Privatised roads? XD

[Dimentio]

http://mises.org/story/3416

This make me wonder whether or not the author behind this article is a Revleft troll :lol:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Same weirdo who justifies slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block#Slave_contracts)
http://mises.org/images/sg/Block-sg.jpg

[Dimentio]

Same weirdo who justifies slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block#Slave_contracts)
http://mises.org/images/sg/Block-sg.jpg

I. Cannot. Really. Understand.

[Dr Mindbender]

Yes, charge pedestrians a toll fee to use pavements. Way to incite a revolution.

He's a Randroid, 'nuff said.

[RedAnarchist]

Do these people even believe half of the crap they write?

[Demogorgon]

His opening premise is utter shit. Privatised roads would be safer, would they? Is that why fatalities greatly increased on railway lines in this country after they were privatised?

[Bud Struggle]

Do these people even believe half of the crap they write?

I think they just have to keep on writing. I guess it doesn't matter what they write. You have to publish quite a bit to be:


Walter Block is Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar, Endowed Chair of Economics Loyola University, senior fellow of the Mises Institute.

It does sound like a pretty good gig, though. :)

[GracchusBabeuf]

I. Cannot. Really. Understand.I don't know how such people can live with themselves? Him and Robert Nozick, defenders of slavery. Haven't they lost their humanity?

[which doctor]

They've already privatized a bunch of highways in the US. The two I can think of right now are the Indiana Toll Road and the Chicago Skyway. Tolls on these roads have increased drastically since they were privatized, and they are going to continue to increase. Privatization has hardly made these roads more efficient. The automatic toll collectors don't always work, especially on the Indiana Toll Road, so cars can get backed up for hundreds of meters while waiting for a worker to clear things up.

[Dimentio]

I think they just have to keep on writing. I guess it doesn't matter what they write. You have to publish quite a bit to be:



It does sound like a pretty good gig, though. :)

The thing is... if I win a lottery ticket or get money from some senile millionarie, I could buy a building and ask for permission and grant for starting the "Gene Ray Scholars Institute of Physics, Mathematics and Cubicism".

[Dean]

http://mises.org/story/3416

This make me wonder whether or not the author behind this article is a Revleft troll :lol:


Do not be misled by the oft-made contention that the actual cause of highway fatalities is speed, drunkenness, vehicle malfunction, driver error, etc. These are only proximate causes. The ultimate cause of our dying like flies in traffic accidents is that those who own and manage these assets supposedly in the name of the public — the various roads bureaucrats — cannot manage their way out of the proverbial paper bag. It is they and they alone who are responsible for this carnage.

What about the car makers who unanimously choose style over safety? Oh wait, they're private, couldn't be the cause.

These bastards are shocking.

[dez]

It totally makes sense to advocate for the privatization of roads built with the taxpayer's money.
The system is meant for some people to profit and to others to pay for it.

[genstrike]

In Canada, we have a few private roads.

for example, Highway 407 in Ontario, which was a clusterfuck and essentially a corporate giveaway. Also, I was reading that they did a P3 on sections of the Trans-Canada over in New Brunswick, and it wound up costing millions more than it would have cost to use their highway department's maintenance guys to maintain it.

[Dimentio]

http://mises.org/story/3419

This is equally insane.

[Bud Struggle]

In Canada, we have a few private roads.

for example, Highway 407 in Ontario, which was a clusterfuck and essentially a corporate giveaway. Also, I was reading that they did a P3 on sections of the Trans-Canada over in New Brunswick, and it wound up costing millions more than it would have cost to use their highway department's maintenance guys to maintain it.

There's a difference between "private" roads and toll roads. :)

[Dimentio]

There's a difference between "private" roads and toll roads. :)

Yes. Stockholm has now tolls on its roads to keep down carbon dioxide emissions. The roads are still public though.

We also have private roads in the interior of northern Sweden. They usually have simple gates made of sticks, and are owned by the timber companies.

People drive on them anyway. Like someone's gonna stop them I guess not XD

[funkmasterswede]

Walter Block is teh lulz

[Dimentio]

Walter Block is teh lulz

We should invite him to revleft ^^

[Salyut]

Do these people even believe half of the crap they write?

Yep. The Austrians are really cultlike in my experience - I mean they seriously believe that Somalia is better off without a government (search up the 'Stateless in Somalia' article).

[genstrike]

There's a difference between "private" roads and toll roads. :)

Yeah, I know there's a difference. Aren't both of these private though?

[Dimentio]

Yeah, I know there's a difference. Aren't both of these private though?

The toll roads in large Swedish cities are public.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do not be misled by the oft-made contention that the actual cause of highway fatalities is speed, drunkenness, vehicle malfunction, driver error, etc. These are only proximate causes. The ultimate cause of our dying like flies in traffic accidents is that those who own and manage these assets supposedly in the name of the public — the various roads bureaucrats — cannot manage their way out of the proverbial paper bag. It is they and they alone who are responsible for this carnage.

Are these chucklefucks seriously suggesting that if I were to chug 3 litres of cider before hopping into the driving seat of a car and hitting the road, any accident that results is the fault of the government?

What. The. Fuck.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, I know there's a difference. Aren't both of these private though?

In the USA at least a private road is paved private property. Your driveway is a private road. In gated communities the roads are private. The general public can't go on them without permission of the owner.

Toll roads are different. they belong to the general public. they are on public land--but in order to get built the government has to borrow money--usually in the form of long term municipal bonds. These bonds have to be paid off, so the government puts up tolls to collect money to pay off the bonds. Once the bonds are paid off, the tolls should be removed.

[Alex Libman]

Just because you fail to understand something doesn't mean it is "insane". Individual property owners have a vested interest in transportation infrastructure on / around their property. Most local roads would remain as they are: controlled by municipalities or neighborhood associations. Competition would encourage innovation in road construction and management methodologies and technologies.

From the pragmatist libertarian point of view, privatizing roads is not the top item on our agenda, it would take many decades to accomplish. And in absence of government interventionism, flying cars will come about pretty darn quick.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Competition would encourage innovation in road construction and management methodologies and technologies.

Meanwhile, in the real world as opposed to some lolbertarian fantasy land, competition encourages cost-cutting measures without regards to health and safety or the public good, which is why such regulation exists in the first place.

[Jazzratt]

The part NoXion quoted is pretty much the illustration of the problem these backbirths have with reality. In the world they have created for themselves a private power can do no wrong (private individuals though are entirely at fault if they don't find work, go figure) and anything that could be uncomfortably be placed at their feet must immediatly be passed on to governments. This is why they develop these batshit views whereby selling anything and everything off to the lowest bidder is suddenly a way of securing prosperity and effeciency. Tell that to the Chileans, the Poles, the Indonesians, the South Africans, the Nicarauguans and anyone else whose seen all their services sold off to cabals of uncaring tosspots ready to cut any corner.

[GPDP]

And in absence of government interventionism, flying cars will come about pretty darn quick.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hahaha

haha... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I CANNOT be the only one that nearly fell to the floor in laughter from that little nugget.

Flying cars will come about, indeed. Cars that go flying off the highway when shoddily-constructed support pillars crumble due to a lack of regulation and oversight.

[Havet]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hahaha

haha... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I CANNOT be the only one that nearly fell to the floor in laughter from that little nugget.

Flying cars will come about, indeed. Cars that go flying off the highway when shoddily-constructed support pillars crumble due to a lack of regulation and oversight.

flying cars would be pretty cool actually, unless there weren't any inbutted safety protection in the cars, so if someone accidentally ziped an extra grape, they wouldnt go against any property or hurt anyone.

by the way, who would want to buy and/or live in shoddily constructed buildings with pillars that would crumble due to a lack of regulation and oversight?

even if people were incredibly poor, i suppose it will be pretty logical that they would live in houses made of wood or caverns instead of living in falling appart places with the danger of flying cars going against them.

[Havet]

Are these chucklefucks seriously suggesting that if I were to chug 3 litres of cider before hopping into the driving seat of a car and hitting the road, any accident that results is the fault of the government?

What. The. Fuck.

there are times when more radical conservatives will try and blame everything to the government. There are times when it is logical to blame the government, others where it is not.

In this case, people are ultimately responsible for driving, and any damage they do is their fault or, in case the accident was from an external factor, lets assume bad road condition, to whoever owned the road.

if the roads were publicly owned, then it would be the government's fault, which was elected by the majority of the population. If it were privately owned, then it would be easier to identify the culprit. If the accident was a direct result from the bad management of the road, then its owner should be held accountable and pay a fine/go to jail.

i suppose that if there were competition, the guy who owned that bad road was a gonner, because people would have a choice of another place to go through, especially if that other place was safer than the first. again this is all based in the assumption that competition exists.

on a more economic way of thinking, people who saw that the roads were in terrible condition, even though the owners were paying small fines for the accidents they were causing, if a group of persons gathered and decided to make a better road, whether they charged for it or not, they would not only be making profit, if they wished, or getting on people's consideration, if they didn't wish to make profit, but they would also be providing a better alternative to the population who needed to get by.

of course if they decided to not charge, and get the money the need to maintain from, lets assume, advertising, then it's a win win for everyone

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

by the way, who would want to buy and/or live in shoddily constructed buildings with pillars that would crumble due to a lack of regulation and oversight?

