toilet rolls, cars, pencils, underwear, rubber bungs, paperclips, light switches, usb sticks, ipods, enema bags, plastic bottles, train engines, cpu's, and, well, everything else.

In the capitalistic market system that we still (barely) have, allocation of these resources is directed by the pricing system. If something is in great demand (and short supply), it's price rises, which causes two things to happen.
First, it restricts consumption of the item and avoids shortages of supply (because people can't afford it/can't afford to buy lots of it). (Environmentalists might be interested to know that this pricing phenomenon, in a truly free market, would actually prevent waste of scarce resources. Hence the term 'economic'. But I digress.)
Second, the high price and high demand attracts new investment to the production of the good (Profit-seeking entrepreneurs see the high prices and, seeking out a profit-making opportunity, invest in production of the goods). This causes production of the good to increase, and thus supply. Because supply is now higher relative to demand, the prices now fall. Production has increased, meaning now higher number of people may access the previously rare good, and prices have fallen, meaning they can afford to purchase it.
This process continues until there is reached a balance between supply and demand (absent change in the market, which is a constant itself). In this way, allocation is made according to the wishes of the consumers (the people).

The socialist system fails for a number of reasons.
First, it destroys the institution of private property and instead makes property a common resource. When property is not traded (and it must be owned to be traded), its value (its price) cannot be determined. If there are multiple needs/wants vying for the use of the same piece/type of land, how are we to choose which need/want to satisfy? Inevitably the socialist leaders will need to make a choice. Sounds easy on a case-by-case basis, but on an economy-wide scale, it is an impossible task.

Second, Socialism removes the pricing system itself. Some socialist systems retained a market-like system, but without private ownership of resources, goods cannot be valued in the same way. (Do you treat a rental car as well as you would treat your own? Politicians are ideal examples - they 'control' resources, but do not suffer the loss when they waste those resources). Because nobody can ever 'own' anything, the incentive becomes to take as much as possible from the resource during the time you control it. Owners of a resource want to sustain their production (and thus sustain their resource), because it sustains their income.

But I would also take issue with your statement that capitalism is 'the next best thing' to a working socialist system. Capitalism (NOT what we have, but true liberty) IS the best system that we know of.

Also, in my opinion, Capitalism does not harness those energies you speak of. Capitalism is those energies. Capitalism (in the Austrian School definition) is simply a state of affairs where people are unrestricted in their actions, and proceed without the use of force, in matters economic. It's not even really a system, but simply (a component of) the fullest expression of our liberty as sovereign, independent, human beings.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

May I ask a question I am trying to sort out in my mind

What is it called when the capitalist system begins to hedge bet; i.e. drive it's own disasters such that prices rise to the detriment of those who work to buy those necessities?

It seems to me that either system without morality begins to fail or feed on those who have less power, thus making some weaker and weaker while others become stronger and stronge.

Could you please help me with my comments. I am not sure I am seeing things correctly so I am not making absolute statements here, I am trying to sort things out. Any help you can give would be much appreciated.

sure

Well, I will return a question here, to clarify.

How does this supposedly work? (The hedge bet idea)

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Kinda like when people invest

Kinda like when people invest money should there be a crop shortage and then "make" it happen.

The concept is discussed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis&feature=player_em... Why in the world are they spraying

ok

Disclaimer: I haven't watched the movie yet, but will comment on the synopsis

lead millions to accept the reality of chemtrail/geoengineering programs

Chemtrails and geoengineering programs are not a function of the market; they are a function of government (or specifically, government married to corporations: corporatism/fascism).

Capitalism is not responsible for this phenomenon; rather, it comes about through the use of force, and the weakening of private property rights that exists under the state.

