Socialists and Libertarians: Get Rid of The Term Capitalism

[Havet]

I'm going to address some socialist ideas about the market and hopefully this can be illuminating for both socialists and libertarians.

Here, I am not using "Capitalism" to mean a free market of private property. I am using it in the sense of "Actually Existing Capitalism" or the market as we see it today. Because that is usually what socialists are talking about when they say capitalism, and this is about socialist ideas. Any mention of the free market from them is rarely if ever an attack on a truly free market, but an attack upon the "free market" that libertarians help them to conflate with "capitalism" which to them means what they see around them. So let's use their definition of "capitalism" and use the free market to mean something different.

It can properly be said that the capitalism is exploitative. Let's take the socialists' definition of exploitation, so that everyone can understand each other.

Exploitation - n.
1. The expropriation of value by a person in a position of power from a person in a position of subjection

The common socialist cry of "exploiting the workers" is often met by libertarians with the response along the lines of "they are like peers meeting and trading money for labor, it is not involuntary as it would have to be to be exploitation." Now, who is right here?

The socialist is talking about actually existing capitalism, that to which they are opposed. The libertarian is talking about the free market, that which they are actually supportive of. And so in the confusion of the vocabulary, communication breaks down.

It's important that neither the libertarian nor the socialist conflate the free market and actually existing capitalism. Kevin Carson, a mutualist, has noted the issue in his formation of the term "vulgar libertarianism", pointing out that libertarians often forget from one moment to the next whether they are defending the state capitalist system or the free market, two very different things, and that they often end up defending state capitalism unwittingly.

It must be conceded to the socialist that under actually existing capitalism, exploitation is taking place. For under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.

Libertarians should recognize immediately the common theme that libertarians always love to discover as it proves correct their eternal theme: The state is at the heart of this particular form of oppression which manifests in the market. But they should and often do not recognize that it's manifestation in the market does not make the statism causing it something to defend, even implicitly. Socialists should recognize that any libertarians who defend the current setup should not be considered representative of the consistent libertarian position, but what Carson calls "vulgar libertarians", who are confused by the socialist vocabulary into attempting to defend actually existing capitalism.

Personally, I favor that the word capitalism just be gotten rid of. That would be wonderful. Every usage of the word "Capitalism" can be replaced by "Free market", "Mixed economy", "Fascism", or something else.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I see no reason to change our vocabulary for the sake of accommodating the libertarian delusion that there can be such a thing as a "free market" different from actually existing capitalism.

Self-contradictory fantasies need no special names.

[Havet]

I see no reason to change our vocabulary for the sake of accommodating the libertarian delusion that there can be such a thing as a "free market" different from actually existing capitalism.

Self-contradictory fantasies need no special names.

bite me.

[Pogue]

bite me.

Sit down shut up, shut up sit down.

[Havet]

Sit down shut up, shut up sit down.

2nd hell of a rebuttal. damn, i'm getting tired of reading such big posts. How about this:

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Pogue]

2nd hell of a rebuttal. damn, i'm getting tired of reading such big posts. How about this:

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You post 'bite me', and thats fine, but if I post that, its a 'hell of a rebuttal'. Your logic here is about as solid as your politics.

[Havet]

You post 'bite me', and thats fine, but if I post that, its a 'hell of a rebuttal'. Your logic here is about as solid as your politics.

Hey, i posted bite me because i'm still expecting Kwisatz Haderach (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8782) to reply to some other posts that are questioning what he is criticizing here. I apologize if you did not know of this situation.

[Havet]

so i suppose no one got anything else to say about this?

[mikelepore]

Kwisatz said,
the libertarian delusion that there can be such a thing as a "free market" different from actually existing capitalism

That's the whole thing. The "free market" they imagine is impossible, so the idea falls before we even get to the point of discussing what a hell it would be to live under if it did exist.

You know what I think the so-called libertarians really want? That scene in Defoe's novel _Moll Flanders_ where a very poor woman in 1722 London is arrested for stealing a small piece of cloth from a shop, so the judge sentences her to be hanged. I think they want powerful government gone wild, but all for the purpose of upholding the absoluteness of private property.

I call them so-called libertarians beause "libertarian" literally means "supporter of liberty", and they don't deserve to have that name.

[trivas7]

That's the whole thing. The "free market" they imagine is impossible [...]
Impossible why? You're saying that man no longer can do what he's been doing since the dawn of time.

[534634634265]

if you're so desirous of a free market, or as close to the myth as is possible, i can recommend a visit to Somalia. Simply purchase your ticket, your security detail to protect you, your accomodations, your food and other necessities, etc. from the variety of people offering them at competitive rates. ancaps/libertarians would do well to see that "country" and what a truly unregulated market has brought about.

[Havet]

if you're so desirous of a free market, or as close to the myth as is possible, i can recommend a visit to Somalia. Simply purchase your ticket, your security detail to protect you, your accomodations, your food and other necessities, etc. from the variety of people offering them at competitive rates. ancaps/libertarians would do well to see that "country" and what a truly unregulated market has brought about.

this has been argued over and over again...

somalia is by no means a great example of a stateless society, so you cant use it as an example against anarchy. Supposedly there isn't a government (http://www.mises.org/story/2701) except the one that supposedly is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Federal_Government), and the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNOSOM_I) and US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29#Mission_shift_to_na tion-building) and Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_%282006%E2%80%93present%29) were meddling in the region, and Somalia was essentially the poorest country on earth even when it had a state, thus Somalia being a wartorn shithole is no effective argument against anarchism at all.

