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.
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.