The poor saps who can't afford anything better. Or perhaps the schlubs who thought they had shelled out for a decent building but were mistaken.


even if people were incredibly poor, i suppose it will be pretty logical that they would live in houses made of wood or caverns instead of living in falling appart places with the danger of flying cars going against them.

Problems:

1) Wood costs money, if you're buying it. Not everyone can afford that.

2) Caves are limited in number (certainly there are far more caves than people) and tend to be located in, shall we say, inconvenient areas.

The solution? Just do what I did. Occupy an empty house as if it were yours. Now you're no longer homeless.

[Havet]

The poor saps who can't afford anything better. Or perhaps the schlubs who thought they had shelled out for a decent building but were mistaken.

surely they can tell, in the place they just bought, if the pillars are almost falling appart?


Problems:

1) Wood costs money, if you're buying it. Not everyone can afford that.

2) Caves are limited in number (certainly there are far more caves than people) and tend to be located in, shall we say, inconvenient areas.

yeah, i suggested that in a hunter-gatherer sort of sense. i suppose that in contemporary cities, people would actually prefer trying their luck of someone else's good will(charity), going under a bridge (if it isn't also falling appart), or just covering themselves in the streets with whatever they can find.


The solution? Just do what I did. Occupy an empty house as if it were yours. Now you're no longer homeless.

i would personally only find that action legitimate if you were absolutely sure that nobody owned the house, or the land the house was on, which would make your action homesteading and therefore you would own the house and land from then on.

anyway, if i were the owner, i'd probably let you explain yourself and maybe let you stay if you were that desperate, instead of just going for a shotgun and shooting you off my property.:)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The idea, I think, is that profit motivates the private sector, but it does not motivate the public sector.

While I've never checked to see if they're the same people, I see a lot of leftists here claiming taxation is undesirable. Voluntary association leftism is a bit too idealistic for me. Marx attempts to reconcile the view a tad through socialist transition. Anarchist theory may oppose a centralized state, but a decentralized community can implement a taxation policy without being evil incarnate.

Voluntary association. 7 people plant corn once a day. Your turn comes on Monday, and you don't plant corn. Eventually, a lot of people start free riding, and the system collapses. But wait, it doesn't. Seeing people free riding, society tells them they don't want them utilizing their services, eating their corn, if they don't contribute in a way society deems sufficient. The free rider complains "but you have plenty of corn," but they realize that deviating from the rule, in principle, leads to the collapse of social integrity. This is why most people don't steal. Not because it isn't advantageous.

So society can motivate people without coercing them, but the results are practically identical. Coercion just accounts for people's stupidity. You're my friend Joe, and I know you love life, but you need to contribute to the health care system or you won't get treatment for cancer, which your family has a history of at a young age. Well Joe doesn't contribute. I like Joe, but if I contribute for him, I set a dangerous precedent.

Taxation is voluntary cooperation for most people. They would contribute anyway in an ideal society. It's mandatory cooperation for others. If we just hand out social benefits to people who claim "they don't value health care, roads, et cetera" people will exploit society. People do now with welfare. The only reason it isn't widespread is the benefits are terrible. Communist philosophy attempts to reconcile this with the idea that people will naturally become bored, left with no obligations, so they will do something productive to give meaning to their lives. I'm not sure this is the case. At least, it's an underdeveloped argument.

A taxation, I would advocate, would have people choose where their taxation money goes. Irrational people would poorly fund health care, but the majority would compensate for their poor choices. Of course, how much people would pay (assuming money hasn't been eliminated) would be something else to determine.

I don't know. I like the idea of voluntary associations, but I'm skeptical of total elimination of, especially immediate eliminate advocated by some anarchists, of the current means of economic distribution and taxation. I'm also skeptical of the idea that, if society is ideal, individuals will always behave rationally. An ideal society needs some mechanism for preventing someone, who thinks self-immolation is beneficial, from lighting themselves on fire.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

surely they can tell, in the place they just bought, if the pillars are almost falling appart?

Are you aware of the phrase "papering over the cracks"?


yeah, i suggested that in a hunter-gatherer sort of sense. i suppose that in contemporary cities, people would actually prefer trying their luck of someone else's good will(charity), going under a bridge (if it isn't also falling appart), or just covering themselves in the streets with whatever they can find.In other words, forwards to the 19th century! :thumbdown:


i would personally only find that action legitimate if you were absolutely sure that nobody owned the house, or the land the house was on, which would make your action homesteading and therefore you would own the house and land from then on.Bollocks to that. Who cares who owns it, a house is going waste while I'm stuck without one. I took it upon myself to rectify that situation.


anyway, if i were the owner, i'd probably let you explain yourself and maybe let you stay if you were that desperate, instead of just going for a shotgun and shooting you off my property.:)That's civilised. A number of times my squatmates and I offered to look after the house for the owners, in exchange for living in it. Seems like a better idea to actually live in it than to let it stand empty and become a crack den or a target for vandalism.

[Hoxhaist]

Do not be misled by the oft-made contention that the actual cause of highway fatalities is speed, drunkenness, vehicle malfunction, driver error, etc. These are only proximate causes. The ultimate cause of our dying like flies in traffic accidents is that those who own and manage these assets supposedly in the name of the public — the various roads bureaucrats — cannot manage their way out of the proverbial paper bag. It is they and they alone who are responsible for this carnage.
what does the public owning roads do that private road owners would not? Why is a public bureaucrat looking out for the common good worse than a corporate bureaucrat looking out for his own profit?? This author makes assertions and does not justify them, he just keeps on ranting. FYI he says roads were all originally privately owned- BS- even in Roman times, the state owed and maintained the roads!!

[Havet]

The idea, I think, is that profit motivates the private sector, but it does not motivate the public sector.

While I've never checked to see if they're the same people, I see a lot of leftists here claiming taxation is undesirable. Voluntary association leftism is a bit too idealistic for me. Marx attempts to reconcile the view a tad through socialist transition. Anarchist theory may oppose a centralized state, but a decentralized community can implement a taxation policy without being evil incarnate.

Voluntary association. 7 people plant corn once a day. Your turn comes on Monday, and you don't plant corn. Eventually, a lot of people start free riding, and the system collapses. But wait, it doesn't. Seeing people free riding, society tells them they don't want them utilizing their services, eating their corn, if they don't contribute in a way society deems sufficient. The free rider complains "but you have plenty of corn," but they realize that deviating from the rule, in principle, leads to the collapse of social integrity. This is why most people don't steal. Not because it isn't advantageous.

So society can motivate people without coercing them, but the results are practically identical. Coercion just accounts for people's stupidity. You're my friend Joe, and I know you love life, but you need to contribute to the health care system or you won't get treatment for cancer, which your family has a history of at a young age. Well Joe doesn't contribute. I like Joe, but if I contribute for him, I set a dangerous precedent.

Taxation is voluntary cooperation for most people. They would contribute anyway in an ideal society. It's mandatory cooperation for others. If we just hand out social benefits to people who claim "they don't value health care, roads, et cetera" people will exploit society. People do now with welfare. The only reason it isn't widespread is the benefits are terrible. Communist philosophy attempts to reconcile this with the idea that people will naturally become bored, left with no obligations, so they will do something productive to give meaning to their lives. I'm not sure this is the case. At least, it's an underdeveloped argument.

A taxation, I would advocate, would have people choose where their taxation money goes. Irrational people would poorly fund health care, but the majority would compensate for their poor choices. Of course, how much people would pay (assuming money hasn't been eliminated) would be something else to determine.

I don't know. I like the idea of voluntary associations, but I'm skeptical of total elimination of, especially immediate eliminate advocated by some anarchists, of the current means of economic distribution and taxation. I'm also skeptical of the idea that, if society is ideal, individuals will always behave rationally. An ideal society needs some mechanism for preventing someone, who thinks self-immolation is beneficial, from lighting themselves on fire.

i'd argue that taxation is immoral on the grounds that it is forcing individuals to pay for services that they need or don't need. If someone already homeschool his children, he should have the choice of whether he wanted to pay to help educate other children or not.

i believe that the only reasonable ideal society is the one that has banned coercion from the human activities, so that every action was voluntary. But i'm realistic to say that people most often don't behave rationally. But that is their problem, unless their irrationally goes in favour of the enslavement of others, murder of others or theft of others.

"An ideal society needs some mechanism for preventing someone, who thinks self-immolation is beneficial, from lighting themselves on fire."

An ideal society needs a mechanism for preventing someone, who thinks immolation is beneficial, from lighting others on fire.

