Martin Hash.com

Trying to force bogus definitions on people in order to straw man and pigeon hole their arguments into unapplicable boxes is a leftist strategy. I prefer to focus on the facts. The fact is, libertarianism was synonomous with libertarian socialism for a very long time. There absolutely is nothing oxymoronic about the term, and arguing as such doesn't help anybody understand the world and its problem, much less do anything towards criticizing actual libertarian socialism.

You are literally beating away at a straw man here when it's hardly even necessary. It's not difficult to honestly criticize libertarian socialism. People have been doing it for more than a hundred years now, after all..

The shit you are criticizing is shit that libertarians socialists oppose too. Maybe focus on the stupid shit they support instead?

Jesus fucking Christ, don't you ever shut up?

Martin Hash wrote:

ssu wrote:Leftist liberitarianism surely exist.

So do unicorns.

p.s. Saying something is so when it isn't is almost lying, and people calling themselves something they aren't, certainly is.

Seems you have your definition of liberalism/libertarianism or simply you don't know left-libertarians.

Perhaps you would know them better as the Bleeding-Heart libertarians?

So check this site of those you think don't exist:

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/about-us/

They do exist. Get on with it.

This is a thread about using linguistics in politics. While you guys are doing your autistic noodling, I'll be putting my counter linguistically efforts into practice. But go ahead, keep on prattling about nothing while I'm busy.

Alright Hash, what term would you use for the ideas that people associate with libertarian socialism/left libertarian? 'Non-coercive cooperative ownership of productive capital' is a little clunky for discussion.

Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Alright Hash, what term would you use for the ideas that people associate with libertarian socialism/left libertarian? 'Non-coercive cooperative ownership of productive capital' is a little clunky for discussion.

Personally I would go for Anarchism or Syndicalism. Those are the main versions of Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism is a valid term but it is confusing and very broad. Better to specify more.

Noam Chomsky gets credit for being the best linguist alive; unfortunately, he's on the other side. As the premiere linguist, the guy really knows how to pick the ground for his battles: "Libertarian Socialism" being a doozy. That's tough terrain to attack, and easy to defend, as exhibited in this thread. Use that term and Liberty Nation scatters like rats because no one has the courage to confront the Language Police.

It's easy to defend because it's an historical fact. It has nothing to do with Chomsky. Libertarian socialism goes back to the 19th century, as has been explained to you by multiple people.

Speaker to Animals wrote:It's easy to defend because it's an historical fact. It has nothing to do with Chomsky. Libertarian socialism goes back to the 19th century, as has been explained to you by multiple people.

Autism much?

That's the point knucklehead, as long as Chomsky gets to control the narrative by strategically chosen language, he wins. But you keep throwing your weight behind him, you're going to be living in a cave with your guns.

Using the arguments & counter-arguments from this thread, I debated in the "Libertarian Left" thread on the "Libertarian" FB page & kicked fuckin' ass. Thanks guys.