RE: Is Left-Wing Libertarianism Viable?
they always talk about how evil corporations are and just want to regulate them through the Government. So essentially feeding the Government from power taken away from corporations.
Who the fuck do you think is left-libertarian that promotes regulations? It's literally a mass-chanting of "death to the state" 24/7.
They never put out concrete plans how a voluntary society will be "equal", without using force.
You simply smash the fuck out of the state and the seize what's rightfully yours from the state/elite, then you resign to fully democratic decisions on a local level.
There'd be no legal system as if you did wrong you'd be, most likely according to the community, thrown in a cell while you petition other communities to accept you, if nobody would you'd be given the choice of the communities punishment or going into a "openland" where no community currently occupies.
If you don't like something you can leave or segregate yourself from the community, but as you'd soon find out, short of maybe one or two communities, you have nobody to bully and exploit and the community may do so to you if so desired as that's capitalism.
No force is needed :)
Oh you are earning 1,000,000$ a year, why don't you just share that with the community at the point of a barrel of a gun?
If this wealth was generated before the switch, in the capitalist highly-exploited world we live in today, yes.
That value was likely stolen from the people they enslaved without consent, and thus the NAP is violated, and thus we will use any force required to return the rightful wealth to the populace.
Chomsky does it for once, and he is pretty big figure in the left- anarchist circles. Even in the 2008 crisis he called for regulating the banks. And then every time some issue comes up when some corporation got out of line he always says that the government should be regulating them, because in his mind a corporation is a "private tyranny", but he says that the Government at least can be "influenced" by the public.
Which is totally false. Corporations can be better influenced by the public than governments.
I am not sure if that system would be good. Minorities could be easily abused this way. Racism, xenophobia, or other kind of minority hatred could easily prevail in such "strong" communities.
I would not agree to that. It's one thing if they go after the bankers who have been fixing the gold and silver markets gaining trillion $ profits.
And it's another thing if they go after a mom&pop business that got rich from some good innovation.
Besides if you just start hunting down people that
youthink are immoral, then that can turn into savagery pretty quickly.At least they should get an open and free trial, but even then, this could turn into Bolshevism, and we know that 30,000,000 peasants were butchered then.
So I would definitely disagree with this method.
That's only because the corporations are the government, and thus when you mess with the government nothing gets done as there is a filter, a proxy, an excuse, for it not to be done.
In regards to regulations, I thought you were talking about as a goal. Are you genuinely advocating for us to not regulate banks whatsoever? To simply let them burn everybody's money and do their nasty artificial money-creating scheme between each other?
Sorry but the market is them, things will just crash and burn.
And in other communities the'd accept minorities no issue and such oppressive communities would likely be economically suffocated.
If someone innovated and provided value they likely aren't to be killed or their things damaged.
If all they did was enslave others and trade magical non-existent spooks called stocks, then they didn't provide value but merely stole it, so it'll probably be re-possessed.
It's not who I think is immoral, it's who violated the NAP by definition.
And what would happen there?
"Did you or did you not trade stocks and bonds?"
"Did you or did you not pay thousands of workers no more than the minimum for them to live while making millions of dollars off their labor with threat of death if they didn't comply?"
There's no purpose in that, and as I said nobody would be particularly lynched unless they provided resistance. If someone steals your property and when you try to retrieve it they again commit violence you're authorized to kill them if need be by the NAP if your in danger.