If, for example, we lived under a state of anarcho-capitalism, or even under a Ron Paulian/Jeffersonian type of minimalist government (minarchism), private property rights would be protected, either through legal action, or through government protection. Chemtrails (and of course weather modification) inevitably affect private property, by their very nature. Whether this resulted in a loss directly or not, private property owners would have the right under this system to demand their land be left free of molestation. Chemtrails/geoengineering can be seen as the use of force under these models.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that these things are occurring under the system as it stands, but the system as it stands, is not Capitalism. The system as it stands is Corporatism/Fascism/Crony-Capitalism. It's fundamentally different.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

The gist of that documentary

The gist of that documentary says that geoengineering is going on and such that insiders are purposefully creating and hedging on disaster. I watched it months ago so I can't remember all the hedge discussions that were made, but it seems like there were others.

Is it possible for any system to remain moral such that the people are not molested? i.e. if any system is moral will not the people thrive?

Yes

You are really dealing with two very different questions, though.

1) Insiders purposely creating and hedging on disaster(s)

Like I said, this is a problem inherent to government, not capitalism (which we do not have). 'Insiders' can only exist if there is an 'inside'. If government did not exist (Anarcho-capitalism) or government was severely limited in its powers (Defense of private property rights, military defense), then where would these insiders go to get this stuff done?

Put another way, chemtrails are dispersed from government planes, funded by taxpayer money. Without the ability to force citizens to pay taxes, a government (and therefore also the 'insiders') could not perform this act.

(There is a logical hole in part of the above. You saw I mentioned Anarcho-capitalism above. The chief reason that I am an anarcho-capitalist is that minarchy allows the use of force (taxation) to fund itself. If it is allowed, morality has already lost its way.)

2) Is it possible for any system to remain moral such that the people are not molested?

First of all, I wonder whether a system can be called 'moral' or 'immoral' at all. Its an interesting philosophical question.

My personal opinion is that only acts are moral or immoral. So a system can be immoral, if that is defined as a system where immoral acts are condoned or even encouraged.

Tell me, though, what exactly does 'moral' mean?

I think a system where the majority of people remain unmolested is possible. We've approached that system over the last few hundred years. We are now moving away from it, faster and faster.

But where everyone is unmolested? I doubt it. Not all people are willing to leave others unmolested. Some people will murder. Some will steal. So far in history, this is an axiom (some will murder). Sad, but true.

Are we going to wait until we can construct the 'perfect' system, or are we going to accept hard truth's, stop trying to force our idea's of a 'moral' society on each other, and stop trying to use force on each other entirely (except in defense), and try to attain the most beneficial system that we know of so far?

For me, that's Anarcho-Capitalism.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Thank you for your reply.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, you get the gist of what I mean by moral...not hurting other...Do no Harm, The Golden Rule, Love...

I appreciate the time you have taken to help me understand.

Good points

I mostly agree. I believe due to the shifting nature of what socialism means to different people we may not all be seeing eye to eye on this, but I believe we are close. Also, I'm kind of just rambling and thinking out loud. "Is socialism necessarily bad if it is voluntary?" That's what I'm debating in my head. It seems to me the answer is no, but I welcome your insights and value your input as I put that thesis up to the light and examine it.

Given the complexities of the world, human nature and that of supply and demand I find it very difficult for such a voluntary socialist society to succeed or even exist. I would imagine it would have to be very simple. Just the basics. Food, water, shelter. Things like "toilet rolls, cars, pencils, underwear, rubber bungs, paperclips, light switches, usb sticks, ipods, enema bags, plastic bottles, train engines, cpu's" etc. would make things quite complex and difficult for such a voluntary socialist society to accomplish. But still, though it may not be your cup of tea, such a simpler life may be preferable to some and would be totally acceptable in a free market if entered into and participated in voluntarily would it not?

I personally believe, if such a society was possible, that voluntary socialism would be a beautiful way to live, but I understand reality and that that is not possible. That is what spurred my remark about "free market capitalism being the next best thing", that was wrong of me to say. That is a value judgment. That was my just my opinion but I incorrectly stated it matter of factly, probably multiple times on this thread. Sorry. I was struggling with how to rephrase it and was actually going to leave it out all together. Im glad you pointed it out. You're right, I misspoke, I apologize. It really depends on what your standpoint is and what you value and what criteria you use to determine "best". Free market capitalism may very well be the best and I'm just entertaining an inferior alternative for the sake of testing its soundness.

