This is intended to be more of a discussion than a debate. I’m seeking to understand, more fully the libertarian views, and perhaps let people have a better understanding of ours.
I’d like to keep this civil, and on a more theoretical, hypothetical basis. This was prompted by Libertarian’s comments in this thread. He talked about the idea of combing socialist and libertarian ideas. About achieving socialist economics, with his ideas of libertarian non-coercion.
It got me to thinking about our respective philosophies. Specifically, how you see the implementation of libertarianism coming about. Again, I’m more interested, at this point at least, in the implementation of libertarianism and socialism rather than a discussion of their relative merits. Ideally, we can avoid attacks on the libertarian viewpoint, instead keeping a more questioning tone. The same goes for the socialist one.
First, some notes on the implementation of socialism. In many ways I’m an idealist, but I’m also a realist. Ideally, I would like to see socialism implemented with as little violence and coercion as possible. I’m also a firm believer in democracy. Not only can socialism only be really implemented if a clear majority supports it, it only should be implemented if a clear majority supports it. However, I’m under no illusions. A minority of the population, those in political power and in economic power, will oppose the majority of the population. They will have access to guns, to other weapons. Much as I dislike the idea of a majority carrying out violence against a minority, I even more strongly oppose a minority conducting violence against the majority (which of necessity would have to be much stronger and more harmful) and blocking the wishes of the majority to live in peace. As such, I advocate the organization and planning of the majority, and the willingness of them to act swiftly to suppress actions against their wishes.
It can be summed up as follows. Socialism through non-violence is ideal. Realistically, this is not possible. Realistically, we must be prepared to act against the violence of the minority as swiftly as possible to keep the total violence and destruction to a minimum.
This brings me to libertarianism. How do you see it implemented? From what I have read and understand of the libertarianism advocated by the majority of libertarians on the board, it would also be opposed by a minority of political and economic interests. If they conspired to use force to enforce the rule of the minority, what actions would you take? Would you let a minority dictate to and oppress the majority? Do you honestly think such a revolutionary change as a libertarian society, which would involve almost complete non-coercion can come about without coercion. Do the ends justify the means? If you were in such a situation, would a small amount of coercion be justified by the possibility of the people living in a society from that point on, free of it.
