Socialist intolerance vs. Liberal tolerance
Socialists and statists want you to do things THEIR way, liberals want you to do things YOUR way. From the always intriguing Johnny Munkhammar…
In a culture of consensus, like the one in Sweden, there is usually someone who turns up when people have a political or philosophical discussion and says: “Now, now, don′t fight, let him have his view and you can have yours and we can all be friends.” If I had had a euro for every time I have heard that when I have discussed something with a statist, collectivist or socialist - roughly the same thing - I could retire now.
But I don′t agree with it at all. Basically there is one major reason. As a classical liberal, my position is about letting anyone keep his or her view and lead his or her life. The problem is that the above socialist will never do the same back. He or she wants to force me into socialism with the might of the majority; that is the essence of his or her belief. And I cannot accept people feeling they have the right to impose their kind of society on me, since I would never do the same.
To be more precise: I would never deny anyone to lead a socialist life. If they are a minority or a majority in the country doesn′t matter. If they want to give up their posessions and income to collective decisions, that is fine. Let them! They can hace an organisation for that. It can be called the state. But they will always deny me the right to lead a life in freedom, where I keep my posessions and income. They feel they have the right to force me into their society.
So what happens when a discussion between a socialist and a classical liberal ends with both respecting the other′s views? It ends with socialism winning. Their view is not limited to them. That is why opposition must not end and consensus is wrong.
Property owners at the moment only have rectricted ownership. That’s how the situation has evolved through times. Unfortunately the state was there intervening, but it’s history we can’t undo. They have never had a total ownership and in the public opinion they don’t deserve it. Now if we would just abolish state and move to a libertarian world, property owners would get more, as they would get a total ownership instead of the resctricted one they have now. And also those who don’t have property, would lose rights like Jokamiehenoikeus.
Who would have a total right to some property and why. After all, earlier they didn’t have it. It’s essentially theft. Surely that would cause major property disputes and riots.
But of course libertarianism is so important that practical problems shall not stop it.
Comment by Kekkonen — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
Who would have a total right to some property and why. After all, earlier they didn’t have it. It’s essentially theft.
How is it NOT theft now with the restricted property rights?
Comment by Phil — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 10:05 pm
Some generalization bull shit from side. Generally speaking, there is nothing in this world that is for the benefit of everyone. Every law or rule in the book, will result in exploitation and abuse of something or someone.
No person is ideal, no concept - socialism or liberalism or conservatism is perfect for everyone.
Like Chris Rock says - “Lets be conservative on crime and liberal on prostitution”
On Phil’s optinion that letting a peron have his/her opinion and lead his/her life would not work at all times. Homan beings are social animals and usually have their lives interwined. In other words, it is impossible for one person to cause zero effect on someone else.
Socialism is not as bad as Phil projects it to be. Socialism’s principles are collective living. And in situations like that, there is always a need for compromise by everyone for the collective benefit. It can also called as team work. But yes, there are some lazy bastards who take advantage of this situation and try to take maximum benefit and contribute nothing.
Comment by Jaggi — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
Wouldn’t it be truly liberal to let those who wish to impose their will on others do so?
Comment by Christian — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
Of course, these libertarian yahoos mostly want to have their cake and eat it too. They reap all the benefits of the welfare state, but bitch and whine and bawl like fucking babies when something (essentially, taxes) is expected of them in return.
I find it curious that they are so eager to stay in countries whose systems they so thoroughly despise. After all, the world is full of libertarian paradises with zero tax rates and the state not intervening with nasty socialist shit like laws and stuff.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
Wouldn’t it be truly liberal to let those who wish to impose their will on others do so?
Not when you’re trampling on the rights of others. That’s like saying that it would be truly liberal to allow murderers to murder.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 11:48 pm
Well, you could move to Somalia. But make it fast, the Somalis are apparently right this moment trying to stop the anarchy (which, of course, will lead to unfortunate unliberal results like property rights guaranted by a monopoly of violence).
The most interesting thing is, how can grown-up men believe in such unrealistic bulshit as anarcho-capitalism. Perhaps it’s a failure in the American schooling system?
Comment by Tomi — Fri, Dec 30th, 2005 @ 10:06 pm
This is bunkum. If you are not to have anarchy, then there must be some collective agreement between people to respect certain rights and so forth including property rights. This is a process of negotiation with everyone trying to get the agreement that best suits them.
Private property is an institution, it is not a natural existence. The distribution of private property as much as anything else requires a set of agreements and laws to be upheld between people. How it should be distributed is a question for debate.
