Coercion in a Free Market Capitalist Society [Archive]

View Full Version : Coercion in a Free Market Capitalist Society

Lumpen Bourgeois

17th June 2009, 21:58

Libertarians contend that they oppose the "initiation of aggression"(coercion) on moral grounds.

They avow that individuals, unfettered from the chains of statism and collectivism, would be completely free to do as they please, that is, as long as they respect certain inviolable rights, in particular, property rights.

However, even in a society putatively free of governmental compulsion, don't property owners themselves require coercion to enforce their property rights and to compel others to recognize them? Don't property rights in general entail some compliance from society which in most cases must be buttressed with force?

Are there other forms of coercion that could exist in a free market capitalist society, the ideal system of the libertarians, besides those related to property holdings?

Thoughts? Musings? Rants?

IcarusAngel

17th June 2009, 22:11

However, even in a society putatively free of governmental compulsion, don't property owners themselves require coercion to enforce their property rights and to compel others to recognize them? Don't property rights in general entail some compliance from society which in most cases must be buttressed with force?

Yes, this is obvious. Libertarians aren't against government violence or coercion, they are just against it when it doesn't fit their purposes (i.e., when it's not protecting the interests of the rich).

They're just like any other statist, maybe even worse than democratic-capitalists (I'd say much worse, some leftists here disagree, God only knows why).

Libertarians are what are called economic royalists, they oppose all government interference that is aimed to try and support a strong middle class or working class, given that this interferes with the need to submit yourself to wage slavery. Many in the working class can avoid wage slavery with a powerful democratic government and thus can find the time to work against capitalism and call for democracy.

My theory is that Libertarians love the conservative, Reaganesque government exactly because workers are disenfranchised in such a system.

The problem is that their economics only works if humans are all robots. They ignore certain factors of economics as well that companies will hire people if they need workers, and will not "downsize workers" only because they have a higher tax rate or something.

Are there other forms of coercion that could exist in a free market capitalist society, the ideal system of the libertarians, besides those related to property holdings?

Thoughts? Musings? Rants?

Yes. Corporations.

Most corporations have come to power before any of the people on this forum were born. The people on this forum had absolutely zero input on whether these corporations should stay in business - they did not 'vote with their dollars' as they hadn't even existed yet. And yet, since these corporations are in power, and are so big, they are essentially forced to support them.

In this sense, as Herbet Marcuse pointed out, they have a vested interest in continuing their servitude. The market is like a "prison system" - it's very hard to change. Voting with your dollars makes no sense when you have little income (due to the capitalist system) and not much buying power. It's obviously a system that favors the rich and allows the corporations to shape the market.

The pure "free-market" isn't really an alternative as the uniformity of corporations allows them to invest more in research, not just manipulting minds to buy products. I also believe it is based on negative impulsives, not cooperative impulses. So it is no solution.

The only way to get rid of this "prison system" (Lindblom) is by overthrowing it all at once.

nerditarian

17th June 2009, 22:59

IcarusAngel

17th June 2009, 23:04

And how did you come to acquire your parents' basement in which you troll forums?

Your parents went to school and got educated, or they started working lower-paying jobs right out of high school. Either way, they started working for a corporation, that is illegitmate and maintains their property by the state. Some corporations are so reliant on the state they might as well be state run institutions. Thus, the money and they property they receive is in a certain sense illegitmate.

The way to resolve this is democratically.

Furthermore, even in some states here in the US it is illegal to attack someone for being on your property merely if they are stealing something. Only if they physically threaten you are you allowed to 'beat them' as you say.

laminustacitus

17th June 2009, 23:05

Jack

17th June 2009, 23:12

It would just be a much simpler form of "coercion". i.e:

"Give me your money or I'll kick your ass"

Oh shit! Do the private security guards prowl the streets protecting random people for money? No they don't unless you hire body guards, until then you've just lost your wallet.

Or, on a much more sophisticated scale:

"You pay the Family 1/3rd of your business's income every week, as 'protection', or else...."

Private security isn't going to risk their lives fucking with the Mafia.

Also, to see what happens when the state is removed without capitalism being removed with it: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840236,00.html

nerditarian

18th June 2009, 00:44

And how did you come to acquire your parents' basement in which you troll forums?
Actually I'm sort of in my own business and I'm in a studio right now.

Your parents went to school and got educated, or they started working lower-paying jobs right out of high school. Either way, they started working for a corporation, that is illegitmate and maintains their property by the state. Some corporations are so reliant on the state they might as well be state run institutions. Thus, the money and they property they receive is in a certain sense illegitmate.
Rather than discussing the parent thing, let's discuss the corporation thing. Corporations maybe illegitimately licensed but it doesn't mean that the business they conduct is illegitimate and that it would not succeed in a stateless legal system without that licensing system. Because in a statist system business X incorporates in no way signifies that business X would be illegitimate or unsuccessful in a stateless society.

The way to resolve this is democratically. elaborate please?

Furthermore, even in some states here in the US it is illegal to attack someone for being on your property merely if they are stealing something. Only if they physically threaten you are you allowed to 'beat them' as you say.
That the statist system keeps us from properly protecting our properly does not mean that it should. Is does not mean ought.

Lumpen Bourgeois

18th June 2009, 01:15

If you were to violate my property rights...

In addition, there would not even need to be "compliance" from other individuals since they have no just claim to another man's property.

Where exactly do these property rights stem from? How do you come to own something to begin with? Are not property rights backed by threat of violence?

Coercion, and violent force is defined with respect to property. If I coerce you, I am using violent force against you (you own yourself as property), or your possessions.

Coercion, in the conventional sense, does not usually concern property. In fact, most definitions of coercion lack reference to it. But since you consider people to be merely pieces of property to be owned, I'll accept your definition for argument's sake.

nerditarian

18th June 2009, 02:17

Where exactly do these property rights stem from? How do you come to own something to begin with? Are not property rights backed by threat of violence?

By either homesteading it or acquiring it through voluntarily exchange with the person who homesteaded or acquiring it voluntarily from someone who acquired it from that guy etc. etc. :)

Coercion, in the conventional sense, does not usually concern property. In fact, most definitions of coercion lack reference to it. But since you consider people to be merely pieces of property to be owned, I'll accept your definition for argument's sake.

Because we believe we own ourselves, we believe that humans=property? Because we believe in the individual controlling his own life, we must disavow dignity? Are you joking?

Lumpen Bourgeois

19th June 2009, 02:22

By either homesteading it or acquiring it through voluntarily exchange with the person who homesteaded or acquiring it voluntarily from someone who acquired it from that guy etc. etc. :)

Not everyone agrees with the homestead principle, however. Those who don't agree, (communists, several liberals, socialists, mutualists, etc.), would have to be forced, in your ideal "society"(or whatever the praxiologists want to call it), to accept your moral idealogy concerning property.

