I took some time to consider your use of the term socialist. I can understand your point, you’re being very literal and talking about socialism as any government program, basically.

Are you saying you’re an anarchist, Tory? Is there any level, type, shape or form of government service you would agree with?

Or am I mistaking part of your view on socialism? I’m assuming you use the term derogatorily. But maybe you’re just being very precise and particular, not necessarily negative. So if that’s the case, I would change my question to ask,

is there any type, form, shape or level of socialism you find acceptable?

I’m always curious as to how the more anarchic libertarians can account for the redress of personal injury. Let’s assume Tory’s Anarchic Society is our mutually agreed system.

Now what happens if I go drive my 4WD truck all over your property, ripping it up? And then afterward, I turn the truck into a giant molotov cocktail and ignite it, burning down the structures on your land. When I finish those two things, I kill all your animals and your children too.

How does Tory’s Anarchic Society handle the redress of all that havoc, death and destruction I’ve wreaked upon your land, your property and your family?

Hypothetical No. 2

Instead of turf-jobbing your land, I simply enter your structures and take everything that looks valuable. I “rape” your beautiful 18 year old daughter (quotation marks because that’s what you’re going to call it, but if you asked her the truth would be 180 deg opposite), and turn YOUR vehicle into a molotov cocktail.

How’s that one redressed?

Hypthetical No. 3

I just hacked into your bank’s and your financial advisor’s computer and stole all of your assets that can be liquidated.

How is that going to be redressed?

Tastier and healthier than the farm-bred version, too!

People have graduated from Georgetown law school and then advocate socialism and disregard for the Bill of Rights.

America’s socialists (liberals, democrats) believe that as long as they don’t murder citizens who oppose their views then socialism is acceptable. Their tactic to force us to conform is jail or the threat of jail (they know murder is socially unacceptable and contrary to their views on gun control.) This is one of the reasons I accuse conservatives of being socialists too. Conservatives are always defending police power. Police are some of the worst Americans. Society needs a police force to maintain law and order.

I’m not motivated enough to debate any socialist (unless you’re a pig) ; most cannot be reasoned with anyway. You should try to engage people who do want to debate with you (not me.) Socialists are not logical - they are liars, con artists and plunderers. Hitler is the most famous one.

You actually believe that because you hold volumes of knowledge on economics or philosophy it makes you right. Or that somehow you can prove that your theory of how we should exist is the right one. I’m a constitutionalist - that’s all.

I am a rational and sensible person - not because of how I’m perceived by others (such as yourself) but because of my own judgement on who and or what I am. You don’t like me labeling you or Richard Durbin a socialist (too bad); you go to your church, I’ll go to mine.

Atheist

I don’t really understand Tory’s position, other than to gleefully deride his “enemies” with derogatory labels like “socialist.”

Tory, if you haven’t any logic to your position, how then do you actually hold and defend that position? Your posts seem to say, in a Bill Clinton-esque way, “it is what I say it is.”

“Liberal” is not a name for a socialist among any people I know, Tory.

So you use the terms “liberal” and “socialst” way too broadly, in view of my experience.

As I said, “liberal” perspective may be discerned from reading JS Mill’s “On Liberty,” not by examining the hypocrisy of Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

And you still haven’t explained what is “socialism,” Tory — other than to say you hate it, you would destroy it, or whatever that antipathy is trying to convey. I hope that you’re more rational and sensible in person!

We are all hypocrites - sooner or later we (I) will hypocrate. And none of us libertarians are all the same.

Liberal is a politically correct name for a socialist. But, I’ll call you a democrat (if you go by that) as long as you are not for “common sense gun laws.”
Once you want common sense restrictions on gun possession then I’m calling you a socialist (Hitler was a socialist and a gun basher.) He helped murder millions of people and destroyed everything he touched. Respect the 2nd amendment.