[NecroCommie]

That dude sure has a perverted idea of privatized roads. Our family owns a summer cottage at a village where the community owns the roads. We too, partly pay for the upkeep of these roads and have a say on its use. However, we do not take anykind of toll on its use, as the municipal council pays the community a rent for the road, so that the public may use it. We (the village) also get our share of a WRC rally held on the road annually. :D

[Havet]

Are you aware of the phrase "papering over the cracks"?i am now. i still think an individual should, to the best of his ability, try and determine what the hell he is buying. it is in the owner's best interest to hide that fault and sell the house. it is in the buyer's interest to get a decent house. he can ask an unbiased outsider for his opinion on the structure, or , if the buyer suspects somethings wrong with the house, when he signs the contract, add that in case the house falls appart, he gets his money back plus money to pay for all the destruction of his property inside and any possible medical bills he would require.


In other words, forwards to the 19th century! i don't see what you mean with 19th century.

"During this time the 19th century was an era of widespread invention and discovery, with significant developments in the understanding or manipulation of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, electricity, and metallurgy largely setting the groundworks for the comparably overwhelming and very rapid technological innovations which would take place the following century."

"Modest advances in medicine and the understanding of human anatomy and disease prevention were also applicable to the 1800s, and were partly responsible for rapidly accelerating population growth in the western world"

" Slavery was greatly reduced around the world. Following a successful slave revolt in haiti, Britain forced the Barbary pirates to halt their practice of kidnapping and enslaving Europeans, banned slavery throughout its domain, and charged its navy with ending the global slave trade. Britain abolished slavery in 1834, America's 13th amendment following their Civil War abolished slavery there in 1865, and in Brazil slavery was abolished in 1888 (see Abolitionism). Similarly, serfdom was abolished in Russia."

this was all taken from wikipedia. i'm pretty sure that even if one is suspicious of wikipedia, one can safely assume this information was taken from several history books.

unless you are referring to the working conditions in that time, which i have to agree, where awful to say the least. but i don't think any of what i have said earlier has anything to do with poor working conditions.


Bollocks to that. Who cares who owns it, a house is going waste while I'm stuck without one. I took it upon myself to rectify that situation.by that logic, it is legitimate for me to enslave, murder or rob you as long as i need something from you?


That's civilised. A number of times my squatmates and I offered to look after the house for the owners, in exchange for living in it. Seems like a better idea to actually live in it than to let it stand empty and become a crack den or a target for vandalism.

yeah it's civilized. but if the owner wants the house to stand empty then you should respect his decision, just as you wouldn't like hungry people stealing food from you because you were able to save an extra meal for the next day.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

"An ideal society needs some mechanism for preventing someone, who thinks self-immolation is beneficial, from lighting themselves on fire."

An ideal society needs a mechanism for preventing someone, who thinks immolation is beneficial, from lighting others on fire.

We don't want to have consideration for fellow human beings? If I had been born someone who believes self-immolation is beneficial, I would hope people would intervene on my behalf.

You would simply leave people alone who wish to set themselves ablaze, likely killing themselves in the process? I couldn't imagine such a society being considered "idealist."

[Jack]

by that logic, it is legitimate for me to enslave, murder or rob you as long as i need something from you?

No, but it is illegitimate for you to leave someone without if you lay claim to something that you do not actively use.



yeah it's civilized. but if the owner wants the house to stand empty then you should respect his decision, just as you wouldn't like hungry people stealing food from you because you were able to save an extra meal for the next day.

Really? A pedo across the street wants to continue getting child prostitutes, would stopping him from doing that be interference in the market? If someone doesn't have what they need, they will commit crime to get it. If you deny a hungry person excess food, odds are they are going to rob someone for it.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Walter Block, who holds the economics chair at Loyola, delivered a lecture a couple of weeks ago at the namesake college in Baltimore on why women get paid a lot less than men and bump into a "glass ceiling."

His conclusion was that women are less productive.

During question time, someone asked why blacks get paid a lot less than whites.

The explanation was the same.

Nobody objected at the time, Block says, but that may have been because he had stunned the more sensitive members of the audience into silence. A furor arose soon afterwards, however, with faculty and the college president publicly apologizing for what they took to be a sexist and racist outburst.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/gill/index.ssf?/base/news-0/122768049689950.xml&coll=1

More reactionary stuff. :blink:

[WhitemageofDOOM]

yeah it's civilized. but if the owner wants the house to stand empty then you should respect his decision, just as you wouldn't like hungry people stealing food from you because you were able to save an extra meal for the next day.

There is no right to stuff outside of ones possessions, that is which you are using. Your toothbrush is yours, your house is yours, because to take these away would cause harm to you.

That house that a piece of paper says you own which you don't use in any way is not yours, If someone wishes to use it they do not harm you in any way. The only claim you have is that your willing to commit murder on someone who wants to use it.

As for hungry people? I have plenty of food, let them partake of my table, let them spend a night under my roof, to feed the starving is far greater than needing to go shopping afterwords.
Should i myself be starving and they try to take my only food, then and only then have they caused me harm.

[Trystan]

What about privatised air? Is it fair that these moochers should be allowed to breathe for free?

[NecroCommie]

I agree! I declare all the air in the world mine!!!! "What jurisdiction do you have?" one may ask. Well, the same jurisdiction than the first guy who declared a part of ground his.

[RGacky3]

I agree! I declare all the air in the world mine!!!! "What jurisdiction do you have?" one may ask. Well, the same jurisdiction than the first guy who declared a part of ground his.

Awesome analogy.

[GPDP]

I agree! I declare all the air in the world mine!!!! "What jurisdiction do you have?" one may ask. Well, the same jurisdiction than the first guy who declared a part of ground his.

While I essentially agree with what you're saying here, let's be fair. There is more to private property than simply claiming something as yours. The state has to recognize your claim, and thus be willing to defend it from others who may want to violate it; hence why property rights ultimately rest on coercive force from the state (or private defense agencies, for you ancaps).

[synthesis]

While I essentially agree with what you're saying here, let's be fair. There is more to private property than simply claiming something as yours. The state has to recognize your claim, and thus be willing to defend it from others who may want to violate it; hence why property rights ultimately rest on coercive force from the state (or private defense agencies, for you ancaps).

100%. Claiming air or land or anything else as your own is only meaningful if you have enough guns and balls to force everyone else to recognize your claim.

[NecroCommie]

That was my secondary point. Imagine what a bully one has to be to kick peoples asses over some claim that they own the fucking air. Now imagine how much people were annoyed at the first land owner, and how big of an asshole he must have been.

[Havet]

Really? A pedo across the street wants to continue getting child prostitutes, would stopping him from doing that be interference in the market? If someone doesn't have what they need, they will commit crime to get it. If you deny a hungry person excess food, odds are they are going to rob someone for it.

his actions have nothing to do with "the market" because they are not voluntary actions.

they may commit crime to get whatever they need, but i don't think that ideally and morally is a good way to get things done. the solution does not come by forcing others to give their excess so as to prevent crime, but to allow for anyone to work for what they need, and in case they cannot achieve it, to be aware that they are relying only on the charity others can give them.

"Life is given to us, but survival is not. Our bodies are given to us but their sustenance is not. Our minds are given to us, their contents are not."

thus i don't agree that i owe someone something just because they need it. if they approach me from that argument i will refuse to talk to them. However, if they explain their case rationally or at least decently then i will feel empathy towards them and maybe try to help them. Charities existed before government.

"Private charities shouldn't be created to avoid taxes, but to show we don't need them"

Also, you are assuming most people imediately try and commit crime to get what they need, but in each industralized country more than half the population is employed, or to put it in other way, 50% of the population is not commiting crime for basic needs such as food and shelter.

This is because it has become easier to do it the non-criminal way than in the criminal way. However, i do not deny that there are still many murders and assaults.

But when you deny property rights to people who have excess resources that they achieved honestly, you deny the property rights of everyone.

[Havet]

There is no right to stuff outside of ones possessions, that is which you are using. Your toothbrush is yours, your house is yours, because to take these away would cause harm to you.

That house that a piece of paper says you own which you don't use in any way is not yours, If someone wishes to use it they do not harm you in any way. The only claim you have is that your willing to commit murder on someone who wants to use it.

As for hungry people? I have plenty of food, let them partake of my table, let them spend a night under my roof, to feed the starving is far greater than needing to go shopping afterwords.
Should i myself be starving and they try to take my only food, then and only then have they caused me harm.

Again, by your logic, just because someone isn't using anything that was a product of their labor, or the exchange by the product of their labor, which they paid with every penny they had, they don't get to use it? The owner bought the land and is rightfully his. If you had a room in your house that was empty, would that make it okay for other people to force in and live there?

I have no problem with anyone being kind to strangers and offering a place to stay for a while and some food.

Anyway, imagine you are not starving and you have two meals. One meal is the only one you have for today, and the other you are saving for tomorrow. By the logic you are using, they can take your other meal, because it wouldn't leave you starving at that moment and you weren't planning on using it the rest of the day.

[NecroCommie]

Anyway, imagine you are not starving and you have two meals. One meal is the only one you have for today, and the other you are saving for tomorrow. By the logic you are using, they can take your other meal, because it wouldn't leave you starving at that moment and you weren't planning on using it the rest of the day.


If the procedure saves the life of a starving man, whats wrong with it? Unless ofcourse, you prioritize the other mans earthly possession over the other mans life.



