Social Libertarianism

I would like to see an organic economy and society, with consumers, workers, their reps and the 3 branches of government collaborating with one another, not the executive branch ruling from its fortress with an iron fist and jackboot, nor several dozen multinationals manipulating everything.

Something like Fennoscandia, but less corporatism, progressivism and globalism and more socialism, libertarianism and nationalism.

So it’s a partial nationalization and a gradual democratization of big business, not a full.

Voting is not the same as democracy. Democracy requires the distribution of authority. Socialism requires the centralization of authority. They cannot co-exist.

You are probably unaware of how socialist governments control their media and thus predetermine who gets to run for office and who will win any given election. The Soviet Union espoused democratic elections, yet was known to control the entire voting procedure, just as the US socialists and Democrats attempt today. Elections, even in the US, get rigged.

If you are both a nationalist and a socialist, that makes you a “neo-nazi”. That is what the word means - “new national socialist”.

That is all you need to do. The mega corporations of today would have been considered illegal monopolies in the US many years ago. What is driving the world today is globalist incentives toward globalist socialism vs globalist communism. A great deal of deception is used to keep the movements going, and against capitalistic methods for raising the poor up from their enslavement.

But you seem to be leaving out the fact that wealthier people have to have a reason and incentive to create jobs. If you take away their ability to take risks with their money, they cannot risk trying to develop new labor intensive projects.

Your proposals so far sound like merely chopping off the heads of the royalty and thus changing who it is that is oppressing the poor. The poor remain the poor. merely under a new regime. It is the same “Robbin Hood” narrative used to instigate socialist rebellions for generations.

First, let’s get something out of the way.
I’m a social democrat/social capitalist, democratic socialism is just something I’m toying around with.
What this means is, I want to keep most businesses private, with the exception of education, healthcare and a few others, but I want to use some of their revenue for the public good.

Western countries are already mixed economies.
Businesses are already taxed and regulated, in fact they were far more taxed and regulated in the mid 20th century when times were good or better in Canada, the US and UK before the neoliberal Mulroney, Reagan and Thatcher era.

What I want to see is politicians come to power who’ll pass legislation to eliminate or reduce taxes on the poorest 99%, increase taxes on the richest 0.1%, redistribute the wealth in the form of USI (universal supplementary income), and a few other things which I’ve already gone into several times in this thread.
These policy changes can be achieved if the people changed some of their opinions about society, government and economics, got organized, formed, joined and voted for the right sort of parties, you wouldn’t have to, stage a coup to achieve them.

Voting is an important part of democracy.
Having a bill of negative and positive rights, a proper constitution, division of powers, rule of law and an armed and informed public are important parts too.

We already have some social corporatism, or state centralization of authority.
And capitalism can, and has lead to some private centralization of authority.

Again, I’m a social democrat or social capitalist first, but could we pass legislation through all 3 branches of government to gradually nationalize (state owned and run) and/or cooperativize (worker owned and run) all megacorps, or corporations with massive amounts of revenue and employees, without devolving into a totalitarian dictatorship, where the executive branch was able to disregard the other branches and the bill of rights, constitution, rule of law and hold mock elections in Canada, the US and UK?

I don’t see why it’s impossible.
In Scandinavia and Finland, a lot of large corporations are divided sort of the way government is, where capitalists, the state and workers share power, rather than the way it works in the Anglosphere.

Actually I’m already aware of that.
You don’t live in Russia or China do you?
We’re already democracies, and unless some natural or manmade calamity were to befall us, we’ll remain democracies albeit with a lot of corruption.
I’m talking about trying to pass new legislation within democracies that already exist, not violent revolution.

I’m a national social capitalist and libertarian, altho nationalizing and/or cooperativizing megacorps is an idea I sometimes toy with.

Social democracy and capitalism are two sides of the same coin.
One promotes positive rights, the other negative.
I don’t see them in opposition.
The trouble is that megacorps have been declared legal persons with positive and negative rights.
The trouble is the elite are circumventing old and passing new legislation to multiply their positive and negative rights at the expense of ours.

No, I’m not.
You could still get rich in both social democracy and even democratic socialism in the way I’ve conceived them, because the former and even the latter would still contain a lot of capitalism, just not as rich.

Workers need to be incentivized too, or they’ll start cheating the system, doing a lousy job, stealing from the workplace, not paying their taxes if they can help it, protesting, rioting, looting, voting for alt parties and independents and if the economy starts collapsing, revolting.
Whatever system you have in place, if the workers are barely scraping by, they’re not going to be loyal to it.

“I’m a conservative liberal right-wing leftist atheistic christian.”

You seem to be just throwing words together because there is something you like about each idea.

Would it be fair to say that if you could do something that helped the poor be less poor without pulling the Robin Hood scam to steal from the rich, you would be in favor of that?

Or do you just hate the wealthy and want to steal whatever they have?

We all know this, but it’s worth mentioning…

The rich steal from the poor through governmental corporate welfare.

Yeah, that just needs to stop. Like, right now.