There seem to be a number of issues involved in the question. An easy one is that I’m willing to believe that anyone who self-identifies as a socialist is quite likely one, unlike many self-identified “libertarians” for whom it’s only a trendy label.

Setting aside the question as to whether the label is even an important concern (labels are frequently just crutches for lazy minds) there’s still the problem of just “what is a socialist?” I would offer a slightly different definition than yours, that being “someone who accepts and advances the tenets of socialism.” Lest I be accused of using a word to define itself, I’d also add that I’d define socialism as Wikipedia does: “Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective action and to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.”

In simpler terms, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so long as the many agree on it.” Other, less savory descriptive terms, would include “tyranny of the majority,” “mob rule,” and “democracy.” If the community wants it, the community gets it. While I am sure that many in that community mean well, there is also no real “help” component there. The community decides what is best for everything and everybody.

Put that way, I am not sure how any aspect of socialism is compatible with a true libertarian mindset/way of life. One of the essentials of libertarianism, besides the non-aggression principle, is an acceptance of the right of private property and freedom to contract. Socialism, by its very nature, must take away - or at best limit - those freedoms in order for the “whole” to allegedly prosper.

I agree that there is a question as to what the necessary minima of government are, and that’s not something that libertarians alone struggle with. In my case, as a bored certified anarcho-capitalist (though I prefer one socialist professor of mine’s perjorative - “privateer” - as being much more catchy) I agree fully with the adage that “that government is best which governs least.” Since you can’t get more least than “zero,” then the ideal is obviously “none.” I would also submit that any time Thomas Jefferson is in full agreement with Lao Tzu (Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking. Tao60), there’s grounds to believe a natural law has been discovered.

Now, as one of the inestimable masters of the Tao, Brian Wilson, says, “Don’t let the perfect kill the good.” While the ideal may be zero government there is at least arguably “some” government that would be acceptable to a privateer such as myself, much as there can be *some* crap in the water I’m drinking and, while I may not like it, I know it won’t kill me - though the more there is the sicker I’ll be.

From my point of view a minimally crap government would coordinate some national defense (working with local militias to do so), handle foreign relations (provide an official looking passport to wave at other nations), and maybe be a court system of last resort. Oh, and maybe one other agency with a bit of teeth whose purpose was to haul those who violate the non-aggression principle out into the streets and hang them by the neck until dead.

It’s more crap than I’d want to take, but a government set up under a strict construction of the current Constitution, after a quick dumping of all those Progressive Era amendments. Probably I could live with that.

Beyond that (and even at that last), I think you’re getting into more crap than any serious libertarian would want to find in his water.

In summary, before I drag the discussion to death, I’d say that libertarian/socialist are actually endpoints on a continuum. It may be somewhat simple or even misleading to stick a label of X on a person, particularly if that person’s actions are no way resembling the characteristics of X. Labels can be useful shorthand, but we need to be careful not to let the label blind us to the reality - or worse, let it be nothing more than an epithet.

I can tolerate limited socialism; am not opposed to paying taxes. Pre-empted war and Interventionism are examples of unlimited govt (Leviathan).

Folks who lean toward libertarianism seem inable to agree on what are the necessary minima of government.

However, they tend to agree that anything beyond that minimal govt is socialism.

SO, obviously we need some sort of test for what are the necessary minima of government.

I’d have more fun if I sat back and took potshots at “socialists,” but I am not sure that we’re loaded down with a lot of dawdling, meandering time right now. The country is down in the 6-feet-deep hole, and Mr Bush’s gang are tossing dirt on top of the coffin.

This ain’t some Perils of Pauline silent reel. This is serious.

Anodes are made of zinc, or magnesium, or aluminum. The very first ones were zinc; so we always called anodes ‘zincs’. But today, most are either one of the three. But don’t try and refer to them as ‘zincs’ anymore because any one of the three could be in use. Now they’re called anodes.

Remember zerox ? You don’t zerox anything anymore - today you copy it.

There is no such thing as an honest socialist - they’re all liars.

Etc.