“you realize Smith was a Libertarian Socialist, right” I’d put my life savings on this guy being a Chomsky-drone. Chomsky makes the exact same asinine assertion.
the whole libertarian-socialist makes zero sense to me. Let’s pretend for a second that he’s referring to ‘socialist’ as the economic and not the political/governmental version because the governmental version would instantly clash with the ‘libertarian’ ideals.
Let’s also pretend that the economic form of ‘socialism’ he refers to is the variety where citizens and not the state own all property because the latter would, again, clash with the views of the ‘libertarian’.
Still, this political label makes zero sense. It is an oxymoron since even a non-state version of ‘socialism’ would require that there be no private ownership of property or profits and ‘libertarianism’ promotes the protection and ownership of private property.
These two things clash at their very core.
Anyway, it’s always fun seeing how silly some people are. I like to hold the view that, for the most part, people aren’t right or wrong so long as they are consistent in their philosophy and application, but sometimes people leave me in a state of doubt in my own philosophy.
Anonymous asked: I know you're what Americans call "libertarian," so when I see you promote wealth of nations, I am confused... you realize Smith was a Libertarian Socialist, right? He condemns free markets left and right in "Wealth of Nations," and I'm guessing you've never read it?
I guess you can call me a libertarian. I’m a market anarchist or an AnCap or an anarchist or a marketist or a voluntaryist or whatever. To make it easy on you, I don’t believe in the justification of government force.
Why did I post a link “promoting” Wealth of Nations? Because it’s a profound piece of writing, not just for economics, but for government, politics and society as a whole. Even if I completely disagreed with it, I’d still link people to it so that they can read it.
I have copies of Marx and Upton Sinclair in my personal library, not because I’m a communist or a socialist or even because I believe there is some merit to those theories, because I think they are complete bunk. But I’ve read them because it’s important to read them and understand them if I’m going to discredit them and promote my own theories. What point is there in limiting yourself to only reading and studying those works which align with your theories. Confirmation bias much?
Yes, I’ve read Wealth of Nations (Ironically, it wasn’t a voluntary decision at the time) and, no, he does no condemn free markets. If that was your takeaway from The Wealth of Nations, I strongly encourage you to reread it (or actually read it for the first time).
As for Adam Smith being a “socialist”, I’m guessing you derived that idea from reading ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’? Or did you come to that conclusion because Smith talked about how earners should pay back to society (which I think many people misunderstand this to mean pay more taxes).
And if you’re as confused and as misguided as this message makes you out to be and as lazy as I suspect you are, you can bypass the 1,000 pages of reading and have P.J. O’Rourke read the book for you:
Part I: http://youtu.be/TWu_1qrwf3E
Part II: http://youtu.be/e7fG6XdDFDU
Thanks for playing,
Just got an anon inbox message that says Adam Smith was a libertarian-socialist and he condemned “Free Markets”.
I chuckled for a long time.
First of all, a libertarian-socialist? Someone who believes in less government, private property and more freedom by having more government, less private property and less freedom? Explain!
Second, Smith “condemns free markets”? … This anon is either a bit “special” or they have the worst reading comprehension of all time.
Oh, and I was accused of never reading Wealth of Nations. The irony considering the message they sent.