Someone posted in another thread how there haven't been enough threads and logical reasonable discussion lately about economic theory, mises, etc. I'm glad there are people like you proving them wrong and helping enlighten the rest of us (or just me haha). Thank you for thoughts and input.

!!

You're right, I misspoke, I apologize.

No need to apologise! The only people I ever have a problem with are those who initiate force against me! It's a wonderful world where we are able to share different opinions, and also to try to persuade others, by way of reason (rather than force).

I was previously a hard-core socialist (in the democratic-socialist sense). The urge to support those ideas (apart from my then-economic ignorance) came from my heart, and a feeling of injustice and compassion for people. The problem lay not in my heart, but in the lack of logic I applied to the problems I was so passionate about.

The point I was (unsuccessfully) trying to make about free market capitalism was not necessarily that it is the best system. From my understanding of Mises, Rothbard, Menger et al, analysis of economics provides us only with a study of human behaviour, and an understanding of economic laws based on that human behaviour.

Economics is not a creation of economists but, much like physics knowledge to physicists, is a body of knowledge that has been 'discovered' by economists. True scientists (not Keynesians) study the way things are, rather than trying to shape or mold the world. This is a core difference between statists/socialists/fascists/zeitgeisters etc, and Austrian School scholars. Rather than saying "if only the world was like this", we merely say "this is how people act".

To point out another (quite momentous) fact, Austrian School Economics shows that, centrally, we can never actually improve the situation overall (above the system of free choice). Central planning and any type of intervention that contravenes people's freely chosen actions will always cause a net loss, or, at the very least, will simply transfer prosperity/goods/wealth from someone to someone else.

Of course, one could argue that my freely chosen actions have effects on other's prosperity/wealth etc, on the same basis. And they do. But this is an effect of being human, of existing, of living in a state of scarcity. Why grapple with the fact that the sun rises every morning?

Anyway, I began to ramble. I took no offense to anything you said; in fact, I enjoy the stimulation of hearing other's points-of-view.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

"Socialism removes the

"Socialism removes the pricing system itself"

No, it doesn't. Socialism refers to the means of production. The business cycle is inevitable. No matter who controls the means of production, be it the capitalist or the workers, prices are still subject to demand if you're ever going to trade at all.

Most systems of socialism

attempted this (the removal of the price system) at the beginning (Lenin is a good example), but it failed so miserably that they promptly brought a 'market' system back.

Socialism does indeed refer to the issues of ownership and control of the means of production.

What are you referring to by 'The business cycle'?

No matter who controls the means of production, be it the capitalist or the workers, prices are still subject to demand if you're ever going to trade at all.

Yes, they are. But a pricing system also depends on valuation of all goods, whether they are consumer goods, or capital goods. Without private ownership of capital goods (the means of production), that valuation cannot be made the same way. And thus the price system becomes skewed and imbalanced.

If you are referring to arrangements where the workers own the factory, well, you are really referring to a situation where the workers have two roles, the share-capitalists and the labour force. Provided this is voluntary, I have no problem with it. Whether it will work or not, is another story.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I'm referring to Hayek's

I'm referring to Hayek's definition of the business cycle, which includes pretty straight forward, subjective valuation. Lenin could have attempted to use different price fixing mechanisms, but it is impossible to remove value. Even Marx admitted that in Das Kapital.

Starbucks is owned privately, but more times than not, the same size and quality of a latte from Starbucks sold within a co-op is going to be somewhere around the same price.

"If you are referring to arrangements where the workers own the factory, well, you are really referring to a situation where the workers have two roles, the share-capitalists and the labour force."

You could call it that if you wanted to. I wouldn't have any problem with that either. It's all semantics really, but I think intellectual honesty is important.

Are you implying I am being

intellectually dishonest?

What I was referring to by the claim that Socialism removes the pricing system was this:

It seems tempting to try to construct by analogy a separate estimation of the particular production groups in the socialist state also. But it is quite impossible. For each separate calculation of the particular branches of one and the same enterprise depends exclusively on the fact that is precisely in market dealings that market prices to be taken as the bases of calculation are formed for all kinds of goods and labor employed. Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism; without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation.

