Could libertarians please help me understand this?

Its most certainly not defined by your idiot notion of wealth distribution.

Fascism: A authoritarian nationalistic rightwing form of government and social organization.

That's the definition.

 

Scandinavian countries have a large encompassing welfare system. They also have a free market. So how does that meet the very definition of Socialism?

 

Are you going to apologise for making me facepalm myself so hard after reading this? Perhaps it is unknown to you, but anarchism wants to get rid of the state. It literally means "without a ruler", and that really does sum up what anarchists are about. Perhaps you failed to notice the anarcho part of anarcho-capitalism.. It is, simply put, capitalism without a state. Not only are you here conforming my well-supported assumption that you are politically illiterate, you are also showing that you can't see how anarcho has something to do with anarchism, which is quite a feat. As I've said, it's almost as if you try to be as ridiculously wrong as possible. Are you?

Laissez-faire means let it be, and it refers to the economy, not society. Laissez-faire capitalism is not the same thing as anarcho-capitalism. But yes, laissez-faire capitalism can be said to be the "true capitalism". However, the scale with total capitalism on the one hand and total socialism on the other is a continuous one. When I say that a country is capitalist, that doesn't have to mean it's on the extreme capitalist end, only that it's situated on the capitalist half of the scale. And such is the case for western countries, including sweden. They are not "pure" capitalist countries, but they are clearly more capitalist than socialist, and thus more on the capitalist side.

Just where did I say that interfering with the economy is capitalist in nature? Interfering with the economy is not necessarily socialist in nature. you want to know why? Because there are interferences which are not socialist. For example, the government can forbid jews to sell to christians. That is an interference. Is it socialist? No. Even though socialism is much about interfering with the economy, that doesn't mean all interferences are per definition socialist. Unsuprisingly, you are commiting a logical fallacy.

On an absolute scale, Sweden isn't very socialist at all, but relative to other western countries we are probably rather socialist. Socialist in the sense of having a very large and generous welfare state that is. But socialism in the sense of government control.. Not so much. Sweden actually ranks higher than the US in business freedom, trade freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom, and freedom from corruption. These are all parts of the general level of economic freedom. That shows us very well what a free market Sweden actually has. Let me emphasise: Sweden has a very free market, i.e. a capitalist one, not a socialist one. The socialist elements in Sweden are its welfare state. It's our free economy which allows us to have such a big welfare state.

 

No, they are not, because they are not socialist countries. If you were to look at the 2014 index of economic freedom you'd notice that the scandinavian countries have very free economies. Freer than most of europe actually, and that they are actually more economically free than even the US in some areas. These countries have very free markets, they are not socialist markets. The success of Sweden is because the social democrats realised that going for a socialist economy, i.e. a planned one, is one of the most retarded things you can do. Instead, they chose a free market system with a welfare state, which is good for everyone.

The Tories in the UK fought for child labour laws, as did liberals in other countries. Liberals also fought for public schools. This is not something socialists have a monopoly on.

 

That's kind of looking at it from a reverse perspective, it's not that higher taxes induce a stronger economy, but rather that countries with stronger economies are more able to pay higher taxes. It's also a common misconception that libertarians do not believe in social safety nets, although that is a strong feature of objectivism, Ayn Rand herself was not a self described libertarian. In fact, she despised libertarianism for partially accepting some of her ideas, while taking a different, or even opposite position on certain key issues (social safety nets being one of them)

 

You answered this post for me, "Laissez-faire means let it be, and it refers to the economy, not society" the exact same goes for anarcho-capitalism, there is a reason its "Anarcho-Capitalism" and not just plain "Anarchy" as you have suggested multiple times now that it is. Anarcho-Capitalism refers to the economy, not society. When it comes to the economy, yes the free market is indeed Anarchy, any rational person would admit this. When it comes to the state, they are not necessarily Anarchists, they believe in the State except that it should be ran by private institutions rather than public ones.

Here, just look at the wikipedia definition they are very clear about this

"Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian anarchism[4]) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[5][6] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation.

As you can see and as I said originally, they are not against the State, they are against the State being publicly owned, they want to privatize EVERYTHING including the State, not get rid of it.

Nice strawman, when I speak of interferring with the economy you know what I mean, im talking about welfare and minimum wage that sort of thing. Yes you are right not ALL interference's into the economy are Socialist, thats not what I meant and you know it. The example I gave of that was for example intefering with the economy to help out rich people by subsidizing oil companies or something is certainly not socialist. In a sense, interference with the economy that helps poor people would be Socialism, not ALL interferences.

Free healthcare and free college? That is extremely socialist, that is what I want most in America and I am a extreme Socialist.

Remember, Socialism is not against Capitalism entirely, it utilizes Capitalism to make money, than it utilizes Communism to spread that money around mostly to the poor. Free markets are totally fine, im ok with that, but it doesnt mean we shouldnt have wealth redistribution like the Scandinavians have. You should be proud that your country and your neighbors are the beacons for Socialism around the world, honestly I have always wanted to move there, Scandinavia is what America should have been. Your country is proof that you can have Socialism without "Authoritarianism" and all that nonsense the right wing spews about Socialism.

Tell me, which party has the most power in your country? Is it not the Socialists?

 

Wow, did you actually just admit fascism is right wing? Bravo, bravo.

Besides, I never said it was about wealth redistribution lol, when did I say that? I said Socialism is about wealth redistribution, not fascism.