Because we believe we own ourselves, we believe that humans=property? Because we believe in the individual controlling his own life, we must disavow dignity? Are you joking?

It was laminus who proclaimed that we own ourselves as property.

laminustacitus

19th June 2009, 03:42

Not everyone agrees with the homestead principle, however. Those who don't agree, (communists, several liberals, socialists, mutualists, etc.), would have to be forced, in your ideal "society"(or whatever the praxiologists want to call it), to accept your moral idealogy concerning property.
As long as they do not try to coerce others into surrendering their property, then no force is needed against those who do not accept the homestead principle.

It was laminus who proclaimed that we own ourselves as property.
Indeed, no one else but the individual has control over his body; ergo, it is his property.

DixieFlatline

19th June 2009, 06:03

My theory is that Libertarians love the conservative, Reaganesque government exactly because workers are disenfranchised in such a system.
Many libertarians identify left, or in the case of ancaps, center above. There isn't much support for Reagan in the libertarian movement at large. He had decent rhetoric, but he was a stooge like most politicians.

The problem is that their economics only works if humans are all robots. They ignore certain factors of economics as well that companies will hire people if they need workers, and will not "downsize workers" only because they have a higher tax rate or something.
Actually, socialism is based upon a robotic model where each receives according to his need irrespective of scarcity. A capitalist society recognizes that no two people have the same wants or needs. That they have different means of reaching their own ends, and through voluntary trade and the division of labour, they can refine and reorder their scarce goods to create the maximum amount of prosperity (personal satisfaction) possible without conflict or violence.

In a free market capitalist society, there would be no tax advantage to downsize, because there would be no taxes.

But more importantly, in a free market society, you would have flatter business models, and very few people would be "workers" in the traditional sense. Everyone would be their own market actor. The incentives to build large companies and large factories would largely be removed. Workers would no longer strike if they didn't like their conditions or wages, they would move to another firm, or start their own (presuming they want to stay in the same industry). There's no need to protest or lobby "the bosses" when every worker is his own boss.

The reason why workers are trapped in "wage slavery" (not my preferred term, but it fits in this discussion) is that the current system protects "the capitalist bosses" and doesn't allow the proles to compete with the bosses for capital or surplus (again, not my preferred term).

A free market, allows everyone to compete. Now the bosses no longer have the clout they would under a state, where they gain legal privilege and they get special financial advantages like socialized medicine and highways which are underwritten by the workers themselves in the form of income taxes and taxes on sales of goods.

I've read many of your posts, and you have a strawman perspective on what libertarianism and ancap are. I invite you to find out what they really are, so when you reject them you at least are doing so from an informed position.

mikelepore

19th June 2009, 17:21

Ele'ill

19th June 2009, 17:42

Most of the violent coercion under capitalism is just the maintenance of the status quo. There's no way to acquire food and other necessities without money, and that is identical to having a situation in which someone points a gun at your head and says "You will accept one of next few jobs that become available or I'll blow your brains out."

I disagree.

If you said no to the person holding the gun to your head - its implied that they'd kill you. If you stood up where you're at right now and said "No!" and made the choice to never work again you'd be alive until you decided to stop surviving.

There are tons of ways to get free and healthy food. There are tons of ways to get free medical attention there are tons of ways to make things work out.

But I agree with the general point you're trying to make.

If you don't want to be a part of capitalism we'll drive you to the bottoms in your own home (land). No tolerance for alternative infrastructure. Etc..

IcarusAngel

19th June 2009, 18:24

Many libertarians identify left, or in the case of ancaps, center above. There isn't much support for Reagan in the libertarian movement at large. He had decent rhetoric, but he was a stooge like most politicians.

Reagan had decent rhetoric? This is a man who mocked the homeless with similar terms to Rousseau's princess: that some people just like to camp out on the streets. This is a man who claimed trees cause more pollution than anything else (is that a fact Reagan?)

This is a man who stockpiled tanks next to the Whitehouse in order to defend it from tiny little Laos, whom he attacked. This is a man whose policies of supporting Suharto, Rios Montt (Guatemala) and the contras in Nicaragua. It's been estimated that the economic fascism and neo-liberalism Reagan favored caused millions of deaths indirectly and obviously hundreds of thousands of deaths directly. Chomsky has the best research on this, but also others, like Greg Grandin.

At home he implemented failed Naziesque "deregulation" policies like Bush (another Libertarian economically) which were disasters and increased the burdens on the poor (taxes by 15%) and decreased them on the rich (taxes by the same amount), and the deficit tripled under his watch.

They also were highly anti-Democratic and against the whole "transparency" concept of government. Reagan's policies generally hurt workers and third-worlders but benefited the upper class.

That Libertarians generally think of Reagan, Coolidge, and the "founders" in general, and other fascists as being closest to their ideology speaks volumes. We just had a Libertarian here promoting the ideology of Ron Paul.

FDR, Truman, and probably Jefferson (the idea of Jeffersonian democracy) are probably closest to leftist values.

Libertarians are generally wholly ignorant of serious state crimes, thinking instead the capital gains tax is the most atrocious thing the state is doing.

Actually, socialism is based upon a robotic model where each receives according to his need irrespective of scarcity. A capitalist society recognizes that no two people have the same wants or needs.

Everybody has the same needs to a certain extent: food, water, shelter, etc. Humans are biological creatures. As society becomes more and more advanced, it is reasonable to claim that everybody has other needs as well, like a certain amount of resources, clean air, clean water, and health care, and these could be provided by a communist society. Theoretically, it is possible right now to eradicate world hunger and provide everybody with enough food to live on but we don't implement this because of the tyranny of capitalism and neo-liberalism, which locks third world countries into oppressive agreements and are generally supportive of the status-quo.

Anyway, you conveniently leave out the first part of the sentence, 'from each according to his ability.'

Everybody has different abilities, so in communism, everybody would be treated as individuals. I don't necessarily agree with communism as I prefer libertarian-socialism (the original, anti-capitalist libertarianism) but I can see how it makes sense to have people receive according to their abilities.

As society advances people would tailor their abilities to the society, and if they want to receive more resources in return for their work they would have to put in more work. This would encourage people who aren't talented to do things in order to get resources for things they merely enjoy but do not benefit the common good. This addresses the ridiculous argument 'no one would work' that libertarians give, even though people have worked together in communities for centuries. The idea that people need to be forced to work - as capitalism teaches - is asinine.

That they have different means of reaching their own ends, and through voluntary trade and the division of labour, they can refine and reorder their scarce goods to create the maximum amount of prosperity (personal satisfaction) possible without conflict or violence.