Ludwig Von Mises, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth

Secondly, I never claimed that Lenin or anyone else removed 'value'. I said it removes the pricing system. Subjective valuation is the concept of value of a good that exists in ones mind. Prices are formed through a combination of the subjective value that prospective sellers place on a good (supply-side) and the subjective value that prospective buyers place on a good (demand-side). People who are directing resources towards certain ends need a way to ascertain market value, which is indicated by market prices, and enables them to choose whether the production of said good is economically viable and should be invested in, or whether it is not demanded by people in the market and would be a waste of scarce resources if invested in. The only known way to achieve this is to use a market pricing system. The state controlling the means of production removes the market pricing mechanism because they do not lose in the same way that a private citizen would, should they mess up in what they produce. Because they don't take the loss; the people do. The relationship is fundamentally different to that of free market capitalism.

A co-op where the workers own the productive capital is not socialism. It is simply another form of arrangement for capital ownership.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I wasn't implying you were

I wasn't implying you were being intellectually dishonest. I am more or less clarifying the term 'socialism' to make the whole discussion appear more intellectually honest. I know you also were not saying Lenin was attempting to remove value, though prices do reflect value, so a price system could not possibly be abolished. I think we're talking in a circle here, haha

I agreed with most of what you said, and the Mises quote reflected what I had previously stated. The only statement of yours I may slightly disagree with is: "A co-op where the workers own the productive capital is not socialism. It is simply another form of arrangement for capital ownership." Any kind of capital ownership is not always defined as capitalism, while worker-owned and controlled production is sometimes called socialism. Pierre Proudhon, Bakunin and others partial to labor were right right there in the first international using the term socialism as an anti-Marxist ideology. Kevin Carson does a pretty good job of mixing austrianisms with mutualist political economic thought.

OK

OK, from what you said (re: intellectual honesty), it seemed that way. Also, I was working in the context of the OP's thread about Socialism in the government-imposed sense, rather than Bakunin's collectivist anarchism.

As an aside:

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment...

http://mises.org/daily/2197

I missed this before:

it is impossible to remove value. Even Marx admitted that in Das Kapital.

What Marx thought on this topic is irrelevant, as Marx subscribed to the 'Labor Theory of Value'. So of course Marx believed that value could not be removed. It was, according to Smith, Ricardo etc, built-in to the good based on what went into it (labor, resources etc).

You seem to be aware of the subjective theory of value, so I'm not sure why you would quote Marx on this.

though prices do reflect value, so a price system could not possibly be abolished

I will rephrase my original statement, for clarification.
Socialism (of the governmental type), removes the free pricing system (and thus the pricing mechanism). This is purely semantics. While 'prices' might still exist, they would no longer consist of the normal economic forces that, in a free system, they are composed of. If the pricing mechanism is 'mutated' by government interventionism, a free market pricing system no longer exists. So, by an Austrian economists pure definition, prices no longer exist. We no longer have 'prices under a free market', but we now have 'prices under an interventionist market'. They are not the same and cannot perform the same functions as each other.

But under socialism or with massive government investment, there is no such mechanism for fitting and harmonizing.

    Deprived of a free price system and profit-and-loss criteria, the government can only blunder along, blindly "investing" without being able to invest properly in the right fields, the right products, or the right places.

Rothbard, Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, p967

This is what I meant.

Another point though: Value is

    not

the same as price.

Prices are a result of the subjective valuations of all participants in the market. They are also affected by the scarcity (or abundance) of natural resources. They are only able to be calculated in the presence of potential or actual exchange. While they reflect value, they are not composed only of value. Other people's subjective value affects the prices I pay to buy a piece of steak. My subjective value leads me to make a decision on whether I will choose to exchange the steak for the money-price indicated on the price tag, but the price may bear no resemblance to the value I place upon it.

Values are entirely individual. They depend upon the preferences of the acting individual. They may affect price, but they are not prices themselves.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that 'socialism removes the pricing mechanism'. This more accurately describes what I meant. Even though 'prices' might exist under a Socialist state, they are not what the economist call 'prices'. At least, not an Austrian economist.

