What are some benefits and detriments of a libertarian socialist society?

Coupon Binder

My head hurts trying to put my brain around this. But if I’m correct, I think Europe is very close to this model. They have limited gov’t intervention when it comes to social issues; but are often responisble for the finances of the people. However, I suppose, it would be impossible because libertarians believe in limited gov’t and low taxes. Socialism would inquire a larger tax on individuals?

Marketing Strategies

benefits are short lived because dollar value falls followed by all the socal programs which would run out of money Socalism never has never will work

Marketing Strategies

Benefit – we collectively join together in the uplifting of all people
Benefit – we live everyone’s private life alone.

Detriment – come on, that’s two things no american would ever do
Detriment – even if they did, part of every human is inherently evil and it would fail on the personal level
Detriment – Friedman and von Hayek both argue you can’t fight for economic equality. Keynes would probably point out there is no growth.

Marketing Strategies

The detriments of it are that its beliefs completely contradict one another. You can’t force people to give their money to socialist causes and still be a libertarian society. If all the money were donated or voluntarily given, and all things were voluntarily distributed equally, then it would be a libertarian society, but once force is used to distribute things it isn’t libertarian, its just socialist.

Coupon Organizer

Not only does the title contradict itself – but the definition of “Libertarian Socialism” as found on Wikipedia contradicts itself as well.

For example, take the following citation from Wikipedia:

“Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers’ councils, municipalities, citizens’ assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.”

Trade Unions are “non-bureaucratic?” Puh-lease!
Municipalities are simply smaller government bodies that are not only bureaucratic but they are no more “democratic” than the US government. (Please review the definition of democracy – the US for of Government is a Republic.)

Anything approaching “Libertarian Socialism” would be a very bad place to live – another citation:

“This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole.”

So – as an individual – you can’t own a “means of production.” This is certainly Socialist – but hardly Libertarian.

As for “Equality and freedom” – remember this fact first and always: The government can’t GIVE anything to anybody (the have-nots) until it first TAKES those things from somebody else. (the haves)

So – to answer this question – I would say:
Positives – this form of “society” can only exist on paper – or in a deluded mind – so I guess it can be a perfect existence for that fantasy mind.
Negatives – you’d be very lonely living in your fantasy world all alone.

I do want to thank the asker though – if what he says is true – I guess I have no need to read anything by Chomsky.