 

Is this some kind of joke or are you honestly just that dim? The very definition you quoted clearly says anarcho-capitalism is "a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state...". I mean, for heaven's sake.. this is just unbelievably ridiculous!

It's not a strawman, it's what you said. If you only meant intereferences like "welfare and minimum wage and that sort of thing" then don't say that "interferences in the economy are socialist in nature". Your idea seems to be that interferences in the economy with the goal of helping poor people is socialist. That is a very, very different thing from saying that interferences in the economy are socialist. You do realise you left out a very important part, and it made it seem you had no clue what you are talking about?

Seeing as you don't even understand what socialism is, I wonder if we could really call you a socialist. A socialist wannabe perhaps.

As I've said, scandinavia is only socialist in the sense of their welfare systems, but welfare isn't something which is opposed to capitalism. The economic system of socialism though, is opposed to capitalism. Economic socialism has been disproven decades ago, and there's probably only Cuba and some other country which are still socialist in that sense. And it's true that economic socialism is always accompanied by authoritarianism. But as I've said, welfare is all good and not in opposition to capitalism.

The centre-right coalition just lost the elections to the social democrats.

 

lol you call me dim, yet you couldnt get past the first damn sentence let alone see the part I put in bold and size 5 font? Hilarious

How can you still have "law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation." without a State? Its not a State the way we think of one, as being public and funded through taxes, its a State ran essentially by corporations and the uber wealthy, even the police are ran by corporations rather than the government. This is not "Anti-state" its anti-public state. Seriously, just read past the first damn sentence and maybe you will see this.

Show the quote where I said interference in the economy is socialist in Nature, you will see in that very same paragraph I made the distinction between interference to help the poor and interference to help the rich, again this is another matter of you not being able to get past my first sentence. Should I have paragraph long sentences so maybe you will understand better? No, you will stick cherry pick as usual.

You are literally the only person ive ever seen who says Welfare is Capitalist lol, literally the ONLY one. I can do a thread right now, everyone will agree Welfare is most certainly not Capitalist, its very Socialist. As I said, you are taking Socialist elements and trying to give 100% of the credit to Capitalism lol, maybe in Scandinavia their Capitalism is still Socialist compared to our Capitalism which would explain where your false notions come from.

Hooray Sweden!!

 

I just find it very ridiculous that you can say that "they are not against the State" when your own quote says clearly that they advocate the elimination of the state.

There's can be no private state, for heaven's sake.. Do you even know what a state is? A state is a compulsory political organisation which has monopoly on the legitimate use of force within an area. If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you'd know that anarcho-capitalism follows the non-aggression principle and are thus morally opposed to the state, and that they believe the services of the state can be provided by private alternatives. i.e., they see the state as morally wrong and practically unnecessary. And if you know what a state is, you'd know that a state cannot exist without compulsion and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

In post #24 you wrote that "interfering with the economy is... ...very Socialist in nature, how do you not see this?" and you didn't at all make it clear you were only talking about certain kinds of intereferences. You were saying that interferences in the economy are very socialist in nature, and that was what I responded to.

I didn't say welfare is capitalist. I said it's not necessarily opposed to capitalism, and that is true. I've also said that welfare is socialist in a sense. No, I'm not trying to give 100% credit so capitalism. I am very open with that Sweden has a mixed economy, I'm just saying that it's very clearly on the capitalist side.

And our currency lost in value the day after the elections. Hooray indeed, what a bright future is ahead of us.

 

Ayn Rand - a hypocritical parasite.

 

Scandinavia does not have a collectivised economy. Ergo, they are not socialist.

 

Yeah, but let's not forget that even if the author is a hypocrite, that doesn't automatically disprove what he's written

 

You said giving money to the poor, which is wealth redistribution unless it appears out of thin air, is socialism. You also said giving money to the rich is fascism. Once again the money has to come from some where. So yes it is wealth redistribution. Apparently you have a double standard when it comes to robbing peter to pay paul

 

If Robin Hood stole from the poor and gave to the Rich he would not be seen as a hero, for good reason. This is a double standard that is good.

- - - Updated - - -

So welfare isnt Socialist? Free college and free healthcare are not socialist JUST because they dont have a collectivized economy? lol, what a load of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Still a double standard.

 

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but I will opine that the best economy this country ever experienced was during a time of very high taxes on the wealthy.

 

Nothing hypocritical about it to me.

I think its bad on principal, and when its my turn I will use it. If you allow me to take advantage of you, I won't hesitate to do it.

That is the position I take, and I believe Ayn Rand took that position as well.

- - - Updated - - -

So? She is still taking back what the government took from her by force... Not only that, she is taking advantage of millions of the people who support those kinds of benefits.

She had the last laugh.

 

Parasite or no, she still played you all.

 

While I have little sympathy for Ayn Rand, I don't have a problem with the use of state services up to the amount that has been stolen from you.

 

When was that?

 

1945-1970ish. Obviously, many other factors were at play. We had just won WWII, union density was high, we weren't engaging in endless quagmires in the ME, etc.

 

How do you figure taxes on the wealthy is even a factor at all? Less than 10% of all Federal Revenue originated from the Top 50% during that time period. Today, it's 97%.

The economy that you think was so great came off of the backs of the middle class and the working poor, not the wealthy.

 

For a self-proclaimed socialist you clearly don't know what socialism is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

Not as telling of a stat when you take into account what was going on at that time and the loopholes that allowed wealthy to escape that high tax rate.