The mistake libertarians generally make is in assuming that a market distribution of wealth protected by property rights is either natural or just. It is certainly not natural and only Robert Nozick has tried to argue it is just but his argument, as your commenter above noted, is based on an entirely implausible account of how we justly aquire property in the first place. This is not a left-wing view, you will find it impossible to find a first rate political philosopher who disagrees with it. Furthermore, since when did markets get moral status. To argue the market distribution of wealth is the correct or just one is simply a mistake. It’s totally arbitrary and we accept it because it is efficient. If it is more efficient or more just to tinker with it, so be it. All countries do this. The US takes something like 25% of GDP in tax, the UK 35% and Finland about 45%. This is a question of degree and not in the end a very large one.
What I’ve said here is political philosophy 101. That twits like Johnny Munkhammer still feel free to peddle tired arguments discredited decades ago is sad indeed. Still, who said you needed even a smattering of understanding to be a pundit.
Comment by jdsm — Sat, Dec 31st, 2005 @ 9:27 am
Surely that would cause major property disputes and riots.
Property disputes notwithstanding, part of welfare-statist ideology which so permeates the indoctrination process of the Finnish people is that if not for the statist imposition of regulations, riots and revolutionary upheaval would engulf all of society. This tenet is, of course, a harking back to Finland’s own civil war in 1918, which certainly was led on by the politicization of socialist ideals.
Yet it’s absurd to think that the conditions which led to the civil war exist today, in Finland or anywhere else in the developed world. Society in that part of the world has been pacified not so much by social contracts (there seems to be more strikes and upheavals in socialized countries rather than freer, pro-market countries), but by the material comforts that only open markets can provide.
Furthermore, since when did markets get moral status.
Markets never pretend (unlike welfare-statist socialists) to have moral status. Moral status is an unquantifiable value that has no value in the marketplace, unless it has a price tag. But what is interesting is that a Finn immediately assumes that morality is an important issue in economic thinking. It tends to point how far socialist morality is permeated by Christian, - especially Lutheran - thinking in Finland: and that is an indication of how religiously fundamentalist Finnish society tends to be, after all.
Mandatory tithing still goes on, but now it is done by the welfare state.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Jan 1st, 2006 @ 1:00 am
This tenet is, of course, a harking back to Finland’s own civil war in 1918 …
What a strange idea. The idea - and fact - that competition has to be regulated so that it will not lead to violence is not a Finnish invention. Pretty much every sane person knows it all around the world.
Comment by Tomi — Mon, Jan 2nd, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Finnpundit,
You miss the point about markets not having moral status. The Libertarian argument against taxation and other methods of redistribution from market outcomes is that it’s unfair or that it’s theft or some such. It’s based on the mistake that the market outcome is somehow natural or fair or just. Market outcomes are not natural at all. Markets are created and require huge interventions and compliance to exist. Almost no-one would argue they are fair or just, merely that they are efficient.
Arguing that socialists are peculiarly ideological on this issue is plain wrong. Socialists (of the Nordic stripe) understand that market outcomes are arbitrary. What they deny is that either a) They are maximally efficient or b) That efficiency is the only thing worth having. They think, for example, that quality of life is more important that raw economic wealth.
By the way, you ought to stay off the ad hominem arguments too. First you fail to understand an argument then you go on the make a bunch of false assumptions about your interlocutor. It’s always a better debate if you actually try to engage with the person you disagree with.
Comment by jdsm — Tue, Jan 3rd, 2006 @ 10:13 am
“How is it NOT theft now with the restricted property rights?”
Yeah yeah, you always attack back by saying it’s already unfair, but not explaining how YOUR ideas would not be unfair or even more unfair.
We have the restricted property rights now and the lands have been divided in the “isojako” and other thingys like they are. If you change the balance, your trampling with the rights of everyone.
“Not when you’re trampling on the rights of others.”
Says a guy who would exterminate common berry-picking rights of people, who’s families have had them for generations!
Hey, I don’t own the wide lands near my house, but my ancestry has picked berries there at least since the 18th century (I mean 1740 in Finnish).
I don’t see no justification for someone to ask money or even prohibit me from picking berries. Even if they have given some pieces of green paper for the someone/state to get the lands or exchanged numbers between some bank accounts.
If someone makes it happen by totalitariazing the land ownership, he is harshly trampling with the rights of other.
Comment by Donkey — Tue, Jan 17th, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
Interesting thought on that one. I think I heard something similar the other day on another board. I can’t remember where though.
Comment by Debt Programs — Wed, Mar 8th, 2006 @ 9:37 am
From Jehod: Christ, where are these places? Zero tax rates (or anything close), and liberty? Where? Name one!
I find it curious that they are so eager to stay in countries whose systems they so thoroughly despise. After all, the world is full of libertarian paradises with zero tax rates and the state not intervening with nasty socialist shit like laws and stuff.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
Comment by jehod — Thu, Oct 2nd, 2008 @ 7:53 pm