Capitalism doesn't solve the problems of scracity. It merely denies people the right to have more control in what to do with resources, leaving it instead to the property owners. This is because capitalists believe people fundamentally aren't smart enough to run their own lives and have to have managers and 'bosses' do it for them. Making people "owners" of the land doesn't solve anything anymore than does declaring all of the land to be the property of the church or king and making everybody else serfs.

The division of labor also only increases class divisions. As corporations gain more and more resources and as technology advances the workers have less important roles to play to the point where the work becomes monotonous and boring. Alexis de Tocqueville even pointed this out:

"In proportion as the principle of the division of labor is more extensively applied, the workman becomes more weak, more narrow-minded, and more dependent. The art advances, the artisan recedes. On the other hand, in proportion as it becomes more manifest that the productions of manufactures are by so much the cheaper and better as the manufacture is larger and the amount of capital employed more considerable, wealthy and educated men come forward to embark in manufactures, which were heretofore abandoned to poor or ignorant handicraftsmen. The magnitude of the efforts required and the importance of the results to be obtained attract them. Thus at the very time at which the science of manufactures lowers the class of workmen, it raises the class of masters.

While the workman concentrates his faculties more and more upon the study of a single detail, the master surveys an extensive whole, and the mind of the latter is enlarged in proportion as that of the former is narrowed. In a short time the one will require nothing but physical strength without intelligence; the other stands in need of science, and almost of genius, to ensure success. This man resembles more and more the administrator of a vast empire; that man, a brute. "

This is shown by the fact that as the industrial revolution progressed the gap between the rich and the poor increased and workers were treated like 'slaves' by their masters when there were no workers' rights.

On the other hand, a society like communism where people control the resources equally makes the workers not just participate in production but also brings any concerns they have to the table in terms of making their work life more bearable.

In a free market capitalist society, there would be no tax advantage to downsize, because there would be no taxes.

The goal of a capitalist corporation is to make as much profit as possible, to get the most of their workers (slaves) as possible. They do this by trying to dominate markets, destroy competition, and brainwash buyers. This inevitably means they would also try and get the most work out of workers with as few workers as possible working as long and hard as possible. This is always the best strategy for short-term gain for any business and why corporations throw people out of work whenever a recession hits so as not to interfere with profits.

But more importantly, in a free market society, you would have flatter business models, and very few people would be "workers" in the traditional sense. Everyone would be their own market actor. The incentives to build large companies and large factories would largely be removed. Workers would no longer strike if they didn't like their conditions or wages, they would move to another firm, or start their own (presuming they want to stay in the same industry). There's no need to protest or lobby "the bosses" when every worker is his own boss.

I don't see why humans continue to need "slave masters" at all. Even if there was a free-market society where everyone was his own actor and no one felt compelled to work for anyone other than himself, this doesn't do anything to solve the problems of capitalism. It is theoretically still possible for corporations to come and monopolize resources. We know this happens because when there were free-markets there was a greater consolidation of resources. Furthermore, the capitalists' property has to be protected by force and the 'disputes' the capitalist class have requires a judicial system and a whole host of other statist measures. The state created capitalism, and the state must exist to protect it.

Only in the 40s or 50s did the gap between the rich and the poor begin to decrease. Now, due to years or capitalist economics, it continues to grow.

The reason why workers are trapped in "wage slavery" (not my preferred term, but it fits in this discussion) is that the current system protects "the capitalist bosses" and doesn't allow the proles to compete with the bosses for capital or surplus (again, not my preferred term).

A free market, allows everyone to compete. Now the bosses no longer have the clout they would under a state, where they gain legal privilege and they get special financial advantages like socialized medicine and highways which are underwritten by the workers themselves in the form of income taxes and taxes on sales of goods.

This is just bizarre Misean economics and politics. Roads and health care generally benefit small businesses, not large ones. Countries that have health care do not have the large corporate monopolies and inequalities that America has, while America's inequality continues to increase:

"The gap between the rich and poor in the United States grew at the same pace as the economic growth. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent.
Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority."

The old classical-liberal philosophers (not the ones who were supposedly 'capitalist' and conservative like Bastiat) were right, and Marx was right, capitalism creates widening gaps and social strife.

The idea of health care and public roads are sound: that people come together and work a problem that faces nearly everybody except the superrich.

Of course, it takes "big government" to implement national highways. But it takes big government to make capitalism run efficiently. This is the only way capitalism works.

Miseans are against more freedom and democracy because they want everybody disassociated from one another to be wage slaves, just as the colonial slave owners didn't permit slaves to organize or associate with other groups of slaves, like white servants.

They are statists and totalitarians of the highest order; the government can only benefit me.

I've read many of your posts, and you have a strawman perspective on what libertarianism and ancap are. I invite you to find out what they really are, so when you reject them you at least are doing so from an informed position.

I've been debating on the internet with Libertarian trolls for years. I used to debate with them on usenet when they tried to dominate the internet. It's interesting that more and more people on philosophy forums and political discussion forums discard Libertarian rhetoric on leftist and anarchist grounds, such as talking about the consolidation of resources, the worker/manager (slave/owner) relationship, and so on.

There isn't much difference between the rhetoric Libertarians spout and what is written in the Misean "textbooks" - like Human actions. Libertarians have an inability to think for themselves.

DixieFlatline

19th June 2009, 21:12

Reagan had decent rhetoric? This is a man who mocked the homeless with similar terms to Rousseau's princess: that some people just like to camp out on the streets. This is a man who claimed trees cause more pollution than anything else (is that a fact Reagan?)

......

That Libertarians generally think of Reagan, Coolidge, and the "founders" in general, and other fascists as being closest to their ideology speaks volumes. We just had a Libertarian here promoting the ideology of Ron Paul.

FDR, Truman, and probably Jefferson (the idea of Jeffersonian democracy) are probably closest to leftist values.

Libertarians are generally wholly ignorant of serious state crimes, thinking instead the capital gains tax is the most atrocious thing the state is doing.
This is a strawman. Any sincere libertarian is an anarchist, all pro-state libertarians are confused. Minarchy is a myth.

And your rant about Reagan, created another strawman. I said his rhetoric was good, I never said his actions were good. Almost all American Presidents were mass murderers. FDR and Truman were some of the worst, certainly compared to someone like Coolidge.

Everybody has the same needs to a certain extent: food, water, shelter, etc. Humans are biological creatures. As society becomes more and more advanced, it is reasonable to claim that everybody has other needs as well, like a certain amount of resources, clean air, clean water, and health care, and these could be provided by a communist society. Theoretically, it is possible right now to eradicate world hunger and provide everybody with enough food to live on but we don't implement this because of the tyranny of capitalism and neo-liberalism, which locks third world countries into oppressive agreements and are generally supportive of the status-quo.
We sort of agree on this, however you're misdiagnosing the cause. The cause is that people in third world economies are not allowed property rights and all of the freedoms that flow from being free beings. Their populations and territory are treated as commons by imperialists east and west. Violent dictators are propped up who keep the people down and oppressed from realizing their own peaceful ends. The problem is the state, a word which is synonymous with criminality and force.

