Same here Kingturtle, thank you for your welcoming message!
I am a bit puzzled by your profile though. You seem to be at the Ghandi dot whereas I am at the Friedman dot. Wiki states libertarian socialists aim to distribute power more equally amongst members of society to create more freedom for the individual. If this is done by abolishing government its okay by me. But if it’s done by abolishing the free market, as many socialists would like to, it must be a major misunderstanding.
When private property is taken away by force and given to others who have done nothing to earn it, as is the case in many welfare state, there is nothing libertarian (i.e. no force, no fraud) about it. And believe me I know what I am talking about as I live in Holland (EU). Next to Sweden, the nanny state par example. Thus the phrase ‘libertarian socialist’ is a contradictio in terminis.
In other words: there can be no such thing as a libertarian socialist. Hence the political compass may be incorrect. To see where you really stand, I would advise you to use 'The world’s smallest political quiz'
Good luck and please let me know the result !
Cheers, Peter
PS Have you ever considered a society where everyone is free to politically associate WITHOUT imposing ones ideas on others by means of majority rule ? As a matter of fact this is a rather old idea. Belgian political economist Paul Emile de Puydt (1810-1888) came up with it in July 1860.
De Puydt advocates freedom of choice for government, or no government at all, and free competition between governments. When you’re a socialist, communist, fascist, liberal, democrat, monarchist or whatever, you should be free to choose your system of government, or no government at all if you’re an anarchist or libertarian, without having to move to another country. Or as De Puydt puts it: “no need to give up either national traditions or family ties, no need to learn to think in a new language, no need at all to cross rivers or seas, carrying the bones of one's ancestors.”
This idea of total political freedom is less odd than it may seem. After all, there are many large private associations (like the AAA) that people can join voluntarily to benefit from their services. And they don’t necessarily have to move when they join ! The important thing is that those who are not interested are not forced to join. That is genuine freedom.
“Each generation is like a new tenant who, before moving in, changes things around, cleans up the facade, and adds or pulls down an annex, according to his own needs. From time to time some generation more vigorous or short-sighted than its predecessors, pulls down the whole building, sleeping-out in the open until it is rebuilt. When, after a thousand privations and with enormous efforts, they have managed to rebuild it to a new plan, they are crestfallen to find it is not much more comfortable than the old one. It is true that those who drew up the plans are set up in good apartments, well situated, warm in winter and cool in summer; but the others, who had no choice, are relegated to the garrets, the basements or the lofts.
So there are always enough dissenters and trouble makers, of whom some miss the old building, whilst some of the more enterprising already dream of another demolition. For the few who are satisfied there is an innumerable mass of objectors. We must remember however that a few are satisfied. The new edifice is indeed not faultless, but it has some advantages; why pull it down tomorrow, later, indeed ever, as long as it shelters enough tenants to keep it going?
I myself detest the wreckers as much as the tyrants. If you feel your apartment is inadequate or too small or unhealthy, then change it - that is all I ask. Choose another place, move out quietly; but for heaven's sake don't blow up the whole house as you go. What you found unsuitable might delight your neighbour.”
“My panacea, if you will allow this term, is simply free competition in the business of government. Everyone has the right to look after his own welfare as he sees it and to obtain security under his own conditions. On the other hand, this means progress through contest between governments forced to compete for followers. True worldwide liberty is that which is not forced upon anyone, being to each just what he wants of it; it neither suppresses nor deceives, and is always subject to a right of appeal. To bring about such a liberty, there would be no need to give up either national traditions or family ties, no need to learn to think in a new language, no need at all to cross rivers or seas, carrying the bones of one's ancestors.
It is simply a matter of declaration before one's local political commission, for one to move from republic to monarchy, from representative government to autocracy, from oligarchy to democracy, or even to Mr. Proudhon's anarchy - without so much as removing one's dressing gown or slippers.”
Source: Panarchy