It may be the case that neither Socialism nor Capitalism are compatible with the distribution of authority - just by different means.

Capitalism tends there as more capital makes gaining more capital easier - authority centralises into the hands of those with more and more of it. It should be quite apparent that with one unit of currency amounting to one vote, more money is more votes: by contrast to democratic elections where everyone gets only one vote regardless of how much money they have. In reality, not even these democratic elections amount to one vote each because e.g. campaigns can be funded, and amongst other things - the winning party is going to be the one that attracts sufficient funding from those with enough money to get enough reach, and the best targeting and message etc. which you get by appealing to those with the most money. Various schools of Socialism try to counter this, but those that require controls over Capitalism require a body or bodies that are more powerful than the body or bodies that come to power under Capitalism. The same problem presents itself, but in a different form.

You might more accurately say that under certain schools of Capitalism, distribution of authority ought to be possible, and you might say that under certain schools of Socialism, distribution of authority ought to be possible.
You might then say that Capitalism is has a better track record, but does that mean that it cannot be beaten?

There’s two conflicting problems with laissez faire approaches versus interventionalist approaches:
The former has the benefit of less conspicuously amounting to centralisation, but at the cost of accountability since the mechanisms are more complex and it’s harder to tell exactly where the power resides.
The latter attracts more hostility because the centralised bodies are intentionally conspicuous, allowing direct accountability since the centralisation is much more simple and everyone knows where the power resides.

It seems to be a common approach to this topic to throw out simple blanket statements that neatly put you in one side rather than another, instead of sufficiently and objectively analysing all sides and underlying variables and causes that make the situation much more complex.
Popularly these topics take the form of a sports match where everyone is split down the middle about which team they support as clearly and absolutely far better than the other, and you just have to fight your respective corner as hard as you can to prove it. It seems vulgar to devolve the discussion to that level if you ever catch yourself doing it.

Yes you would hope that anti-trust laws would prevent huge corporations from attaining the monopolies and oligopolies that reign supreme today.

Gloominary references the deep state and you reference globalist deception by the DNC and what-have-you, but I think it’s more interesting than that.

For example the economic concept of Opportunity Cost is minimised by global trade, two-party election races are the Nash Equilibrium of First Past The Post voting systems, centralisation puts decisions and resources into the hands of the more qualified and results in more clear and efficient outcomes pragmatically, richness beyond a certain point is largely Zahavian Signalling and no longer correlates with quality of life…
All the evils and goods have other sides to them, and every decision one way or another is a trade-off, and more often than not - the biggest problems are little more than the result of these trade-offs in picking the most prized cornerstones of our civilisations, such as voluntary trade and technological superiority.

The greater mystery is how it’s possible to make things better or worse at all.

Capitalism can easily function under limits that prevent monopolies and thus is very compatible with (almost requiring) the distribution of authority. Socialism IS a monopoly, forbidding distribution of authority.

Socialism is just the ultimate goal of pure, unlimited capitalism. Capitalism must be limited, constrained at an appropriate level, else is becomes socialism in disguise (that was the Marxist theory).

If you can’t regulate even that, you certainly cannot prevent a socialist regime from becoming corrupt.

That is not as hard as you might think. The first step is easy. You start small and stop trying to tell the whole world what to do.

This seems curious as I would gather that all Social Democrats would entirely agree with you. Read up on “Social Democracy” if you haven’t already.

Since you mention Marxist theory you will probably be aware that Socialism is indeed a monopoly, but of the working class over the state military. It is then theorised that in the absense of capitalist practices, that the majority of the populace who are working class would use their seized military force against (the opposite of seeking pure Capitalism as it seems you were saying), the need to use such force would dissolve and (famously) “the state would wither away” because we’d all realise we’re better off without capitalist practices. As such, Socialism is theorised to give way to Communism, which according to Marxist theory is stateless and authority is distributed equally amongst everyone in a classless society (classless because there is now “only one class” by everyone’s choice), who function in cooperative, self-governing communes.

Now, whether you agree or not with such projections, you will note that the intention is to distribute authority - which is something of which I believe you were in favour, yes? The intention of Social Democrats who are colloquially mis-identified as Socialists is to limit Capitalism, just the same as you.

I see time and again common ground in the goals of people interested in socio-economic reform, or even revolution - the only real differences lie in how to get there.

As such, I would say it’s fruitless to call Socialists and/or Communists categorically against the distribution of authority. Sure, there are probably plenty who want State control of authority - perhaps aware or unaware that this means their own authority, but this is why blanket statements about Socialism are vulgar.

No doubt true.

Hmm. Considering my point that not telling the whole world what to do lets those with capital gain more capital more easily, gaining power geometrically, landing us in this centralised mess in the first place, I’m not sure the solutions to these complex economic problems are as easy as you’re making out. The way some people talk about economic solutions makes it a wonder how nobody accidentally achieved utopia already.

Who decides what is socially just in the supreme SJW State?

It’s plain to see that any supreme SJW State would legally consist, at best, of kangaroo courts.