Anyway, you conveniently leave out the first part of the sentence, 'from each according to his ability.'
It was deliberate, because it is irrelevant. Regardless of ability, resources are scarce. Time is scarce. It is not possible to provide for needs infinitely. Which is why the division of labour is so necessary if we are to best organize resources to provide as much for as many as possible.

Everybody has different abilities, so in communism, everybody would be treated as individuals. I don't necessarily agree with communism as I prefer libertarian-socialism (the original, anti-capitalist libertarianism) but I can see how it makes sense to have people receive according to their abilities.

As society advances people would tailor their abilities to the society, and if they want to receive more resources in return for their work they would have to put in more work. This would encourage people who aren't talented to do things in order to get resources for things they merely enjoy but do not benefit the common good. This addresses the ridiculous argument 'no one would work' that libertarians give, even though people have worked together in communities for centuries. The idea that people need to be forced to work - as capitalism teaches - is asinine.
You just made a case for free market capitalism! Bravo!

FYI, Capitalism is a system where property is privately owned. It doesn't "teach" anything.

Capitalism doesn't solve the problems of scracity.
Nor does it pretend to. Scarcity is a material condition of nature.

CIt merely denies people the right to have more control in what to do with resources, leaving it instead to the property owners.
But free markets allow everyone to control their own resources. Everyone is a property owner.

This is because capitalists believe people fundamentally aren't smart enough to run their own lives and have to have managers and 'bosses' do it for them. Making people "owners" of the land doesn't solve anything anymore than does declaring all of the land to be the property of the church or king and making everybody else serfs.
This is another strawman. Free market capitalism believes everyone is smart enough to make their own individual and unique decisions about EVERYTHING in their life. Socialism is about planning and control, not free market capitalism.

This is precisely what I am talking about. It's one thing that communists conflate capitalism with the state, when the state is inherently socialist, but when you start to strawman libertarians as supporting the opposite of what they do, well... I'm ok with your not liking libertarianism or ancap. I just wish you could articulate it, so I could understand the real concerns you have about it.

The division of labor also only increases class divisions. As corporations gain more and more resources and as technology advances the workers have less important roles to play to the point where the work becomes monotonous and boring. Alexis de Tocqueville even pointed this out:
Well, this is not true, because the division of labour creates the incentive to improve one's productivity, as you mentioned above, so they can have more of what they want. You were arguing for the divison of labour above, and now you are arguing against it.

As far as de Tocqueville, he was wrong about the specialization leading to worker disempowerment. A worker today lives like a king compared to a worker in AdT's age. He lives longer, he has sex with more people, he eats more and varied foods, he has the opportunity to travel, to vacation, he has more political power, more social variety, more religious variety etc.

I think you should stick with your first instinct. The division of labour makes us all better off.

On the other hand, a society like communism where people control the resources equally makes the workers not just participate in production but also brings any concerns they have to the table in terms of making their work life more bearable.
When people control resources equally, you disincentivize the honest to over produce, and you incentivize the lazy or dishonest to produce less. 2 legs good, 4 legs bad.

The goal of a capitalist corporation is to make as much profit as possible, to get the most of their workers (slaves) as possible. They do this by trying to dominate markets, destroy competition, and brainwash buyers. This inevitably means they would also try and get the most work out of workers with as few workers as possible working as long and hard as possible. This is always the best strategy for short-term gain for any business and why corporations throw people out of work whenever a recession hits so as not to interfere with profits.
Why do you think free marketers would be for this? Seems like another strawman argument.

I don't see why humans continue to need "slave masters" at all. Even if there was a free-market society where everyone was his own actor and no one felt compelled to work for anyone other than himself, this doesn't do anything to solve the problems of capitalism. It is theoretically still possible for corporations to come and monopolize resources. We know this happens because when there were free-markets there was a greater consolidation of resources. Furthermore, the capitalists' property has to be protected by force and the 'disputes' the capitalist class have requires a judicial system and a whole host of other statist measures. The state created capitalism, and the state must exist to protect it.
Let's try to break this one down.

I agree, there should be no slaves or masters.

The problems of capitalism, as you see them, are completely solved by free markets.

Yes, it is theoretically possible for someone to monopolize a resource without force, but ridiculously remote. We're probably more likely to nuke ourselves, than for someone to own all land or all water, or all vegetation.

Free markets do create a consolidation of capital in the hands of people who produce the most for everyone. Free markets do not reward people who spend $10 to make a $5 meal. They take those people out of that role naturally (bankruptcy) so that production is not wasted.

Everything has to be protected by force. The question is, will we use force to defend ourselves, or to steal and enslave others? I believe the latter is immoral.

Judicial systems are necessary to resolve disputes which will necessarily arise in a paradigm where we have scarce resources. The free marketer believes that we should have free and open arbitration, with no monopolies that can be corrupted or controlled by a particular power group. The state did not create capitalism (in the free market sense). The state is a defacto monopoly formed by force. It is not possible in a voluntary society (free market) it is only possible in an involuntary (slave society).

We're not that far apart, certainly we would be closer if we could come to agreement on common definition of terms. What you call capitalism, I call socialism, and likewise.

This is just bizarre Misean economics and politics. Roads and health care generally benefit small businesses, not large ones. Countries that have health care do not have the large corporate monopolies and inequalities that America has, while America's inequality continues to increase:

"The gap between the rich and poor in the United States grew at the same pace as the economic growth. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent.
Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority."

The reason why America has such a big gap, is related to the capacity of the state to expand the monetary base by deficit finance, which also pumps new credit directly to the oligarchs, corporations and bosses. This allows them to buy up resources in the market place, before prices adjust to reflect the new money, and the middle and lower class see their purchasing power drop. The statistics you and many of my leftist friends quote, do not take into account the expansion of the monetary base, or purchasing power. The money supply cannot transfer from pockets as directly as implied, unless it is a zero sum game. But it is not, because the monetary base and the debt money system is constantly inflating.

This is 100% a state issue. The central bank has a monopoly on the creation of credit, and it does so for the benefit of oligarchs, who get that money first and gain artificially high purchasing power. All state monopolies, come on the backs of the people.

Ironically, communism supports a central bank, but a central bank necessarily has to transfer new credit to a particular party over others, because if the money supply was increased equally for all, there would be no measurable effect on the economy.