The owner bought the land and is rightfully his.

He bought the land eh? From whom may I ask?



...just because someone isn't using anything that was a product of their labor...

Key phrase being: "product of their labour". We are talking about private roads and perhaps even tolls on such roads. These kind of roads are built by big corporations, so the money goes to big capitalists. Capitalists do not contribute anything to the society, so they dont get to decide anything in a communist society.

Now you come and say: "The capitalists bought the road!"... ... ... From whom?... The roads are products of thousands of workers. Did the capitalist buy the rights of every single worker? If not, wouldn't hundreds of workers still hold some power over those roads? What about the community that helped the workers?

To put it simply: Every time you resort to "products of ones labour", you promote communism.



Anyway, imagine you are not starving and you have two meals. One meal is the only one you have for today, and the other you are saving for tomorrow. By the logic you are using, they can take your other meal, because it wouldn't leave you starving at that moment and you weren't planning on using it the rest of the day.


This is an inadequate comparison, since the real world has capitalists that hold thousands of meals, as opposed to thousands of workers each holding barely half a meal.

[Havet]

If the procedure saves the life of a starving man, whats wrong with it? Unless ofcourse, you prioritize the other mans earthly possession over the other mans life.

It's wrong because you are stealing, no matter what the end. I prioritize the ability of someone to make choices, and to not have others forcing him to the choices they think are good to him. If such choices are that good, then surely he can be convinced by non-coercive methods


He bought the land eh? From whom may I ask?

he bought it from someone all the way back until one day someone decided to homestead that land. By homesteading i mean "the concept that one can gain ownership of a property that currently has no owner by using that property".



Key phrase being: "product of their labour". We are talking about private roads and perhaps even tolls on such roads. These kind of roads are built by big corporations, so the money goes to big capitalists. Capitalists do not contribute anything to the society, so they dont get to decide anything in a communist society.

First, i used that concept with my example of food and property, and did not proceed imediately to apply it to private roads. Secondly, even if the roads were sh*t, they still contributed overall to society because people now had a way to go by. whether it is preferable or not, that's another question


Now you come and say: "The capitalists bought the road!"... ... ... From whom?... The roads are products of thousands of workers. Did the capitalist buy the rights of every single worker? If not, wouldn't hundreds of workers still hold some power over those roads? What about the community that helped the workers?

the workers agreed that they would help build the road in exchange for money, and not for exchange of partial ownership of the road. If they wanted that, they could've gathered themselves and all their savings and made a communal or public road.


To put it simply: Every time you resort to "products of ones labour", you promote communism.

whatever, i was merely trying to to explain my point in a more understandable way. Whether many communist and/or socialist advocates use that term often is irrelevant to me.


This is an inadequate comparison, since the real world has capitalists that hold thousands of meals, as opposed to thousands of workers each holding barely half a meal.

i am already assuming people bought that meal, or grew it themselves in any land they owned. The comparison was to show the non-voluntary nature of the trade that happened, when people start claiming needs over reality.

[NecroCommie]

It's wrong because you are stealing, no matter what the end. I prioritize the ability of someone to make choices, and to not have others forcing him to the choices they think are good to him. If such choices are that good, then surely he can be convinced by non-coercive methods
Stealing is only stealing if the victim has right to the possession. So taking from capitalists is as much stealing as taking from the mob.

And please dont start with the: "stealing from the mob is still stealing" Because then you would be defending the criminals rights to what he stole, and thus you would be justifying my original point. (which would be quite ironic)


he bought it from someone all the way back until one day someone decided to homestead that land. By homesteading i mean "the concept that one can gain ownership of a property that currently has no owner by using that property".
And by whose jurisdiction this all happened? Can I use the jurisdiction to gain hold of all the air in the world? If not, Why? What is the definition of usage? If it is building or farming, then what about nomadic peoples? Dont they use land at all? And what exactly is an unused property? Is the vacuum of space property? Can I just declare it mine? If not, Why? If two people make the same declaration of property at the same time, whose is the valid one? What if they are both farmers claiming the land already inhabited by nomads?

If I were to declare space mine, would NASA have to pay for me if I asked? Could NASA declare the space its? If yes, why cant the Russians? Some people own pieces of moon, and NASA has to pay these "moonowners" rent whenever landing satellites and probes to moon. Is this justified by your logic? How did they have right to claim these lands? Why couldn't I? What if years from now aliens would appear, would they have right to the space? Would NASA then? What about I? If people were to farm in space, would they own the space?

If I were to declare just a small portion of the space mine, would it count? If yes, why? And were the line would go? By which manner the lines would be defined? So could I declare a small portion of the space mine, but the small portion would be this entire dimension? If not, where are the lines drawn?

I like the space example since no-one owns space (yet). Therefore it sheds a special light on the time when private ownership of land was born.


First, i used that concept with my example of food and property, and did not proceed imediately to apply it to private roads. Secondly, even if the roads were sh*t, they still contributed overall to society because people now had a way to go by. whether it is preferable or not, that's another question
I know, but the same theory applies to both food and roads, since both are supposed to be private property. Second of all, I did not say anything about the quality of those roads, but pointed out that rarely do the road owners have any right to the road, save for the artificial "right" of the capitalist law system.



the workers agreed that they would help build the road in exchange for money, and not for exchange of partial ownership of the road. If they wanted that, they could've gathered themselves and all their savings and made a communal or public road.
Now we come to the point of wage slavery, which the members of this thread have proven myriad of times = Dont even start. Go read some thread on "learning"-subforum.




whatever, i was merely trying to to explain my point in a more understandable way. Whether many communist and/or socialist advocates use that term often is irrelevant to me.


It is not about the definition of the term, but the fact that you too advocate the right over ones own products labour . Therefore, you too must agree with communist economics.


i am already assuming people bought that meal, or grew it themselves in any land they owned. The comparison was to show the non-voluntary nature of the trade that happened, when people start claiming needs over reality.
And I was trying to point out the humanist nature of the thread.

[Havet]

Stealing is only stealing if the victim has right to the possession. So taking from capitalists is as much stealing as taking from the mob.

that's assuming capitalists actually stole. Most contracts are agreed by both parties. If I agree to use someone's tools to build something for them in exchange for seashells, then they are not stealing what I made from their tools because I Agreed in the first place.


And please dont start with the: "stealing from the mob is still stealing" Because then you would be defending the criminals rights to what he stole, and thus you would be justifying my original point. (which would be quite ironic)People who obtained property by forcing others at the point of a gun don't acquire the right to its posession, in my view at least.



And by whose jurisdiction this all happened? Can I use the jurisdiction to gain hold of all the air in the world? If not, Why? What is the definition of usage? If it is building or farming, then what about nomadic peoples? Dont they use land at all? And what exactly is an unused property? Is the vacuum of space property? Can I just declare it mine? If not, Why? If two people make the same declaration of property at the same time, whose is the valid one? What if they are both farmers claiming the land already inhabited by nomads?

If I were to declare space mine, would NASA have to pay for me if I asked? Could NASA declare the space its? If yes, why cant the Russians? Some people own pieces of moon, and NASA has to pay these "moonowners" rent whenever landing satellites and probes to moon. Is this justified by your logic? How did they have right to claim these lands? Why couldn't I? What if years from now aliens would appear, would they have right to the space? Would NASA then? What about I? If people were to farm in space, would they own the space?

If I were to declare just a small portion of the space mine, would it count? If yes, why? And were the line would go? By which manner the lines would be defined? So could I declare a small portion of the space mine, but the small portion would be this entire dimension? If not, where are the lines drawn?

I like the space example since no-one owns space (yet). Therefore it sheds a special light on the time when private ownership of land was born.yeah, space is the most interesting subject regarding property rights. Up until very recently i believed that until humans found more information on the nature of the unvierse and develop a properly rational explanation of property, without the current "finders-keepers" method, then there was no way to settle it down. Because by the current method whoever got to the moon first owned the moon, but whoever got to space first wouldn't own space, just as people don't buy small pieces of "space" on the stratosphere, they wouldn't buy pieces of vaccum space outside earth's atmosphere.

Like I said, until recently. After debating this subject in a forum, i am starting to be convinced that space cannot be owned, and that the general concept of property is wrong, that is, that i don't own the atoms themselves, but that property is a consequence of my actions, and that after I acquired property through my actions, I would as well be free to trade it with others freely. However, I am still discussing the whole concept so I cannot give any big discussion about it.

That is to say, i understand the problems with the current system of ownership and am hoping to find a new one that not only allows people to be free but that it also recognizes private property, if not like today, in a new legitimate way.


I know, but the same theory applies to both food and roads, since both are supposed to be private property. Second of all, I did not say anything about the quality of those roads, but pointed out that rarely do the road owners have any right to the road, save for the artificial "right" of the capitalist law system.I assume that by road owners you only see as legitimate the actual builders of the road. I do not. The owners are those who bought the land and hired the workers to change the land into a road. The road builders can still be owners, if they wish, and if they can get that much money, or they can go get land themselves and build themselves their own road without any hierarchical owner.