Kevin Carson also accepts the Labor Theory of Value, which is enough to remove credibility in my eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson#Criticisms

This idea has been exploded time after time after time, by far better men than I.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I really enjoyed reading Man,

I really enjoyed reading Man, Economy and the State. Three years ago, I organized a study group to read it and discuss the book in its entirety.

Das Kapital was the reason I mentioned Marx....There is an entire chapter in the book dedicated to clarifying ltv to critics. It is essentially not much of a theory, but more a look at value from the point of view of labor. It is still subjective. Many people will stop reading Marx after reading only his collaborations with Engels, and that's where the critique goes sour. Though, I have quite a few problems with Marx and his statist influence(mostly acquired through Engels), I could not honestly criticize his ltv by calling it anything other than just another subjective theory.

Walter Block has wrongly criticized Kevin Carson without reading anything written by him. Carson has created an entirely new anarchist LTV by "austrianizing" it. Block has just conflated it with the Marxist LTV, so he still has a lot of reading to do imo.

I have filtered a lot of my bias over the years, so I don't like to judge the credibility of a philosopher without first reading the philosophy itself thoroughly enough. Even Ricardo and other classical economists(other than maybe Malthus) have some credibility to me for being inclusive about the subject of land and land value.

..

Walter Block has wrongly criticized Kevin Carson without reading anything written by him. Carson has created an entirely new anarchist LTV by "austrianizing" it. Block has just conflated it with the Marxist LTV, so he still has a lot of reading to do imo

It certainly doesn't seem to me that Block has never read anything by Carson. Maybe because of this:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_4.pdf
where Block has quoted page numbers. How would he know them if he hadn't read it? I have found (on Wikipedia) a claim by Carson that Block hasn't read anything by Carson, but that does not amount to a fact. Block's review of Carson's book seems to show otherwise. He has extensively criticized Carson in this review. Many of the fallacies are ones which have, time after time, been blown apart.
Have you actually read the review?

Philosophy? I'm arguing economics.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I was speaking casually in

I was speaking casually in past tense to describe Block's characterizations, not to say he hasn't read...anything...by Carson. But I have read this critique, and even inclusive of these tired right-left arguments(he felt obliged to write in order to respond to his unfounded statements against Carson), there is still no substance here. Just a critique using the LTV and not even in any detail about the (one) book itself. It was not even a good critique you'd normally find from a decent Lockean perspective. It looks like one you'd find in a facebook discussion group dedicated to objectivism or something. It's laughably juvenile, really.

BTW, economics as political-economy cannot be separated from philosophy. It IS philosophy.

I strongly disagree

While Block has displayed his ever-present sarcastic and cutting style in this review, he has made many good points about Carson's work.

Now, you may disagree with what Block has to say, but if you claim that there is no substance there, well, I don't know what I can say to you, apart from that your claim is rubbish, much like Carson's. Block has made some very significant points that cannot just be batted aside with 'laughably juvenile' or 'Block has never read anything that I wrote'.

There's plenty there, and it is my hope that those who come across these comments, read both texts,
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html (here's Carson's)
as it is plain to see that Block has criticized Carson on some important planks of libertarian thought and economics both.

I await a reasoned, logical, response from Carson (or anybody else) as to why Block is wrong.

That is instead of ad hominem

It was not even a good critique you'd normally find from a decent Lockean perspective. It looks like one you'd find in a facebook discussion group dedicated to objectivism or something. It's laughably juvenile, really.

or declarations that something is true

there is still no substance here

Also, which tired right-left arguments?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

YES to this system!

YOU SAID:
"Capitalism (in the Austrian School definition) is simply a state of affairs where people are unrestricted in their actions, and proceed without the use of force, in matters economic.

It's not even really a system, but simply (a component of) the fullest expression of our liberty as sovereign, independent, human beings."

I love the idea of that kind of freedom to express and create as a sovereign human being! It is for this reason we chose to have this human experience.