Miseans are against more freedom and democracy because they want everybody disassociated from one another to be wage slaves, just as the colonial slave owners didn't permit slaves to organize or associate with other groups of slaves, like white servants.

They are statists and totalitarians of the highest order; the government can only benefit me.
That's another series of strawmen. Austrians are for freedom, but not democracy because that is mob rule. So-called slaves can organize (rigorous defense of the right to free association), but there is no point, because they can become bosses themselves. There are in essence no bosses, only workers. Or everyone is a boss and a worker.

To claim Austrians are statists and totalitarians is just grand standing. We're very anti-state and anti-violence (or do I repeat myself?) which makes it impossible for us to be totalitarians.

I've been debating on the internet with Libertarian trolls for years. I used to debate with them on usenet when they tried to dominate the internet. It's interesting that more and more people on philosophy forums and political discussion forums discard Libertarian rhetoric on leftist and anarchist grounds, such as talking about the consolidation of resources, the worker/manager (slave/owner) relationship, and so on.

There isn't much difference between the rhetoric Libertarians spout and what is written in the Misean "textbooks" - like Human actions. Libertarians have an inability to think for themselves.
This is ad hom and strawmen again. I believe it takes a free mind to question the state, to question the system of nationalism and institutional violence. In this regard, thinkers like Rothbard and Hoppe are fantastic contributors to an anarchism that believes in peace and progress not revolution and violence.

I hope you don't mind, but if you reply back, I might be much more selective in my response as you are very verbose and it is difficult to follow and respond to posts this long. I don't want you to think I am disregarding what you write, but much of it is repetitive and I don't have time to address all of it line by line.

trivas7

19th June 2009, 22:10

Nice post DixieFlatline. It's nice to see ancaps identify themselves as anarchists. :)

IcarusAngel

20th June 2009, 05:03

This is a strawman. Any sincere libertarian is an anarchist, all pro-state libertarians are confused. Minarchy is a myth.

And your rant about Reagan, created another strawman. I said his rhetoric was good, I never said his actions were good. Almost all American Presidents were mass murderers. FDR and Truman were some of the worst, certainly compared to someone like Coolidge.

It isn't a straw man. Reagan's rhetoric (lies, propaganda) and policies were bad. You, like many Austrians, seem to think everybody must agree with your absurd opinions of politics and economics that have been discredited in each field respectively.

American Libertarians aren't anarchists - "minarchy" is just a tyranny that uses the government to further the interests of the corporations. Anarchists are socialists who believe that labor is the true source of wealth creation. As Kropotkin said: "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." This is further emphasized by Proudhon, who noted: ""every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company," and also said that capital is analogous to government, which it is. All anarchists agree that landed monopolies should be prevented and that there should be no hierarchy. Misesns get their facts from verbal arguments and statements that don't prove anything, not from history and logic.

Tucker also rightly noted that both statist socialism and anarcho-socialism put labor 'in possession of its own.' As Adolph Fischer said, all anarchists, are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists (Quoted by Chomsky, Government in the Future).
Coolidge's policies also led to mass death in the third world and he also attacked Nicaragua. See Howard Zinn: Howard Zinn reader. Again, this is all conceded in history. (I do agree that some Libertarians also have been against imperialism, but this doesn't excuse the tyranny they promote at home).

We sort of agree on this, however you're misdiagnosing the cause. The cause is that people in third world economies are not allowed property rights and all of the freedoms that flow from being free beings. Their populations and territory are treated as commons by imperialists east and west.

No. The West went in and gave the property to the landed capitalists, and this has been a disaster for the third world, leading to millions of deaths. This needs to be ended and the people in those countries need to run their own resources through (non-hierarchical) collectives and cooperatives.

It was deliberate, because it is irrelevant. Regardless of ability, resources are scarce. Time is scarce. It is not possible to provide for needs infinitely.

It isn't irrelevant. There are enough resources already to go around for everybody. Everybody must have some public input in decision making. The limits of human potential are endless.

You just made a case for free market capitalism! Bravo!

FYI, Capitalism is a system where property is privately owned. It doesn't "teach" anything.

Property being privately owned in regards to land is a bad thing because it allows the resources to be monopolized. The system of politics you advocate allows people to claim land theirs because they supposedly "mix their labor with it" but their decision to own the land affects everybody - the land that can be used by humans is indeed a resource that is scarce.

Saying that people can own land because they can find people dumb enough to support it or buy from them is ridiculous - you might as well just say a king can own land because the majority of the serfs support him. That doesn't the change the fact that the individual who opposes it is royally screwed. The only logical way around this is stateless socialism - or anarchism, in other words - which would allow people to work together cooperatively and no hierarchy is allowed to crop up.

But free markets allow everyone to control their own resources. Everyone is a property owner.

Right. These property laws give both the rich and the poor the equal right to sleep under the bridge at night. Obviously, the poor person has no property if he was born into a situation in which the corporations have already gotten into their stride and have dominated the resources. Thus, he becomes the slave of the corporations not in charge of his own labor.

Free market capitalism believes everyone is smart enough to make their own individual and unique decisions about EVERYTHING in their life. Socialism is about planning and control, not free market capitalism.

See above. Socialism is about putting labor in charge. This is also a classical liberal idea in that it was advanced by von Humboldt and others, that the 'voluptuous master' is not the true owner of the resources, the worker is.

Free-Market capitalism is just another way to protect slave owners.

I'm ok with your not liking libertarianism or ancap. I just wish you could articulate it, so I could understand the real concerns you have about it.

What I'm saying is what is advocated by a majority of Libertarians: that the government should only protect private property rights. Miseans mostly agree, and some of them pretend I guess to be anarchists, or "anarcho-capitalists," who base their philosophies on Mises, Rand, etc., and other tyrants and pseudo-intellectuals.

As far as de Tocqueville, he was wrong about the specialization leading to worker disempowerment. A worker today lives like a king compared to a worker in AdT's age. He lives longer, he has sex with more people, he eats more and varied foods, he has the opportunity to travel, to vacation, he has more political power, more social variety, more religious variety etc.

de Tocqueville was right. We saw that this happened when the industrial revolution came along. The reason why people eat more foods and have better longevity rates and so on is because of government involvement in the economy especially in regards to furthering the advancement of science.

It was science that brought about better living standards, not capitalism. Early capitalism was even worse for many people who were slaves that worked up to 18 hours a day in a factory like de Tocqueville described.

Capitailsm, for its part, also did ensure that resources were able to get into the hands of more people to allow them to create, although they were still generally monopolized. The republics capitalism grew under also started protecting institutions like free-speech and so on so intelligent people could freely criticize the state without being dragged off. A combination of all these factors led many more people to be producers, perhaps outside of a corporate environment (many scientific inventions and theories, originally had anothing to do with government or corporation).