Now we come to the point of wage slavery, which the members of this thread have proven myriad of times = Dont even start. Go read some thread on "learning"-subforum.first i don't see any thread about wage slavery under learning subforum. But since it is not my forum, i'll respect the wishes of the owners. However, i'd like to state, for the record, that nobody should ever assume a priori that they are right about a subject because by saying "oh we've proven a thousand times and you're just lazy not to learn yourself" is not very good to promote rational debate. This I would like to give my opinion on the subject, but i guess I risk my expulsion if choose to try and add more arguments to this subject.



It is not about the definition of the term, but the fact that you too advocate the right over ones own products labour . Therefore, you too must agree with communist economics.of course i agree with my right to own what i've produced from whatever property i used initially to make that final product. Almost everyone agrees with that, even capitalists. However, i think the problem here may just be a minor difference in definitions thats bringing all this trouble. Just because i agree i have the right to keep what I do, doesn't necessarily imply I agree with comunist economics.

[NecroCommie]

that's assuming capitalists actually stole. Most contracts are agreed by both parties. If I agree to use someone's tools to build something for them in exchange for seashells, then they are not stealing what I made from their tools because I Agreed in the first place.

People who obtained property by forcing others at the point of a gun don't acquire the right to its posession, in my view at least.
If we change the "at the point of a gun" to a more valid: "in face of necessity", one might argue that you contradict yourself. For one might say, that the deals made by the mob are two way agreements.


yeah, space is the most interesting subject regarding property rights. Up until very recently i believed that until humans found more information on the nature of the unvierse and develop a properly rational explanation of property, without the current "finders-keepers" method, then there was no way to settle it down. Because by the current method whoever got to the moon first owned the moon, but whoever got to space first wouldn't own space, just as people don't buy small pieces of "space" on the stratosphere, they wouldn't buy pieces of vaccum space outside earth's atmosphere.
So if its illogical at space, why was it logical on land?


Like I said, until recently. After debating this subject in a forum, i am starting to be convinced that space cannot be owned, and that the general concept of property is wrong, that is, that i don't own the atoms themselves, but that property is a consequence of my actions, and that after I acquired property through my actions, I would as well be free to trade it with others freely. However, I am still discussing the whole concept so I cannot give any big discussion about it.
But land ownership (and later on factory ownership) gives birth to wage slavery. So if someone originally aquired land by finders keepers method, and used this "ownership" to enslave others, why is it unethical for the slaves "steal" back the taken land/factory/space/food.

The concept of class struggle is at work here.


That is to say, i understand the problems with the current system of ownership and am hoping to find a new one that not only allows people to be free but that it also recognizes private property, if not like today, in a new legitimate way.
OK, there might have been a misunderstanding here. No one tries to deny ALL private property. I deny the legitimazy of privately owned means of production, which is basically the cause for most of the suffering in this world. Private ownership of community objects such as roads factories and fields (and air water and space), holds no philosophical base.


I assume that by road owners you only see as legitimate the actual builders of the road. I do not. The owners are those who bought the land and hired the workers to change the land into a road. The road builders can still be owners, if they wish, and if they can get that much money, or they can go get land themselves and build themselves their own road without any hierarchical owner.
The road workers dont have money to buy any stocks. Otherwise they would be road owners. You REALLY need to learn the concept of wage slavery. Job is not an agreement. It is slavery, for one has to get a job from capitalist. If not, you die (out of hunger, disease etc...) Therefore the workers agreed to nothing, and the employers are really just exploiters. We have had several discussions on the subject on this forum, and I'd prefer you see them before we start those discussions yet again.


first i don't see any thread about wage slavery under learning subforum. But since it is not my forum, i'll respect the wishes of the owners. However, i'd like to state, for the record, that nobody should ever assume a priori that they are right about a subject because by saying "oh we've proven a thousand times and you're just lazy not to learn yourself" is not very good to promote rational debate. This I would like to give my opinion on the subject, but i guess I risk my expulsion if choose to try and add more arguments to this subject.
OK sorry, perhaps that was a bit rash, but do understand that we have had the same arguments here since time immemorial. It starts to bore after a while.

And no, the discussions dont go after that name. One good thread would be "has there ever been a succesful communist country" or something like that. (cant search the link now, im in a bit of a hurry) It was in OI if I remember correctly.



of course i agree with my right to own what i've produced from whatever property i used initially to make that final product. Almost everyone agrees with that, even capitalists. However, i think the problem here may just be a minor difference in definitions thats bringing all this trouble. Just because i agree i have the right to keep what I do, doesn't necessarily imply I agree with comunist economics.
The slight difference is, that many capitalist economists define hiring labour as labour in itself. This can be disputed rather easily by noticing how the act of hiring produces little else than... well... hiring. We cant run a state by just hiring people, but we can run a state by just working.

This means that if you hire labour but do not work yourself, you eat, but dont produce. You would be quite literally a parasite, and in communist terminology: a capitalist. Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

Also, capitalist economists make the assumption that all money is earned by waged labour, which in the case of corporate leaders is rarely the case. The money is rarely earned, but more often inherited, or exploited from the workers. (exploitation takes many forms including economic globalization, imperialism, wage slavery and the parasitic leeching of the excess value.) If this basic assumption of capitalism were right, I just might live with capitalism, but since all these faults exist, I am disgusted with the economic system I live in.

[Havet]

If we change the "at the point of a gun" to a more valid: "in face of necessity", one might argue that you contradict yourself. For one might say, that the deals made by the mob are two way agreements.

one thing is physical necessity, other is Coercion. Do not mistake the two. The system which has more freedom is the one that allows people to fulfill their necessities the most, without going into other people's freedom. If you wish to live, you must choose the rational choice of supplying for yourself. You can choose that by working your own land (in which you were born, in a more poverty centered way) or to sell your skills to people who seek them. Or steal. But all of them have consequences, and you must decide which one you wish to take.



But land ownership (and later on factory ownership) gives birth to wage slavery. So if someone originally aquired land by finders keepers method, and used this "ownership" to enslave others, why is it unethical for the slaves "steal" back the taken land/factory/space/food.How did he used his ownership to enslave others?

"Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). "



OK, there might have been a misunderstanding here. No one tries to deny ALL private property. I deny the legitimazy of privately owned means of production, which is basically the cause for most of the suffering in this world. Private ownership of community objects such as roads factories and fields (and air water and space), holds no philosophical base.i don't see how people being able to make what they want and buy what the want is the cause of the most suffering in this world. Kings and wars, religion, totalitarianism, collectivism is what i would argue what has killed more humans.



The road workers dont have money to buy any stocks. Otherwise they would be road owners. You REALLY need to learn the concept of wage slavery. Job is not an agreement. It is slavery, for one has to get a job from capitalist. If not, you die (out of hunger, disease etc...) Therefore the workers agreed to nothing, and the employers are really just exploiters. We have had several discussions on the subject on this forum, and I'd prefer you see them before we start those discussions yet again.the road workers don't need to buy the finished product. They can make it themselves right? Let them organize themselves gather enough money to buy the tools themselves and then keep the road to themselves and whoever they want to share it with.

And yes, a job is an agreement, especially in more poorer countries. What do you think has made the people stopping living of the countryside and started coming to the cities? Because by the same hard work (and trust me, it IS hard work) they did in the fields they could get better benefits in the cities doing something else. And you don't need to get a job from a capitalist to earn a wage. You can self employ yourself. You can sell whatever you can produce on your own with whatever tools you can buy to whoever is willing to buy.

but let me adress this from another perspective. "It is slavery, for one has to get a job from capitalist. If not, you die "

by that same logic, if i were an employer, i am enslaved by the workers i hire, because if they don't produce, I die too. Capitalists are as "enslaved" by the workers as the workers are by the capitalists.

Human beings must always engage in production in order to consume and survive. Thus, by your theory, man would be enslaved to nature itself. If man is always enslaved in some form or another, according to this view, the concept of slavery is of little use in order to draw distinctions between what is a coercive interpersonal relationship and what is not, thereby defeating the analytical purpose of wage slavery theory.

I honestly dont care about what other talks you had on this subject before. If your arguments are good enough, then you will want to show them to me.


The slight difference is, that many capitalist economists define hiring labour as labour in itself. This can be disputed rather easily by noticing how the act of hiring produces little else than... well... hiring. We cant run a state by just hiring people, but we can run a state by just working.i believe there doesn't need to be any state, nor would I have any desire in running it such i found its existence a "necessary evil"


This means that if you hire labour but do not work yourself, you eat, but dont produce. You would be quite literally a parasite, and in communist terminology: a capitalist. Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.Money does not come out of thin air. It had to be produced. Imagine i were to start as a capitalist. How would I go? I decided to take some old cardboard in the trash can and use my engineering skills to make a chair out of it. then in the street, i put it for sale, and i discover, that people are willing to pay me more than it cost me to produce the chair (in this case it cost me nothing because it was regarded as trash. But in other businesses, the cost of making something is usually very low, but people are willing to pay more for it. And if they are not, then that "forces" me to lower my price and profit margin if i want to sell at all). Same with other assets, foods, products, you name it. That is how capitalists make their money. Then, I would wonder: this has real potential here, people really seem to like this recycled chair I invented. But, i cannot make more than 3 chairs a day. If i could find someone to help me then i could make more money. Thus they employ. Desperate people may be willing to accept low wages, but there comes a time when it might be better for them to go to another job because it pays them better. I could then try and find, hopelessly, someone who would accept my poor conditions or be "forced" to raise my wages in order to keep the best to myself.