I’m guessing your point is to equate all Social Democrats with SJW Progressivism.

Having already seen this error a few days ago, I responded with this post at the top of the second page.

Since you think there is a distinction, apply the same question.

In your Social Democratic State, who decides what is just?

Um… my Social Democratic State?

By definition it wouldn’t belong to anyone in particular…

To answer your question: the courts, lawyers, same as what we have now… which is Social Democracy. Don’t act like it’s some new-fangled, way-out-there idea. It’s what The West has.

If it is the same as now, what are you quibbling about?

And that is what i meant by liking and looking for something to create argument rather than looking and liking things to create agreement. – “Let’s all find some flimsy excuse to hate each other.”

I have to tell you folks, I am a direct democracy person. I believe in ‘mob rule’. A term coined by elites to scare us

This is kinda ironic.
Here you are supporting what we already have, but still hating on parties and their doctrines that support it.
I’m the one pointing out that everyone fighting has far more in common than they seem to realise and not taking sides.
It’s common for people to accuse others of their own faults…

I bet you don’t class yourself as a communist, but this is perfectly compatible with it according to the theory.

There’s probably tons of people who agree with you who got scared off by the term because authoritarian dictators have called their autocratic totalitarian disasters “Communism” to get political support for their regime while it was still a popular term, even though what they were doing was the literal opposite of what Communism is. The US jumped at the chance to call it Communism too, to put everyone off even looking into its actual ideas and finding they were actually appealing and nothing like what they were being associated with.

Everywhere people are accusing Capitalism of turning Communist, when it’s just Capitalism being Capitalism, and actual Communism is what everyone’s unknowingly supporting to solve it.

It’s not accepted that Capitalism can be Capitalism when it grows out of the scope of Classical Liberalism, but simply because aquiring capital makes it easier to acquire more capital, it runs away with itself and tends towards inequality such that power is centralised in the hands of very few, and spreading it around the globe as much as possible only speeds this up. This is the root of what people are calling Globalist and attributing to conspiracy, but it’s just Capitalism - the only political component is to narrate it all as Communist, and count on the reliable ignorance of the electorate to not look up the fact that actual Communism is the solution - not the enemy.

It’s sad that numerous indinigous tribes, that actually are communist, are disparaged by the counter intelligence that you describe silhouette… talk about fake news!!

See, nobody knows what the communist literature actually says…
And yet everyone feels so comfortable throwing around the terminology…

Communism is post-Capitalist. Tribes are pre-Feudalist - basically at the opposite end of the Historical Materialism timeline.

I think you’re taking those demarcations too far.

Communism is literally “communal decision making”, which perfectly describes many (not all) indigenous tribes.

Here is my first point-of-contention.

To me, Socialism is about Society, and how people interact and relate with each-other. Socialists, idealistically, want Society to form better and stronger bonds with one-another. So, to me, this means that Socialism is about Morality, not Economics. Economics is anti-Social. Usually, one person or group, is making money and profit, and the detriment, or to the detriment, of others. When one group profits off-of others; this is Anti-social behavior.

This is also a big reason why World War II happened. German Nationalists were sick and tired of ‘Others’ profiting from the German country’s hard-work.

I wouldn’t say you’re a Socialist then…you’re just Anti-Capitalist or Egalitarian. A Socialist society could have disparities between rich and poor, if that disparity were wrought through merit and accumulation of resources (Inheritance).

Yes, very Libertarian…

I disagree.

Taxation is needed (on the middle-class) to fund the Military. Other than that, I might agree with you.

Again, it looks to me like you are simply Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Corporatist, not necessarily “Socialist”.

I think you might have the wrong idea bout Socialism, for better or worse.

Socialism and “Progressivism” are slightly different ideals.

Progressivism is Socialism “of the 21st Century”. Progressivists believe in Egalitarian moral-values, that, homosexuals should be “married” and races should mix, for a variety of reasons. Progressivism is a huge slice and component of ‘Modernism’, if not the main core of it. Progressivists believe that “evil-whitey” is to blame for everything, and the world can only “move forward” with non-white, non-male leadership. However, Progressivists never explain the disparity of “Leadership”. When challenged, it’s always a backpedal into a bad argument, that “we’ve always been oppressed”, as a means to explain the lack of Leadership from women and minorities. So, this begs-the-question, why are white-males still the De Facto ‘leaders’ of, arguably, all important matters in life???

Socialism is Morality. How should people interact and relate with each-other? Should a Society be Homogeneous (genetically close) or Heterogeneous (genetically distant)? Many “Socialists” are Liberal-hypocrites. They say one thing, but do another. Or they do one thing, but think another. This fallacious thinking appears as, “Do as I say, not as I do”. So Progressivists and Socialists are generally untrustworthy. To proclaim Social-values, and actually follow them, is usually the realm of Religion. Religion preaches that your actions and words must coincide. So Socialists are similar to Judæo-Christians, except, Socialists don’t necessarily follow the ‘Rules’ they wish they could impose onto anybody-else.