Why do we say in life, it is 12:15..when it is actually 11:75?

The United Nations is seen as the central world government. It has had it's problems but considering the challenges it has had to confront it is doing pretty well. There are currently a lot of very serious problems confronting the world these days as industry has held the responsibility of money over social and environmental responsibilities. It also appears that this money is also a driving political force in international relations. The diversity of cultural laws has also been providing some difficulty in the way international relations are achieved. I do respect this diversity as many different points of view are applied to complex issues. The START treaty was great news and hopefully China will get on board soon too.

So basically, can you see the UN becoming an open and transparent form of government with all the different powers keeping each other in check with quality peer review and accountability or do you see the UN falling under the spell of so many other governments where back door deals and kick backs determine the decisions that are made?

Do you think that anarchy/libertarian abolishing of all Federal government, and possible all government is possible?

Two questions, one against left-wing, one against the right, to be fair.

1. Do you believe socialist anarchism (or collectivist anarchy) is possible in real world? Isnt it a contradiction in itself? How can common property arise from private property environment (and maintain itsef) without some forcing agent (government)? If companies owned by all workers like shareholders are possible to arise and be better than privately owned companies in free environment, why havent they arisen in capitalist society and out-competed privately owned companies on the free market?
Doesnt socialism in its true definition (common ownership of all means of production) directly imply authoritarian government in some form?

2 Libertarianism / anarchocapitalism is centered around natural rights: People have the right to life, liberty and property. The first right is obviously most important, followed by second and third respectivelly. In your opinion, havent modern extremist libertarians wrongly elevated right to property and liberty above the right to live? (by fighting against even basic lifesaving welfare state, national healthcare, or for example critizing drunk driving laws and other sensible preventive laws which protect more important right to live, by infringing on the other two rights, in case when these can come into conflict).

Originally posted by Maslo

1. Do you believe socialist anarchism (or collectivist anarchy) is possible in real world?

I do believe that any form of society is possible but rather the question of “is it practical” would seem more efficient for this type of question.

Isnt it a contradiction in itself?

It is definitely not a contradiction for Social Anarchism especially when one understands the beginning of Anarchism which was tied to and grew up within the realm of Socialist thought of the 19th century. Until a final schism in 1872 these two ideologies were basically connected together such as Republicanism is with Liberalism.

How can common property arise from private property environment (and maintain itsef) without some forcing agent (government)?

This is why most Socialists/Anarchists call for a Revolution as there is no true way to shift between the two without massive and abrupt change. In order to maintain this public property however does not require a government but rather a society united for their cause so long as they have the majority of the people behind them. Alongside that the public would own most major factories/farms/offices so the ability for individuals to reclaim this property would be extremely difficult.

If companies owned by all workers like shareholders are possible to arise and be better than privately owned companies in free environment, why havent they arisen in capitalist society and out-competed privately owned companies on the free market?

Well there is no single unified answer to this question, if I was to take a guess it would be due to the fact that we do not and never have had a genuinely free market place without some form of interference on behalf of either the government or businesses. There are many public work places that do operate under the system you have described throughout Europe, heavily in Germany though. Where the workers backed by Unions basically run the company, albeit the company is under government control.

Doesnt socialism in its true definition (common ownership of all means of production) directly imply authoritarian government in some form?

Not necessarily as true Socialism advocates for the gradual abolition of the state altogether. The only true practices of philosophical Socialism occurred within Yugoslavia during the 1970’s. Otherwise it has largely been State Socialism which is an oxymoron when interpreting the correct definition of Socialism. That is like saying “Free slavery” or “poor rich”.

2 Libertarianism / anarchocapitalism is centered around natural rights: People have the right to life, liberty and property. The first right is obviously most important, followed by second and third respectivelly. In your opinion, havent modern extremist libertarians wrongly elevated right to property and liberty above the right to live?

Well this begins the argument of the two concepts of liberty; Negative and Positive. Negative liberty, which is used by Right-libertarian, holds the beliefs that restrictions on an individual’s liberty comes only from other individuals which can include the state, business, etc… Positive liberty, which is used by Social liberals, holds the beliefs that restrictions on an individual’s liberty comes from external sources such as Classicism, Sexism, and Racism.

So to answer that question depends on personal interpretation on your beliefs. To those who uphold negative liberty the right to life belongs only to the individual and so long as no one else interferes then their liberty is upheld. Those who believe in positive liberty may state that life belongs to the individual but it can only be free so long as they are removed from the shackles of their economic positions such as poverty.

(by fighting against even basic lifesaving welfare state, national healthcare, or for example critizing drunk driving laws and other sensible preventive laws which protect more important right to live, by infringing on the other two rights, in case when these can come into conflict).

Once again this returns to the argument of 'Positive Liberty' versus 'Negative Liberty'.