Socialism does not appeal to me in any shape or form. I will help my neighbor, but I do not want any part of a socialistic government.

Yep. Socialism would be great

in a more highly evolved world with more highly evolved humans!

Socialism would work if human beings

were hive-like creatures like ants or the borg from Star Trek.

Pretty sure those two are examples of forced socialism

I don't know how voluntarily hive-like creatures operate so there may be a case there, but I'm pretty sure Jean Luc Picard didn't eagerly sign up to be part of the borg collective, nor many of it's other crew. They both seem liked forced situations with penalties for disobeying or not going along with the program. Resistance is futile?

True it takes a different mind set, one not readily seen in this world or desired by many, but it does not necessarily mean being a zombie like automaton for the greater good of the whole. It takes people who truly want to help each other. Perhaps loving hardworking parents and families are the closest we come to seeing this sort of thing in the real world, but even that relationship is somewhat forced socialism as the parents are the ones in charge and can enforce their will upon the children. Most people do not have the patience, trust, compassion, love or humility to do this for extended periods of time with people who are not family. In larger groups the concept of voluntary socialism pretty much flies apart. It's hard enough to trust family members, let alone those who arent family when money, resources and survival is on the line. So for all intents and purposes, in this imperfect world with imperfect people, it is all but impossible and most efforts to attempt it end in failure especially the forced attempts.

Socialsm feels stale to me

and tends to make everyone conform and give up on their drive to be innovative and creative! I guess socialism might have its roots in a smaller tribal type of culture. But it becomes a monster on a grand scale such as what we have in population today. It will always evolve into communism, total brutal fascist control.

They who advocate communism, like Hitler, actually believe they are SUPERIOR to the so called dumb masses and have the right to rule them even in life and death decisions about who should live, as WE do with cattle, pigs, and chickens.

Yes forced socialims does feel stale, and it is

But voluntary socialism would not "make" anyone conform to it or make them give up their drive to be innovative and creative. To the contrary in a voluntary system anyone participating would already have the drive to go out of their way to think of creative and innovative ways to help one other. You cant make someone have that desire, that's why forced socialism fails. One must have that desire to begin with or else they are just being a slave to someone else's will. That's where innovation and creativity die.

But of course this is all just theoretical and i am in no way advocating socialism, forced or voluntary. I am for free market capitalism. The world is not ready for voluntary socialism. I doubt it can even be done successfully on a small scale let alone large, and nearly every attempt at large scale has turned into totalitarianism, suffering and failure. But there is a distinction and socialism itself should not be vilified in my opinion, it is a noble endeavor, it's the force used to enforce it that should be vilified. Socialism if done right and done voluntarily is not necessarily bad or evil and in a free market there may be some who choose to live that way. That's perfectly fine. Good luck to them.

I guess I'm just trying to thwart the tendency of some to throw around derogatory buzzwords like socialism and "communist!" like this lady
without understanding that it is the application of force that is the real problem. If one forgets that or does not acknowledge it than we risk coming off as uneducated, misinformed, and perhaps worst of all hypocritical. Some of the same people calling Obama a socialist and a communist vote for people who intend on using that exact same force to enforce their ideas, but believe it's ok because they have R's in front of their name, or sometimes even L's.

Maybe I would prefer to help my neighbor

and not be part of helping a big anonymous group. Where I live we help each other and we live rough in the hills and forest. Obamacare SOCIALISM has nothing to do with helping anyone but the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. It is another TAX on the people.

I would hate to be "looked after", given everything I need! I worked for everything I have and love the sense of empowerment of knowing I can do it. I love being innovative and creative. It is a wonderful challenge and makes me strong. I even look after my own health and avoid doctors.

The kind of socialism Obama wants, weakens people and makes them less intelligent, less innovative, and less creative. BUT that IS the plan. Weak dependent people are easier to CONTROL. Rockefeller: "We want workers, not thinkers." Kissinger: "Military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy." This kind of socialism is a trap we need to AVOID, and for now there is NO voluntary socialism possible, except in your own neighborhood.

100% agreed

I believe we're on the same page.