In this sense capitalism was indeed a progressive advancement in history, better than feudalism (although at least in feudalism serfs were guaranteed some property always in some communities and their alligences weren't tied merely to the nations they brought up in, furthermore the war on the public mind was not as severe even in the Soviet Union as it has been under capitalism so capitalism has not been a better advancement in everything).

However, the power structure still favors the rich and it is based on negative impusles (greed, etc.) rather than constructive impusles.

The division of labor defines people solely by their job. But we should live in a political system where it's important to be an equal member of the community who can have input on how resources are distributed. People could take 'side jobs' as well to advance things they have an interest in, and often times people who were not professions in mathematics or engineering have nonetheless made great advancements. If they are being overworked to be slaves in order for corporations to make endless profits that is obviously not a good thing.

And if the division of labor is so good then resources should have been used efficiently and for the benefit of all - instead, it is well known that coal companies and other corporations "combined" to fire workers to keep down the price of men (wages of labor) and keep up the price of coal (wages of capital). Other monopolies also engage in similar tactics, called market failures.

Capitalism has been debunked empirically as well as theoretically - I just hope that what replaces capitalism will be more leftist than rightist.

When people control resources equally, you disincentivize the honest to over produce, and you incentivize the lazy or dishonest to produce less. 2 legs good, 4 legs bad.

This does not correlate with the facts. The GNU operating system is owned by no one, or it is owned by everyone, (however you want to put it) and yet it has been estimated if corporations engaged in all the software that exists for it it would cost over a billion dollars in research - probably why we don't have better competition in the OS game.

This is because corporations have to spend all their time filing for patents and fighting each other in court and making their workers sign regressive contracts and preventing competition and so forth.

Capitalism, in addition to being totalitarian, is wholly inefficient as well.

Why do you think free marketers would be for this?

Free-Markets inevitably leads to this. It's taking the logic of Libertarian tyrants to their ends.

Yes, it is theoretically possible for someone to monopolize a resource without force, but ridiculously remote. We're probably more likely to nuke ourselves, than for someone to own all land or all water, or all vegetation.

Free markets do create a consolidation of capital in the hands of people who produce the most for everyone. Free markets do not reward people who spend $10 to make a $5 meal. They take those people out of that role naturally (bankruptcy) so that production is not wasted.

Everything has to be protected by force. The question is, will we use force to defend ourselves, or to steal and enslave others? I believe the latter is immoral.

I don't see how this relates to what I said. I said all property requires force and all property is an unjustified force. You don't use force to defend yourself in capitalism, you use it to prevent the slaves from taking back what they rightfully own.

We're not that far apart, certainly we would be closer if we could come to agreement on common definition of terms. What you call capitalism, I call socialism, and likewise.

Actually, Miseans and leftists I guess are pretty far about. For Miseans and Misean verbal logic, property is absolute and you think you get to tell everybody else what to believe, though most people don't agree with you. At least liberals do not believe property is absolute and believe that when corporations and property owners start being oppressive and unfair it's time to weaken the laws that protect them or take their property from them and so on.

What we know about corporate and governmental corruption is mostly due to liberal historians and intellectuals.

Liberals also have had good refutations of the Miseans and I agree with many of their fundamental arguments although I don't agree that capitalism is the most efficient and utilitarian system.

Right-wing:
_________________________________
^(Center) ^(conservatives) ^(Miseans) ^(Fascists)

Miseans are far right because it allows few private owners to own resources rather than having them owned freely and democratically. It also has right-wing interpretations of human nature, etc.

The reason why America has such a big gap, is related to the capacity of the state to expand the monetary base by deficit finance, which also pumps new credit directly to the oligarchs, corporations and bosses.

This is Ron Paul pseudo-economics that has been debunked hundreds of times.

That's another series of strawmen. Austrians are for freedom, but not democracy because that is mob rule. So-called slaves can organize (rigorous defense of the right to free association), but there is no point, because they can become bosses themselves. There are in essence no bosses, only workers. Or everyone is a boss and a worker.

Wrong. Democracy and socialism and anarchism ensures that everybody has a voice.

Imagine two circles. Call them venn diagrams. Inside one circle write "democracy and freedom" in one of them, and in the other write "capitalism, fascism, etc." and other systems based on hierarchy.

You see that you cannot logically place one of the hierarchical systems, like capitalism, inside any of the circles in A. Now, name circle A the politics of the left. Name circle B the politics of the right. And you can see that if you have any type of hierarchy then it belongs on your side of the spectrum.

Only capitalism could be mob rule, because the business owner hires armed thugs to protect his business, whereas other people do not have these resources, and uses a judicial system that's tailored to the interests of the rich to protect him, to bully others that would dare challenge him. This is the definition of 'mob rule' - the elite bullying around the majority of people.

Libertarians claim that this true freedom (Circle A) is impossible, but I've not seen evidence to the contrary and many communities that have employed 'libertarian-socialism' have flourished.

Rothbard and Hoppe

Rothbard and Hoppe were neither thinkers nor anarchists. Hoppe is a cryto-fascist who advocates a Libertarian social order and Rothbard's papers are full of elementary philosophical errors and erroneous economics.

Anarchists: Proudhon, Kropotkin, Rocker, Tucker, Chomsky, etc.

attis

20th June 2009, 18:34

First, Chomsky isn't an anarchist. In fact he has supported more government programs than not, especially campus speech codes as imposed on students by other students. Second, Rothbard or anyone else is no less a 'thinker' just because you don't agree with them or that by chance their arguments are wrong. Thought is not the exclusive domain of the shadowy elite.

IcarusAngel

20th June 2009, 19:16

Chomsky is an anarchist. He opposes all unnecessary authority and landed property. He opposes Libertarians efforts to use the government merely to make it more suspectible to the capitalist class and capitalist property, thus chomsky calls for a decrease in government whereas Libertarians call for a more powerful government.

As for speech codes, Chomsky said students don't have the right to display images of Hiter on University property and I agree with him. The University is owned in public and students don't have to be forced to agree with displaying Hitler on the public walls, any more than Miseans have the right to force academics to teach their discredited theories - which they probably would, if they had any power.

Chomsky supports free speech when people use their individual possessions and non-coercive actions to display it, like Robert Faurison. Then people don't have the right to destroy free-speech.

It's obviously you've never studied any real anarchists like chomsky at all.

attis

21st June 2009, 19:02

Icarus, then by your logic any pictures of Marx or Engels should be banned per your assumption that it is public property. And that some how the public itself is a higher creature than yourself (as you a Marxist after all). Especially if said public assumed the very image of the man to be pornographic in nature (or that of any other person or thing). Your assertions as such about speech codes, as the same with Chomsky, are invalid as they lead to absurdities where free speech isn't free anymore, and that conflict via discourse is shut down (which is one of the hallmarks of higher education).

