Libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron

Brief History of the term Libertarian The first known and recorded instance where the term libertarian was used to describe someone’s political views was in 1857 in a letter from Joseph Dejacque to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. In it, Dejacque calls himself a “libertaire” which in French translates to Libertarian. [3] [1 Joseph dejacque, in modern terms, would have been an anarcho-communist[4], thus libertarian, at this time, was synonymous with left-wing terminology. Libertarian socialist would not have been considered an oxymoron at this time. It was not until the the 1970s, over 100 years later, that libertarian began to even be used for right-wing politics, when the libertarian party was formed in the United States[5] Brief history of the term socialism I’ll keep this one short, but all the way from Upton Sinclair in the early 1900s, to today, socialism has constantly been recognized as an economic system in which the means of production is democratically or socially controlled[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. It seems the definition has never been changed to apply to different ideologies other than that of those on the left, whereas libertarian has had a change in whether it is applied to those on the left or right. Etymology of the term libertarian: Libertarian comes from the root french word “liberte” meaning liberty, and derives from the original meaning in 1789 meaning "one who holds the doctrine of free will". Socialism is about free will, consent, and other libertarian principles. Since socialism is the democratic control of the means of production, it should be a no brainer that it is about consent and free will. For some reason, people view economics differently than government in this regard, and it doesn’t make any sense to do so. We all agree that more liberty exists in a democracy or a republic, than say, a monarchy, oligarchy, military dictatorship etc. However, it is not agreed upon that applying democratic rule to economics promotes more liberty, which the logic follows that it should. For example, under capitalism, the people in positions of power and authority are business owners. No one consented to them being in power, so this alone limits liberty. It’s further limited when the business owners are the ones, who, under this system, are the ones who decide whether you get to provide for yourself. This gives them an advantage: for they can demand unreasonable conditions from workers in order to be paid, which the workers have to comply or else be fired or not hired to begin with. Thus, they lose their livelihood. Socialism makes it that the means of production is democratically controlled, and applies a level of consent not present in capitalism. Consent is key to liberty, thus socialism promotes liberty in this regard. Now, there are some instances of socialism where democratic control of the means of production does not take place, and instead, state-ownership of the means of production does. It would, in fact, be an oxymoron to put that form of socialism after the term libertarian, but to prove that libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron, only one definition of socialism needs to be able to be put with libertarian, and when the means of production is democratically-controlled, it seems it fits well with the ideals of libertarianism. Socialism provides a new level of consent, gives you a say over what a business does where you previously didn’t really have direct control over it, etc. Rebuttals against potential arguments against libertarian socialism: 1) a) Since socialism, in order to be implemented, has to violate the non-aggression principle, it is not libertarian and is the opposite of libertarianism. The problem with this argument, is that the NAP allows aggression to be used in order to protect liberty and rights. It is generally a right, under libertarianism, to be allowed to consent to who is in a position of power or authority(otherwise they are illegitimate positions of power/authority), and right-wing economic systems do not give you direct consent over who is in positions of power or authority(the business owners, again, are in positions of power and authority). Thus, a right is violated under these economic systems, and using aggression to protect the right of consent, is thus justified. b) But right-wing economic systems do allow you to consent to who is in authority, you choose who you work for. The problem with this counter-rebuttal to the points I made in 1a, is that you don't consent to every business owner, you only consent to your own business owner. In addition, I would argue you don't even do that, but either way, you only choose which business owner you work for, not which business owners are out there. Other business owners are positions of authority and power over you, even if you don't work for them. They get to take up space and property which you could have bought, they get to advertize to you without your consent, they can make business decisions that poorly affect your company without consent, etc. Now, I'll explain how you don't consent to even one's own business owner either: a person, under a right-wing economic system, generally has two options: be the employer or the employee. If you do anything else, you're not a part of the right-wing economic system, by definition. Now, not everyone can be an employer, for if everyone was, there would be no employees amd nothing would get done, thus some people are forced to be employees. Since you need to work in order to survive, people's level of consent is damaged because it's either they work for someone or die of starvation. Since it often takes tens and tens of applications to even get an interview in today's world, your level of consent is damaged since you're inclined to put up with a terrible employer since they may have been the only one who decided to interview you and give you a job. You may have no other choice but to be with a bad employer, and you didn't fully consent to be under that employer. Additionally, the fact that a vast majority of bosses and employers out there have been tested to be disengaged or not engaged in their work, and most don't have much talent[14] , shows that it's hard for workers to consent to who have authority over them. Since majority are this way, workers don't really have any choice but to put up with their awful boss, as chances are really low that one will get a decent employer. As stated before, workers are having to put up with their awful employer because there's no guarantee they will get a job at a better place, as it takes many applications before one gets a job, and people will be inclined to settle for something less than what they normally would consent to. I believe I've made sufficient arguments, and turn this over to my opponent Sources: [3] http://joseph.dejacque.free.fr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.freecolorado.com... [6] Sinclair, Upton (1918-01-01). Upton Sinclair's: A Monthly Magazine: for Social Justice, by Peaceful Means If Possible. [7] Nove, Alec. "Socialism". New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008). [8] Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (July 23, 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53. [9] N. Scott Arnold. The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism : A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. 1998. p. 8 [10] Busky, Donald F. (20 July 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. [11]Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). [12] Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). [13]Brus, Wlodzimierz (5 November 2015). The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 87.[13] Michie, Jonathan (1 January 2001). Readers Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 1516. [14] http://www.gallup.com...