The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.
Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.
Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian.
They are general philosophies.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”.
It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets.
“Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often.
What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to?
Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties?
If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided.
Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue.
You don’t speak for all socialists.
Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
See above.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
One of the lowest ever recorded Gina was for urban China in the late 1970’s, with a figure of around 0.11. Czechoslovakia also recorded a Gini of 0.17 in the 1980’s.
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights.
Was answered with
What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
and counterexample of liberal socialism.
And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property.
Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition.
I already wrote about “personal property” & "means of production”.
Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[1], yet people have private property rights.
Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn’t prohibit the right to have property.
fucking Proudhon
Don’t know, not critical to the argument.
The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn’t an economic philosophy.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
China at least is fucking big
That doesn’t explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing.
All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions.
Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don’t need it.
social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right
Again
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.
Lapses from a philosophy don’t inform us about the propositions of that philosophy.
Are liberalism & socialism consistent together?
Philosophies combining both exist.
Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?
those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess ↩︎
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
It’s that they’re not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.
Locke is often credited for describing private property as a natural right,
If you’re not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can’t call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can’t have liberalism without freedom of religion.
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”. It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. “Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue. You don’t speak for all socialists.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
See above.
First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.
Was answered with
and counterexample of liberal socialism.
Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition. I already wrote about “personal property” & "means of production”.
Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[1], yet people have private property rights. Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn’t prohibit the right to have property.
Don’t know, not critical to the argument. The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn’t an economic philosophy.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
That doesn’t explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing. All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions. Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don’t need it.
Again
Lapses from a philosophy don’t inform us about the propositions of that philosophy. Are liberalism & socialism consistent together? Philosophies combining both exist.
Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?
those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess ↩︎
It’s that they’re not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.
If you’re not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can’t call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can’t have liberalism without freedom of religion.