As for me not reading real anarchists, sorry but that's the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Try it with someone that's from a *chan instead.

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 19:17

attis

21st June 2009, 19:31

No. I didn't say anything like that. When 'public property' is applied to Marx's pictures it means that you can have copies of the original images. This should apply to everything, every piece of software, every piece of artwork, every piece of music, etc., and not just to pictures. Otherwise you have issues like the RIAA suing mothers for 2.7 million dollars - and actually winning. Capitalism is an illogical, totalitarian system.

You're deflecting the issue here.

What I'm talking about is the public property of the learning institution, which are designed to be centered around learning, not displaying images of Fascists around. Of course, you should be able to freely discuss ideas without fear of retaliation, but you can't force other students to accept your ideas like displaying Nazi pictures of American flags unless there is some agreement. Of course you don't have the right to go around displaying Marx in the halls either, but the punishment should fit the crime: you shouldn't be expelled on the first offense.

Without retaliation? So, if I say I think people who wear purple socks are assholes, that gives others the right to use force on me (substitute people who wear clothing with people who are gay, black, female, and etc to get the idea)? If that's so, then if you say something in kind I then have the same logical right to use force on you if it offends me and others. The problem with this assertion is that the very idea of speech codes comes into conflict with the First Amendment and the very idea of social discourse.

On the First Amendment, the nature of it is that it covers any institution that takes Federal grant money, that includes places like state universities and public colleges. If it's a private school with no federal grants or monies, then your case fits, but it doesn't fit in the case of the majority of universities or colleges. So, if you want speech codes in the US, you either amend the Constitution or setup a private school. You can't have your cake of censorship and eat from the public trough too.

On the nature of social discourse, the reason why speech codes themselves are absurd is that they don't provide for a reason for their enforcement. If someone is offended, that is isolated in that someone. If a group of someones get offended, still it is isolated to them. Verbal offense isn't a moral issue so long as the statements therein weren't forced upon the individuals in question. Seeing or hearing something in passing isn't forcing it on another, it's simply the nature of living in a society. The same problem with speech codes can be extended to codes on clothing, language, and gender, where the attempt to partition individuals from the top-down via laws or edicts fundamentally break down (as the laws are crafted with the assumption that humans are static 'atoms' to be arranged accordingly). If you want proof in the pudding for this, look at any country that forces a woman to cover up, or that does indeed restrict dissent against the government. The very nature of speech codes setups the same problems, but on a smaller scale (with smaller consequences). Unless you believe that it is moral and necessary to control others outside of the scope of preventing force and fraud, your support for speech codes is a contrary one.

I trust that University officials and students are generally smart enough together.

Men with fine titles and hats are not superior to your individual judgment. Never forget that, lest you craft another feudal system in new words and traditions.

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 19:48

You're deflecting the issue here.

No, you deflected the issue by bringing up your insane "Marx" analogy.

Without retaliation? So, if I say I think people who wear purple socks are assholes, that gives others the right to use force on me (substitute people who wear clothing with people who are gay, black, female, and etc to get the idea)? If that's so, then if you say something in kind I then have the same logical right to use force on you if it offends me and others.

No, because nobody would say that purple socks offend others. What you wear is a personal decision. Of course, if you come to class inebriated and smelly and half-dressed, then possibly you really are affecting other students, and should be asked to leave. But if you are dressed you cannot possibly be affecting others in a negative way unless they have a problem.

The problem with this assertion is that the very idea of speech codes comes into conflict with the First Amendment and the very idea of social discourse.

I was talking about displaying images on public property that you don't have a right to do.

You seem to not be able to follow a discussion: What can be discussed in the class should be at the discretion of the teacher. Free-speech doesn't give you the right to start asking about progressive tenses in a Calculus I course, for example.

Of course, the teacher should be free to teach whatever the hell he wants, this is why Libertarian and Conservative efforts to try and force curriculum are unconstitutional. If the curriculum sucks, then your issue is with the city and you should try and convince citizens that there is a problem.

On the First Amendment, the nature of it is that it covers any institution that takes Federal grant money, that includes places like state universities and public colleges. If it's a private school with no federal grants or monies, then your case fits, but it doesn't fit in the case of the majority of universities or colleges.

Private Universities shouldn't be allowed to discriminte either because they are occupying land, using resources. I'm not for discrimination.

However, I'm not for conservatives and Libertarians telling people what they can and can't teach.

The first amendment gives students the right to discuss things freely - that's true, but it doesn't give them the right to dictate coursework etc.

That is the goal of David Horowitz and other idiots.

So, if you want speech codes in the US, you either amend the Constitution or setup a private school. You can't have your cake of censorship and eat from the public trough too.

The constitution does not give you the right to declare public property "yours" and treat it like your house. That is what I'm referring to.

A park is public property, that doesn't mean I can litter there.

Conservatives want to ruin the University for everybody, free-speech has nothign to do with it.

On the nature of social discourse, the reason why speech codes themselves are absurd is that they don't provide for a reason for their enforcement. If someone is offended, that is isolated in that someone. If a group of someones get offended, still it is isolated to them. Verbal offense isn't a moral issue so long as the statements therein weren't forced upon the individuals in question. Seeing or hearing something in passing isn't forcing it on another, it's simply the nature of living in a society. The same problem with speech codes can be extended to codes on clothing, language, and gender, where the attempt to partition individuals from the top-down via laws or edicts fundamentally break down (as the laws are crafted with the assumption that humans are static 'atoms' to be arranged accordingly). If you want proof in the pudding for this, look at any country that forces a woman to cover up, or that does indeed restrict dissent against the government. The very nature of speech codes setups the same problems, but on a smaller scale (with smaller consequences). Unless you believe that it is moral and necessary to control others outside of the scope of preventing force and fraud, your support for speech codes is a contrary one.

You're making false analogies and leaps. Give me an example of what you're talking about on how these "speech codes" violated someone's rights.

What Chomsky was saying was that conservatives don't have the right to try and force teachers to teach a certain way, or to try and display images of Hitler in public halls, and so on. No student is allowed to do that unless he has permission. And I agree with that, public property doesn't mean it's yours to do what you want with.

attis

21st June 2009, 20:01

No, you deflected the issue by bringing up your insane "Marx" analogy. No I didn't. I asked you if you'd feel any different if Marx photos were banned from a university under the guise of speech codes. You deflected by *****ing about IP laws, which I oppose.

No, because nobody would say that purple socks offend others. What proof do you have for this claim? Do you know every possible culture on Earth, its traditions and rituals? If so, please recount them all, I'm all ears. If you don't know them all then you cannot suppose a claim that none of them have a prohibition against purple socks or the color purple for various reasons.