(i think actually you might have mixed the fact that capitalists usually make so much money that they don't need to physically work in whatever business they made after a while, so the business carries on with little attention needed, only requiring money to pay for new machines, wages, etc.


Also, capitalist economists make the assumption that all money is earned by waged labour, which in the case of corporate leaders is rarely the case. The money is rarely earned, but more often inherited, or exploited from the workers. (exploitation takes many forms including economic globalization, imperialism, wage slavery and the parasitic leeching of the excess value.) If this basic assumption of capitalism were right, I just might live with capitalism, but since all these faults exist, I am disgusted with the economic system I live in.I think that both you and I can agree on something. What we have here today is state capitalism/crony capitalism, which I define as "an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth."

how does this work? My business is losing profit because i made some bad decisions or because i am facing fierce competition. What do I do? I go to the government and tell them that the kind of work i need to do is very specialized work and that there needs to be regulation in how its done because it is very dangerous etc. Then the government passes that regulation, and appoints a comitte to decide who gets to produce what and when. And guess who's in the comittee? that's right, the leading experts of the field. and that includes "older and more experient busineses" like mine. In the end, my initial firm benefits the most. Not only will i lose a heck of a lot more competition, but since i start to grow as a monopoly, at some point i will be "too big to fail" and the government will bail me out, thus encouraging me to not care about how i make my profits at all. and if something does go wrong with my firm, i can just blame it on the "free market" and ask for even more regulation. Lobbyism, "asking for favors", whatever, the truth is this is how most of the big companies have gotten where they are today.

[Ultra_Cheese]

What about privatised air? Is it fair that these moochers should be allowed to breathe for free?
Do not be misled by the oft-made contention that the actual cause of air pollution is power plants, factories, cars, aircraft, etc. :)

[Dejavu]

Wrote about Block on my blog. (http://theanarchistman.blogspot.com/)

[NecroCommie]

one thing is physical necessity, other is Coercion. Do not mistake the two. The system which has more freedom is the one that allows people to fulfill their necessities the most, without going into other people's freedom. If you wish to live, you must choose the rational choice of supplying for yourself. You can choose that by working your own land (in which you were born, in a more poverty centered way) or to sell your skills to people who seek them. Or steal. But all of them have consequences, and you must decide which one you wish to take.
I dont care about petty economical freedoms if I am starving to death. I am not exactly against you in the since that I too would like as much economical freedom as possible. I however notice that we do not live in capitalist mushroom world and therefore one must have priorities.

I simply prioritize peoples lives over other peoples control on excess products.



How did he used his ownership to enslave others?

"Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). "

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rape-consent-and-t104960/index.html?t=104960&highlight=rape
There are many definitions of slavery, and you gave me just one of many, so it basically means nothing, for I could just come up with a definition that supports my view. I suggest you read the link I gave.


i don't see how people being able to make what they want and buy what the want is the cause of the most suffering in this world. Kings and wars, religion, totalitarianism, collectivism is what i would argue what has killed more humans.
Kings and wars are born solely to protect capitalists rights to their capital. Religion does not in itself create misery, but it is almost always perverted to suit the need of the capitalist. Capitalism is economical totalitarianism and collectivism is a blessing for every people it affects, except capitalists.

Free market creates suffering because in free market capital decides. People dont decide anything. If I would have a say, I would have a job. But everytme I apply for the job the answer is: "we would like to take you, but we have no money". Therefore, capital decided for me that I am not to have a job. The laws of the capital are not thinking, and therefore not humane.

Read Marx's das kapital. It is an entire book that solely points out how capitalism is full of mistakes, totalitarianism and unethical prioritizing.



the road workers don't need to buy the finished product. They can make it themselves right? Let them organize themselves gather enough money to buy the tools themselves and then keep the road to themselves and whoever they want to share it with.
Damn! Why didnt I do this immediately? The entire african continent could become industrial over night, but they dont understand this!!!

Honestly: If that were true, everyone would be happy. Everyone are not happy so your theory is false. Over 90% of the workers dont have the money to by even the simplest of tools, and even in instances where workers were trying to rule for themselves, the big companies and grand presidents utterly chrushed all that stood in the way of their monopoly.

Read about the end of the paris commune. It was not workers who chrushed it thats for sure.


And yes, a job is an agreement, especially in more poorer countries. What do you think has made the people stopping living of the countryside and started coming to the cities? Because by the same hard work (and trust me, it IS hard work) they did in the fields they could get better benefits in the cities doing something else. And you don't need to get a job from a capitalist to earn a wage. You can self employ yourself. You can sell whatever you can produce on your own with whatever tools you can buy to whoever is willing to buy.
If world just were such a nice place... Why are there unemployed? Seriously, I want you to explain me why there are so many unemployed people (soon including me), and I want you to explain why is it that they dont just start working for themselves?

After this, I want you to explain what is the propable situation of a worker during a job interview, as opposed to the situation of the employer. And I dont want to hear theory, I want to hear how it is in the real world.



but let me adress this from another perspective. "It is slavery, for one has to get a job from capitalist. If not, you die "

by that same logic, if i were an employer, i am enslaved by the workers i hire, because if they don't produce, I die too. Capitalists are as "enslaved" by the workers as the workers are by the capitalists.

No, capitalists do not need workers to live. Capitalists need workers to be capitalists, which is not real needing is it? If capitalists had no workers, they would not be capitalists but workers instead. This goes by the very definition of class, so there is little arguing.


Human beings must always engage in production in order to consume and survive. Thus, by your theory, man would be enslaved to nature itself. If man is always enslaved in some form or another, according to this view, the concept of slavery is of little use in order to draw distinctions between what is a coercive interpersonal relationship and what is not, thereby defeating the analytical purpose of wage slavery theory.

The reason why wage slaves are slaves, is because they have little choice over the exact terms of their work. They MUST do what capitalists tell them to, ot they will get fired.

In a communist society they would still have to work, but they would work for themselves as communities. They would serve no masters, other than themselves.



I honestly dont care about what other talks you had on this subject before. If your arguments are good enough, then you will want to show them to me.
It is not on the exact subject we are talking here, but there is a thorough thread that holds almost every goddamn critizism that communism has ever received... with answers.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-has-there-t104030/index.html



i believe there doesn't need to be any state, nor would I have any desire in running it such i found its existence a "necessary evil"
The point was that employers are not needed to run a society. Workers are. Yet who is it that takes all the products of that society, and lets no needy man use it?



Money does not come out of thin air. It had to be produced. Imagine i were to start as a capitalist. How would I go? I decided to take some old cardboard in the trash can and use my engineering skills to make a chair out of it. then in the street, i put it for sale, and i discover, that people are willing to pay me more than it cost me to produce the chair (in this case it cost me nothing because it was regarded as trash. But in other businesses, the cost of making something is usually very low, but people are willing to pay more for it. And if they are not, then that "forces" me to lower my price and profit margin if i want to sell at all). Same with other assets, foods, products, you name it. That is how capitalists make their money. Then, I would wonder: this has real potential here, people really seem to like this recycled chair I invented. But, i cannot make more than 3 chairs a day. If i could find someone to help me then i could make more money. Thus they employ. Desperate people may be willing to accept low wages, but there comes a time when it might be better for them to go to another job because it pays them better. I could then try and find, hopelessly, someone who would accept my poor conditions or be "forced" to raise my wages in order to keep the best to myself.


I know capitalist economic "science". No need to teach me it again. The capitalist economy makes it sound as if the choices you describe were the decisions of the employer. They are not. Employers only react to the mass movements of capital, and capital does not think. Capital only is, and it knows no justice or rights.

Besides, all that you wrote still does not change the fact that the employer does not produce anything, yet eats better than most workers.

If the employer buys 50$ of raw material and sells the final product for 70$, it would mean that the labour of the worker is worth 20$... right? If he pays the worker what the worker should be paid, where does the employer get all his money? Someone is cheated bad here. And dont give me that: "worker agreed to it" Shit. I didnt agree to it when I took my job, yet I had to take a job in order to eat. There were no just jobs available.


(i think actually you might have mixed the fact that capitalists usually make so much money that they don't need to physically work in whatever business they made after a while, so the business carries on with little attention needed, only requiring money to pay for new machines, wages, etc.
Yes, so they are pests in the society. They dont produce, yet they take vast amounts of money.


