8 votes

Can libertarianism tolerate the existence of a socialist community

Comment viewing options

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

I still don't get this hunger for reasoning in the abstract

I still don't get this hunger for reasoning in the abstract (which is often fun, I do it often with science or technology) with human affairs after all the horrors that history has taught us.

Sure, my own family cell is "kind of" socialist, scope = spouse and kids, only, if you wish - the adults often share all or most of the value they bring in with everybody else - although they also have individual private property. (I dare anyone try approaching some of my wife's experimental tinkering stuff unarmed.)

Now, I kindly request all:

the day I have the "great idea" to try generalize that to my street, block, city, county, or country, using all encompassing force so that everybody abides to the same... please, someone, slap me in the face...


Or maybe it's a vocabulary issue. Socialism implies state. An almighty one.

We know how that ends.

Or... "Socialism" without state and only volunteers?

Another word (noun) is needed.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Democracy begets socialism.

if people can vcte thenselves what they want and need.... they will.
the Greeks leanrned this lomg ago, the Romans looked at it, they placed a few rules on the concept of Democracy and prospered.
did I miss something?

Cyril's picture

I don't know if you missed something, but I sure did

I don't know if you missed something, but I sure did: the original poster is asking if a libertarian society could tolerate socialism.

The hiccup I see, is - if we care about the meaning of words - that socialism, BY VERY DEFINITION, does not tolerate anything but itself, EVENTUALLY, at the scale of a country, people, nation.

Its first building block is a state. Required to be almighty.

To me, it's like asking:

can a piece of dry wood tolerate fire? It sure can, up to a point. But, odds are, from the very beginning: it's way riskier for the wood than it is for the fire.

So, logically speaking, I am certainly the one who missed something. Like a single example of a country where socialism "worked" over several people's generations, for instance.

Links, anyone?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

A better question is ...

... can a socialist community tolerate the existence of libertarianism?

i get it. makes perfect sense.

I've used this idea in some arguments before with some very confused people.

The problem is with socialism is that people who want socialism cannot differentiate the state/gov't from the community and most of the time it is pure laziness. Since they want someone else to do it for them. Instead of all of their community doing work and chipping in in their collective ways.

which is why we need more liberty in the state before we can fully have liberty as individuals. I bet that liberty minded people donate more to charity either through some form of work or money.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Sure. In a free

Sure. In a free Individualist Republic, if a bunch of hippies want to get together and share everything, more power too them. It'll be funny when they start flipping out at each other.

No, because the socialists

No, because the socialists wouldn't tolerate the libertarians, and their intolerance would come in the form of violent force. This question just screams circular logic. There is no such thing as a socialist who thinks that there can be a society where some people may opt out of their ways of doing things.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.


Unfortunately, any government whose sole purpose is not the protection of liberty, must use coercion and force to implement programs. That being said there is no such thing as socialism. Just tyranny. If they made contracts signing their autonomy away, then theoretically you could use legal enforcement of contracts to keep them in these shackles but they would be indebted to their commune, not obliged to serve it. Could you have a contract that one could sign away his life? Sign away his freedom? Could you do this in a free society? What if he changes his mind?

I dont think the issue is libertarian acceptance, I think the issue is what does the libertarian government do when faced with these questions. If people want to get together and start a corporation where every member is an equal share holder and all property is owned by the corporation and there is a contractually obligated way that decisions are made and hierarchy is organized then members would still be able to own property in their own right. Not the way I understand socialism.



as long as socialists want socialism for themselves and not force others to share their ideology or demand free land, money and equipment. Socialists can come together, buy land and do their collective thingy. The reality is that without government subsidies they cannot compete and will economically die sooner or later. The danger to free-society comes from all sides, not only socialists, who want unearned (business lobby groups, organized labor, Faithkeepers, students, non-draft vets, affirmative-action recipients, etc.) Iowa Repubican farmers did not vote for Ron Paul; they like subsidies and tariffs.

A libertarian society would tolerate voluntary socialists...

but a socialist society would not tolerate libertarians.

We would recognize their freedom to choose, but they would not recognize ours.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Libertarianism Would Tolerate Voluntary Socialism

I recall hearing Ron Paul say something along those lines:

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Well said!

A system where one basically

A system where one basically agrees to bend to the will of the majority and have their inherent rights trod upon is theoretically acceptable. The individual would have to willingly give up their individuality.


It's called a family.

"You can't choose your

"You can't choose your family."

At least not until you're

At least not until you're 18... or 16 or whatever it is :)

5 stars



I try to change people every day. Do You?