What you wear is a personal decision. Of course, if you come to class inebriated and smelly and half-dressed, then possibly you really are affecting other students, and should be asked to leave. But if you are dressed you cannot possibly be affecting others in a negative way unless they have a problem.Classroom != public space, necessarily. Also, speech codes in a class room are not necessarily the same as the speech codes on the public square of a campus as the teacher's given subject and teaching style modifies the rules between teacher and student.

I was talking about displaying images on public property that you don't have a right to do. Yes I do, if you take my federal monies. If you don't like it amend the Constitution.

You seem to not be able to follow a discussion: What can be discussed in the class should be at the discretion of the teacher. Free-speech doesn't give you the right to start asking about progressive tenses in a Calculus I course, for example. Non-sequitur. Speech codes extend beyond the classroom and well into the public square of a campus, where it shouldn't exist at all per the US Constitution (period and end of story).

Of course, the teacher should be free to teach whatever the hell he wants, this is why Libertarian and Conservative efforts to try and force curriculum are unconstitutional. If the curriculum sucks, then your issue is with the city and you should try and convince citizens that there is a problem. You're dodging again, confusing the speech codes with teacher/student rules per a classroom. Speech codes explicitly cover public spaces outside of the classroom. I happen to be a university that happily touts that it's speech code free in public.

Private Universities shouldn't be allowed to discriminte either because they are occupying land, using resources. I'm not for discrimination.They're using land they bought, resources they bought, and they own by right of possession via non-coercion.

However, I'm not for conservatives and Libertarians telling people what they can and can't teach. Then you're all for telling me what I can and cannot teach or learn?

The first amendment gives students the right to discuss things freely - that's true, but it doesn't give them the right to dictate coursework etc.Non-sequitur.

That is the goal of David Horowitz and other idiots.Non-sequitur.

The constitution does not give you the right to declare public property "yours" and treat it like your house. That is what I'm referring to.Strawman, you didn't read what I stated about the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Talking freely != acting like one's self at "home." For the fact that what I speak up freely in public isn't of the same context, thus I've already focused my speech toward whatever purpose it has in public. As such, its impedence is illegal on publically owned property. Period and end of story.

A park is public property, that doesn't mean I can litter there.
...
Conservatives want to ruin the University for everybody, free-speech has nothign to do with it.

Wow, another strawman, how about that.

You're making false analogies and leaps. Give me an example of what you're talking about on how these "speech codes" violated someone's rights. They do if they restrict free speech outside of the classroom on campus.

No student is allowed to do that unless he has permission. And I agree with that, public property doesn't mean it's yours to do what you want with.Public property as such is free of others personal feelings on matters. Thus, the displays of Hitler's mug or Stalin's 'stache (or my own ass, then again it is an ugly ass...) are not to be impeded for the fact that it would violate the First Amendment as it is written. If you take federal monies, you follow federal rules; period and end of story. Get over it!

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 21:01

No I didn't. I asked you if you'd feel any different if Marx photos were banned from a university under the guise of speech codes. You deflected by *****ing about IP laws, which I oppose.

You said "then by your logic any picture of Marx and Engles should be banned per your assumption that it is public property."

I assumed "it" referred to "picture" in this sentence, but now I see "it" refers to the school. (Can't blame me for being grammatical.) But I never said that pictures should be "banned," so you can't blame me for not knowing what you're talking about. I said that the University doesn't have to accept someone displaying Nazi flags in the lunch room if they don't want it there, as other students have the same right to eat in the lunch room etc, and it is afterall PUBLIC property, that means that people democratically can make a decision what can go on the wall.

Forcefully displaying items on property that is not yours has nothing to do with free-speech.

Don't be a moron.

What proof do you have for this claim? Do you know every possible culture on Earth, its traditions and rituals? If so, please recount them all, I'm all ears. If you don't know them all then you cannot suppose a claim that none of them have a prohibition against purple socks or the color purple for various reasons.

You don't believe in logic. You have demonstrated this. I'm assuming that most people can differentiate between being a distrubance and not being a disturbance.

Wearing purple socks is not a disturbance. If it is to you then go start your own University where people can't wear purple socks - see how successful it is.

See, you Miseans think people are too dumb to run their own lives when they aren't.

Classroom != public space, necessarily. Also, speech codes in a class room are not necessarily the same as the speech codes on the public square of a campus as the teacher's given subject and teaching style modifies the rules between teacher and student.

You continue to fail to give specific examples and are making leaps in your comparisons, probably because you don't believe in logic.

I said free-speech doesn't give you the right to display Nazi flags around the school without the schools permission. You've failed to show how this is illogical or violates free-speech.

Yes I do, if you take my federal monies. If you don't like it amend the Constitution.

The constiutions has nothing to do with it.

By your logic every piece of public property is violating the constitution because I can't go into government buildings and put up Nazi flags.

Non-sequitur. Speech codes extend beyond the classroom and well into the public square of a campus, where it shouldn't exist at all per the US Constitution (period and end of story).

Again, the constitution does not mean that I can display nazi flags wherever I want.

You're dodging again, confusing the speech codes with teacher/student rules per a classroom. Speech codes explicitly cover public spaces outside of the classroom. I happen to be a university that happily touts that it's speech code free in public.

Given that conservatives usually overhype these issues in their typical illogical way I'd have to know what you are talking about case by case.

They're using land they bought, resources they bought, and they own by right of possession via non-coercion.

It's land they've "bought" to the exclusion of all others, so it certainly is coercive, and probably land that never had a true "owner" in the first place. I can't just go claim an "island" mine because I say so. That's something that affects everybody.

Then you're all for telling me what I can and cannot teach or learn?

Non-sequitur.

Non-sequitur.

None of my statements were non-sequiturs.

Strawman, you didn't read what I stated about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was irrelevant in the case I cited.

Talking freely != acting like one's self at "home." For the fact that what I speak up freely in public isn't of the same context, thus I've already focused my speech toward whatever purpose it has in public. As such, its impedence is illegal on publically owned property. Period and end of story.

It depends on what's going on on the public property. Public property can be "reserved," public property can refer to different things, public property is ultimately shared.

Public property varies by use.

The library is public property, I can't go in there and start screaming. That disturbs the use of the public property.

Don't be an idiot.

I think all property should be "public" but there are times when it is used on a more exclusive basis.

Wow, another strawman, how about that.

They do if they restrict free speech outside of the classroom on campus.

Public property as such is free of others personal feelings on matters. Thus, the displays of Hitler's mug or Stalin's 'stache (or my own ass, then again it is an ugly ass...) are not to be impeded for the fact that it would violate the First Amendment as it is written. If you take federal monies, you follow federal rules; period and end of story. Get over it!

This is incorrect. This is not the nature of public property.