I think that both you and I can agree on something. What we have here today is state capitalism/crony capitalism, which I define as "an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth."

how does this work? My business is losing profit because i made some bad decisions or because i am facing fierce competition. What do I do? I go to the government and tell them that the kind of work i need to do is very specialized work and that there needs to be regulation in how its done because it is very dangerous etc. Then the government passes that regulation, and appoints a comitte to decide who gets to produce what and when. And guess who's in the comittee? that's right, the leading experts of the field. and that includes "older and more experient busineses" like mine. In the end, my initial firm benefits the most. Not only will i lose a heck of a lot more competition, but since i start to grow as a monopoly, at some point i will be "too big to fail" and the government will bail me out, thus encouraging me to not care about how i make my profits at all. and if something does go wrong with my firm, i can just blame it on the "free market" and ask for even more regulation. Lobbyism, "asking for favors", whatever, the truth is this is how most of the big companies have gotten where they are today.
The regulation part is the part of capitalism I agree with. By regulating capitalism, the nordic countries basically abolished poverty in the 80s. (using imperialism ofcourse, we communists would do better)

[Havet]

I dont care about petty economical freedoms if I am starving to death. I am not exactly against you in the since that I too would like as much economical freedom as possible. I however notice that we do not live in capitalist mushroom world and therefore one must have priorities.

I simply prioritize peoples lives over other peoples control on excess products.Hey, don't get me wrong, i too value more people's life than products they have, because of the potential each mind can achieve. However, I do not think its either legitimate or practical to steal those who produce to give it to those who don't produce/ need it the most.

Like I said earlier, we are given life but not its sustenance. To survive we must act rationally. To claim that those who earnt their sustenance are evil because they do not give it to those who didn't, and that they should be forced to, is to claim that they do not have a right to what they made for themselves precisely because they made it just for themselves and not for others. Charity is only morally legitimate and practical if done voluntarily.

Everyone could have all the economic freedom of the world and still starve to death. That still does not prove that men should be force to give what they made to others because they need it most. The fact that there is more economic freedom only betters the condition of mankind: it allows every man to seek an easier way of getting its food and shelter than stealing and murdering, or hunting and farming with the lowest of comforts.



There are many definitions of slavery, and you gave me just one of many, so it basically means nothing, for I could just come up with a definition that supports my view. I suggest you read the link I gave.It's own logic is self-defeating, but I can prove it how we are slaves to a much bigger "capitalist", one that holds every resource.

Suppose you are born in an empty world with no one but yourself and your parents. Now imagine you were born with physical capabilities and your parents died and you have to supply for yourself. Nature physically forces you to die. This is the typically conceived vision of natural death by starvation aka slavery to nature. However, it is not the only one.

Suppose you are in an empty world with no one but yourself. Nature is thus making it obvious that if you do not provide sustenance for yourself you will die. You could choose to die instead. However, this is not a reasonable alternative. There is no consent because any decision you make is made under duress; thus, this is still slavery

Next, suppose you have found another person and she is starving. Nature makes it clear you have a choice. Either you can feed the other person and starve yourself, or you feed yourself and let the other starve. Again, the choice is not a reasonable choice; it is one in which the only alternative to starve is to let other starve. Thus, there is no consent; this is still slavery.

Now suppose you fall in a a big natural hole and are hurt in your hands while you fell. Nature clearly states there are two alternatives: either you climb it up and feel excruciating pain or be there and starve yourself. The alternative is not a reasonable one; there is no consent; this is still slavery.

Finally, suppose that you, like today, have multiple choices of supplying for yourself. However they are very hard to do and the rewards are fairly diminished. You are given a choice a choice; either you can choose a way to supply for yourself (you choose which one) or you can starve to death. The fact that you is allowed to choose your way of sustenance clearly does not amount to consent; it is merely a choice between a number of situations that are all still fundamentally involuntary. Since there is no consent, this is still slavery.

To bring this to our reality is very simple. You have two choices: to live or to starve. Currently, to live, the efforts you need to make are much lesser than 100 000 years ago when humans first appeared. You either get a job if you are in the city, or if you were born in the countryside you work your land and receive what you can grow of it. The fact that you can choose which process by which to feed yourself doesn't change the fact that you are enslaved into doing something you might hate if you wish to live. Living entities are all enslaved to the fact that if they do not follow a specific course of action they die. How does this apply in reality? You can choose the way you like the most to supply for yourself, or the way that takes the least effort of you to supply for yourself.

Nothing is going to change the fact we are going to die if we don't eat. Capitalists are also included in the category of humans. They need the workers to provide for themselves as well. The fact that they have asked other people to help them who are economically poorer doesn't change that fact. Capitalists started as workers too, or as people with nothing (except in the cases they have inherited their wealth). They accumulated enough money through their effort to start their own business and being in the position to ask others to help them in the business.


Kings and wars are born solely to protect capitalists rights to their capital. Religion does not in itself create misery, but it is almost always perverted to suit the need of the capitalist. Capitalism is economical totalitarianism and collectivism is a blessing for every people it affects, except capitalists.If by capitalist you mean people who have accumulated capital, then we are all capitalists except the poorest of poor who has absolutely nothing and must face its survival every day.

"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. ". Capitalism does not regulate every aspect of public and private life. State capitalism and Fascism do. Like I said earlier you cannot escape the fact of starvation, which capitalism doesn't increase (because for that it would need to eliminate choices) but allows for people to more freely and with less effort evade that condition (because it increases the amount of choices).


Free market creates suffering because in free market capital decides. People dont decide anything. If I would have a say, I would have a job. But everytme I apply for the job the answer is: "we would like to take you, but we have no money". Therefore, capital decided for me that I am not to have a job. The laws of the capital are not thinking, and therefore not humane.Are you really suggesting that because trades are done with the intention of profit, people don't decide? Ever heard of the term consumer? marketing? polls? These are all instruments for other people to see what buyers want. And you decide every time when you refuse or buy a product. In effect, you are voting with your dollars.

If companies are sending workers away then you have options: increase your skills in areas that are in demand or look for other jobs (as well as the pre-historic choices). There is the possibility that you self-employ yourself and maybe carry on with the business.If you are to make a living by trading with others, then it would be wise to trade things they want. If you are a carpenter and you are finding out people do not want wood objects anymore then change your profession or the things you produce. Evolve, change, innovate, improve and act. The laws of market are rational. If something can now be made more efficiently and with less effort, why would you keep doing it the old way? The laws of the market allow for the distribution of goods to several different interests. When you buy anything you are saying to whoever made it that they can keep making it.


Read Marx's das kapital. It is an entire book that solely points out how capitalism is full of mistakes, totalitarianism and unethical prioritizing.Read Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, which shows practical arguments on why government is inneficient and full of mistakes, totalitarianism and unethical prioritizing. Also how many of the problems government can't handle are not only actually handled but handled better by a free market. Read Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which explains how multiple forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny.

Point is: It's likely you and I will never read any books we suggest because of such contrasting views. However, I am open-minded enough to actually go read das kapital. I hope you too are as open-minded as I in regards to new literal experiences.



Damn! Why didnt I do this immediately? The entire african continent could become industrial over night, but they dont understand this!!

Honestly: If that were true, everyone would be happy. Everyone are not happy so your theory is false. Over 90% of the workers dont have the money to by even the simplest of tools, and even in instances where workers were trying to rule for themselves, the big companies and grand presidents utterly chrushed all that stood in the way of their monopoly.The african continent has not increased their industrialization because:
a) they have been subject to colonialism and imperialism and as thus were subject to the power of their european rulers
b)many countries are currently living in dictatorships that do not allow the freedom to do such things in the countries. One has got to wonder, why in Spain, for example, there are way over 2 million illegal immigrants each year that come from somewhere in africa. Yes africa has plenty of resources, but those who wish to use them only can when bribing the government.



If world just were such a nice place... Why are there unemployed? Seriously, I want you to explain me why there are so many unemployed people (soon including me), and I want you to explain why is it that they dont just start working for themselves?There are many causes. The one that is hurting the most is the minimum wage.

The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are, of course, the trade unions, the monopolistic craft trade unions in particular. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $2 an hour or $2.50 an hour, or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. It is no accident that the teenage unemployment rate -- the unemployment rate among teenagers in the USA (and overall all over the world) -- is over twice as high as the overall unemployment rate. It's no accident that that was not always the case until the 1950's when the minimum wage rate was raised very drastically, very quickly. Teenage unemployment was higher than ordinary unemployment because, of course, teenagers are the ones who are just coming into the labor market -- they're searching and finding jobs, and it's understandable that on the average they would be unemployed more. But never with a difference as high as the currently observed.

The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. It's real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain wages of their privileged members higher than the others.

We all know that if the government raised the minimum wage by $20 an hour, many employees would be laid off. Businesses are not charities; they hire workers only when the workers create more revenue for the business than they cost in wages and compensation.

To your other point, I should first clarify working for yourself doesn't necessarily mean starting a business. There are still many people that in rural parts of their countries live of the earth or of simple businesses they created solely to supply for themselves and to not make profit.

However, most people that work for themselves are normal people who found out about a high demand for a product or service and decided to take a chance and provide it. There are many like that, who created their small companies and still keep them relatively small. Although not as many as preferable, due to regulation caused by monopoly favors or other factors, minimum wage laws, or an insane barrier to entry due to the complete state ownership of the given service or product and its production.


