Libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron

While socialism may have some values, primarily in the realm of social control, in common with libertarian principles, the differences in the two are sufficiently different to render them incompatible. The guiding philosophies of socialism and libertarianism are markedly dissimilar, and the specific policy goals that each pursues in order to advance its principles are even more so. First of all, socialist and libertarian policy goals are quite different. I will primarily be using the Liberian and Socialist parties of the United States for my argument, as they exemplify basic socialist and libertarian principles fairly well, and provide specific examples of policy goals. The Libertarian party platform places individual liberty as its central guiding principle, especially in economics. The freedom to own and manage one"s own property is seen as one of the most basic human rights, and should not be infringed upon in any way by the government. In order to protect this right, the Libertarian party platform opposes any government regulation of business or property, such as production mandates, price control (including wage and interest), eminent domain, and civil asset forfeiture. Libertarians are some of the strongest advocates of free market capitalism in American government today. Insurance companies, schools, and banks should be privately owned and not regulated by the federal government. Health care and retirement security should also be private, free of government interference. [2] The Socialist party calls for many policy implementations that are in direct opposition to these goals. A mandatory minimum wage, a steeply graduated income and estate tax, and caps on income all violate the libertarian principle of laissez-faire economics and the borderline sanctity that libertarianism ascribes to private property. [1] Whereas the Libertarian party platform states that welfare should be left to private organizations such as churches and charity organizations [2], the Socialist party platform calls for an expansion of government-sponsored welfare assistance and unemployment compensation. Education is to be publicly funded, as is health care, and government care for seniors and retired people is to be expanded.[1] With so many differences between the two parties, it is unlikely that their core principles and respective views of the role of government are compatible. With such dissimilar means, they cannot possibly working towards the same end. Socialism and consent. Second is the issue of consent. My opponent claims that both libertarianism and socialism are all about free will and consent, and they are half right. Libertarianism upholds the right to any and all voluntary relations among individuals or groups of individuals through the free market. [2] My opponent claims that the free market system inherently impedes on individual liberty because no one consents to business owners being in power. This is a fallacy. Consumers and workers decide who is in power. The ability to spend capital, which is the driving force in the market economy, lies with consumers. Labor is a limited resource, and as such, workers have a surprising amount of power. If a company does not provide a service that people want, or at a price that people are willing to pay, they must change to please consumers or go out of business. If a business wants good workers, it must pay competitive wages. If workers feel they are being treated unfairly they can form a union, strike, or look for a better job. Let me propose the following thought experiment to illustrate. Imagine a society with 100 people, where each person gets $50. One of these citizens writes a book that, for some reason, everybody wants. So much do they want this book, in fact, that they will each be willing to exchange $5 for a copy of their own. Now the author has received nearly $500, while the rest of the population has $45. Because her first book was profitable, she will likely write another, and the inequality will only increase. The author is in a position of power over the rest of the society, but she is in such a place because other people consented to give her something she wants ($5) in exchange for something they want (a copy of the book). No one"s freedom was violated. [4] But what if the majority of the society decides that this is not fair, and decide to take her money and redistribute it? Now whose freedom has been violated? Or suppose that they decide to take away her right to sell her book and say that she must now write for free. Likely, the author will simply not write any more. Now her freedom has been violated because she cannot receive fair compensation for her product. The rest of society is also hurt, because now no one gets to read this author"s work, even though they would have freely given up something of their own for the chance to do so. Consensual, voluntary business relations are central to the libertarian rationale, but, as I will now demonstrate, they are not nearly so important to socialists. Democratically controlling the means of production is actually contrary to libertarian principles, as it is incompatible with individual freedom. It is for this reason that the United States is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Our government is designed for the very purpose of protecting the public from the tumultuous effects of direct democracy. When every person is directly responsible for major government (in this case economic) decisions, the majority can easily disregard the rights of the minority. My opponent claims that democratic ownership of corporations introduces an element of consent that is not present in a capitalist economy. There may be an element of consent for the majority opinion, but the dissenting voters are disregarded. As James Madison says in the Federalist #10, "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." [5] Seizing the means of production, whether by force or by majority vote, would necessarily involve taking what one person or group of people owns, and dividing it among a large group. This violates the right to own property, a pillar of libertarian thought. Theft is theft, whether one person or many is doing the taking. [4] This sort of oppression is exactly what libertarians fear, and is at the center of the limited-government philosophy that defines libertarianism, as expressed in the Libertarian statement of principles. Libertarians believe that no one has a right to dictate what another person does, either in personal matters or in business ventures, saying, "the only [economic system] compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market." [2] My opponent claims that a capitalist economy is not free, because even if one chooses which business owner to work for, one has no control over which business owners are out there. This statement is absolutely correct, and actually bolsters my argument, while weakening theirs. While libertarians support the right to consent in individual business relations " i.e., I can voluntarily spend my money wherever I please " such relations do not need the consent of anyone except the parties involved. An individual does not need the consent of another person to own money and use it as he or she pleases, and a business owner does not need the consent of the majority of society to run their company as he or she sees fit. Libertarians believe that everyone has a right to freely and voluntary offer goods and services on the market. [3] Therefore, collective ownership, and the very idea that a majority of the populace can dictate the business ventures of another member of society, is fundamentally contradictory to libertarian principles. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the main points of my argument. First of all, libertarian and socialist policy goals are vastly different. Second, socialist policy goals violate the right to conduct consensual business relations, a core libertarian principle. Finally, collective, or democratic, ownership of the means of production is so contradictory to libertarianism as to render the two incompatible. I therefore affirm that socialism and libertarianism are sufficiently opposite ideas that "libertarian socialism" should be considered an oxymoron. [1] "Platform." Socialist Party USA. 2015. Web. http://socialistparty-usa.net... [2] "Platform" Libertarian Party. Libertarian National Committee, Inc, 2016. Web. https://www.lp.org... [3] "The Economy." Libertarian Party. Libertarian National Committee, Inc, 2016 https://www.lp.org... [4] D"Souza, Dinesh. Stealing America. HarperCollins Publishers, 2015. Pp 70, 139-140. [5] Madison, James. The Federalist #10. Constitution Society, 1998. Web. http://www.constitution.org...