After this, I want you to explain what is the propable situation of a worker during a job interview, as opposed to the situation of the employer. And I dont want to hear theory, I want to hear how it is in the real world.If by probably you mean due to the current crisis, then I would say many companies are a lot more likely to hire a lot less or paying less to whom they hire. If they still are desperately looking for a kind of worker they are willing to pay for him. What crisis have is that they reduce the availability of jobs which in turn make people more willing to accept less wage. However, by common sense, it cannot go down undefinitely, otherwise employers wouldn't hire because people would rather go fishing to eat than to work for the.


No, capitalists do not need workers to live. Capitalists need workers to be capitalists, which is not real needing is it? If capitalists had no workers, they would not be capitalists but workers instead. This goes by the very definition of class, so there is little arguing.there is not little arguing. Capitalists are workers who have enough money to ask other people to work for them. They are not magically special for this. If a person started a business side by side with his friend and paid him in equal terms or more to him and less to his friend, he would still be a worker, but since he came up with the idea, and his friend agreed, then he is the one who gets the return on his money and then distributes it to his friend.


The reason why wage slaves are slaves, is because they have little choice over the exact terms of their work. They MUST do what capitalists tell them to, ot they will get fired.If when hiring they do not like the conditions of the contract they can find other ways to provide for themselves, even in another job with better conditions. If you agreed something on a contract, then obviously if you don't do it you will get fired.


In a communist society they would still have to work, but they would work for themselves as communities. They would serve no masters, other than themselves.I have no problem with that. There are many examples of closed communities that did well. Again i think people should be free to do whatever they want so long as they don't force others out of their life, liberty and/or property.



The point was that employers are not needed to run a society. Workers are. Yet who is it that takes all the products of that society, and lets no needy man use it?to run a society all that is needed is MEN. whether they decide to organize as worker/employers, only workers trading with one another (free enterprise system which i think might be the best way to run companies, where everyone is self.employed, selling not their time but what their time produces) or communes where property is held in common.

And to claim only workers create things is not very accurate. Unless you consider scientists, architects and engineers, all the people that thought of the things to build in the first place, and did not take any active part in actually making those things.



Besides, all that you wrote still does not change the fact that the employer does not produce anything, yet eats better than most workers.

If he pays the worker what the worker should be paid, where does the employer get all his money? Someone is cheated bad here. And dont give me that: "worker agreed to it" Shit. I didnt agree to it when I took my job, yet I had to take a job in order to eat. There were no just jobs available.Wealth isn't something static, to be seized, looted or stolen. It has to be created. Someone can make billions by inventing something worth billions and then trading it. No one is cheated bad here. Wealth was created because something that was less valuable (iron, steal rubber, etc) is now valuable to many other people (cars, trains, bridges).

And i don't expect that you are likely to find job posts that specifically mention employers cannot earn more than the employees. If you didn't agree to it then you could either get another a job or supply for yourself any other way of the ones i mentioned before.



The regulation part is the part of capitalism I agree with. By regulating capitalism, the nordic countries basically abolished poverty in the 80s. (using imperialism ofcourse, we communists would do better)Like i've explained before, but you will likely not accept as legitimate argument, the regulation part in capitalism is what hurts society the most overall.

Nordic countries may be able to provide help for the poor, but they do so at the expense of taxing around 50% to the members of society who did manage to make a living, thus denying them or ignoring property rights to the wealth they have.

[Dimentio]

Hey, don't get me wrong, i too value more people's life than products they have, because of the potential each mind can achieve. However, I do not think its either legitimate or practical to steal those who produce to give it to those who don't produce/ need it the most.

Like I said earlier, we are given life but not its sustenance. To survive we must act rationally. To claim that those who earnt their sustenance are evil because they do not give it to those who didn't, and that they should be forced to, is to claim that they do not have a right to what they made for themselves precisely because they made it just for themselves and not for others. Charity is only morally legitimate and practical if done voluntarily.

One question. What is your opinion regarding people who cannot walk, talk, have low IQ or severe neurological defects?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think private roads are absurd, except when put in context of corporations and other quasi-competitive dictatorial entities buying them.

Tolls would be a stupid way of extracting money. A road entrepreneur would probably try to run from a charity, or clump his costs in other venues.

[Dejavu]

I don't think private roads are absurd, except when put in context of corporations and other quasi-competitive dictatorial entities buying them.

Tolls would be a stupid way of extracting money. A road entrepreneur would probably try to run from a charity, or clump his costs in other venues.


Right. Even the state bureaucrats could figure out that far too many tolls degrades efficiency of transportation, particularly shipping. Which is why its quite ridiculous that Block has *shrug attitude* towards this potential liability, especially when he tries to make arguments about increasing efficiency. Another viable method for a private road to be funded is by companies/ co-ops actually paying for them and the difference is fixed into the price of whatever goods they are marketing. Just one of many possible options.

The point, as I explained in my blog, is that even if state roads are decently efficient , are they justified? In other words , are forced externalization of costs to the general public for road maintenance justified? You know, for being the self-proclaimed anarchist and free marketer that Block claims he is , it's rather sad that he omitted discussion about this.

Pluralism is also another aspect. Demanding that everything work one way only begs authoritarianism. Block seems to fall into this vulgar trap.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In the meantime, road construction and repair could be sped up if they decentralized the process. One of the main problems I witnessed while campaigning for mayor was the discrepancy between "state," "county," and "city" roads. You filed a complaint to the city, who then had to file a complaint to the county, who then (sometimes) had to ask permission from the state road service.

All roads within a jurisdiction should be controlled by that jurisdiction. If the state or county wants to build a road into the town, the larger entity should fork over incentives to the city, not the other way around.

More people would be held accountable - including the contractors - if all you had to do was yell at your transportation committee. They're using the same roads, and they're your neighbors. I introduced a proposal that would have made the recall and initiative process much, much easier - exactly for that reason. Road repair was taking too long. I also wanted committee members to be susceptible to recall, since they're appointed for long, uncontested services.

Breaking cities into "zones" and then taxing them individually would have prevented dubious calls for road repair while increasing efficiency.

[Dejavu]

In the meantime, road construction and repair could be sped up if they decentralized the process. One of the main problems I witnessed while campaigning for mayor was the discrepancy between "state," "county," and "city" roads. You filed a complaint to the city, who then had to file a complaint to the county, who then (sometimes) had to ask permission from the state road service.

All roads within a jurisdiction should be controlled by that jurisdiction. If the state or county wants to build a road into the town, the larger entity should fork over incentives to the city, not the other way around.

More people would be held accountable - including the contractors - if all you had to do was yell at your transportation committee. They're using the same roads, and they're your neighbors.


Spot on. I notice the same problems as well. If road maintenance was localized either to collective or private entities ( or a combo of both), the incentives would work in favor of upkeep. The people that regularly use the roads in their locality are the most effected by their condition and supply.

[STJ]

Thank god we dont have Toll roads in my state.

[Dejavu]

Thank god we dont have Toll roads in my state.

We have some here in Southern California. Most are state owned but there are a couple private or semi-private ones that actually do well and provide a huge utility to drivers.

One example would be the 91 fwy express lane (http://www.91expresslanes.com/) ( Busy fwy that connects LA to Orange County) provided by Fastrak (https://www.bayareafastrak.org/vector/forte/cgi_bin/forteisapi.dll?serviceName=ETCAccountWebSO&templateName=accounts/AccountLogin.html). Fastrak collects tolls but does it electronically. You register online and basically prepay and you have an electronic device you slip on your windshield. It alleviates the classical toll process of stoping at the booth such as the 73 fwy from Orange County to San Diego, which is run by the Californian govt.

[STJ]

My mother lives in Florida and there alot of toll roads there.

[Dejavu]

A screen shot of the electronic receiver device that is making old-school toll booths ( mostly state run nowadays) out of style.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/transportation/FasTrak%20transponder.JPG

[Havet]

One question. What is your opinion regarding people who cannot walk, talk, have low IQ or severe neurological defects?

my opinion is people should be free to help them. However, if someone is in that condition, i don't think they have a right to claim my property.

[Dimentio]

my opinion is people should be free to help them. However, if someone is in that condition, i don't think they have a right to claim my property.

And if someone does'nt help them?

[Havet]

And if someone does'nt help them?

then they'll have to make do with what they have. Sounds cruel said like this, but really there is no other way to do it. To allocate property rights according to need would be harmful for the needless, initially good for the needful, but in the end would end up creating a lot more needful.

[NecroCommie]

then they'll have to make do with what they have. Sounds cruel said like this, but really there is no other way to do it. To allocate property rights according to need would be harmful for the needless, initially good for the needful, but in the end would end up creating a lot more needful.
This person is disgusting! He has no respect towards the basic human rights of people, and basically defends elitism.

I strongly suggest banning him, or at least restricting.

[Bud Struggle]

My mother lives in Florida and there alot of toll roads there.

The reason for that is that for the longest time Florida's congressional delegation to Washington lacked "clout." So they couldn't get federal funding for needed roads. (And at that time Florida was expanding at a fast pace.) The only alternative was to float municipal bonds and fund the road through tolls.