Now if you're arguing the mostly free market they have out there, comparing to before, they are actually doing better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia) (even though still far from great and would need sometime to pull themselves out of that shithole they're in):

EDUCATION

With the collapse of the central government in 1991, the education system is now private. Primary schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_school) have risen from 600 before the civil war to 1,172 schools today, with an increase of 28% in primary school enrollment over the last 3 years.[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-96) In 2006, the autonomous Puntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland) region in the northeast was the second territory in Somalia after the Somaliland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland) region to introduce free primary schools, with teachers now receiving their salaries from the Puntland administration.[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-97) In Mogadishu, Benadir University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benadir_University), the Somalia National University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_National_University), Mogadishu University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu_University), Kismayo University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kismayo_University), and University of Gedo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Gedo) are five of the eight functioning universities in southern Somalia that offer higher education. The Somali National University and all of its campuses in Lafole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lafole&action=edit&redlink=1), SNU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNU) or Jaamacada Ummada, Medicine, and Gaheyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaheyr&action=edit&redlink=1) are presently too unsafe for holding classes in. In Puntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland), higher education is provided by the Puntland State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland_State_University) and East Africa University. In Somaliland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland), it is provided by Amoud University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoud_University), University of Hargeisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Hargeisa), Somaliland University of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland_University_of_Technology) and Burao University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burao_University). Three Somali universities are currently ranked in the top 100 of Africa.

ECONOMY

Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) is the most important sector, with livestock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock) accounting for about 40% of GDP and about 65% of export earnings. Nomads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad) and semi-nomads, who are dependent upon livestock for their livelihood, make up a large portion of the population.
After livestock, bananas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana) are the principal export; sugar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar), sorghum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum), maize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize), and fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish) are products for the domestic market.
The small industrial sector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_sector), based on the processing of agricultural products, accounts for 10% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product).
American and Chinese oil companies are also excited about the prospect of oil and other natural resources in Somalia. An oil group listed in Sydney, Range Resources, anticipates that the Puntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland) province in the north has the potential to produce 5 billion to 10 billion barrels of oil.[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-99)
While millions of Somalis receive food aid,[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-100)[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-101) according to a study by the UNDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Development_Programme) and the European Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission), it is estimated that as much as $1 billion USD is annually remitted to Somalia by Somalis in the diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora) via money transfer companies—far more than the amount of development funding flowing into the country.[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-102)


TELECOMMUNICATIONS


Somalia's public telecommunications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunication) system has been almost completely destroyed or dismantled. However, private wireless companies thrive in most major cities and actually provide better services than in neighbouring countries. Wireless service and Internet cafés (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_caf%C3%A9) are available. Somalia was the last country in Africa to access the Internet in August 2000, with only 57 web sites known as of 2003.[104] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-103) Internet usage in Somalia increased 44,900% from 2000 to 2007, registering the highest growth rate in Africa.[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-104) Somalia has the cheapest cellular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network) calling rates on the continent, with some companies charging less than a cent per minute.[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-BBCNewsAfrica-105) Competing phone companies have agreed on interconnection standards, which were brokered by the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) funded Somali Telecom Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Telecom_Association&action=edit&redlink=1).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

comparing to before, they are actually doing better
Wow, that's the exact same argument I use to defend the Soviet Union.

[Havet]

Wow, that's the exact same argument I use to defend the Soviet Union.

hey i also believe the soviet union (or russia) was a lot worse with the czar than with the revolution. Now, the thing i have against it is NOT that the czars and the landlord who owned the land "illegitimately" lost their lands, but that some who actually got the land without hurting anyone were stolen as well (collectivized) and that many dissenters (reactionaries) ended up killed.

[Lynx]

Keep the term, get rid of the system.
Some of the OP may be acceptable for mutualists (ie. socialist free markets).

[Havet]

Keep the term, get rid of the system.
Some of the OP may be acceptable for mutualists (ie. socialist free markets).

and what i'm saying is that in order to get rid of the current system (which both libertarians and socialists want), getting rid of the term capitalism would make it easier for both parties to understand better each other and work together towards a common goal.

[Lynx]

Mutualism could be a common goal, or a point of compromise between socialism and libertarianism.

[New Tet]

While we're proposing name changes, I'd like to suggest we also change the word "libertarian" to loonytarian. It sounds so much more appropriate, especially when referring to those who believe that capitalism can exist without the social and political institutions and evils that flow from it.

[Havet]

While we're proposing name changes, I'd like to suggest we also change the word "libertarian" to loonytarian. It sounds so much more appropriate, especially when referring to those who believe that capitalism can exist without the social and political institutions and evils that flow from it.

bite me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

hey i also believe the soviet union (or russia) was a lot worse with the czar than with the revolution. Now, the thing i have against it is NOT that the czars and the landlord who owned the land "illegitimately" lost their lands, but that some who actually got the land without hurting anyone were stolen as well (collectivized) and that many dissenters (reactionaries) ended up killed.
Ok, then our opinions on the USSR actually have quite a bit in common. The differences are that (a) I support collectivization in principle, but think it was badly carried out in practice, and (b) I support repressive measures for a brief period of time against reactionaries who are actively working to undermine a workers' state, but the USSR went far beyond this and punished many people who had done nothing wrong.


and what i'm saying is that in order to get rid of the current system (which both libertarians and socialists want), getting rid of the term capitalism would make it easier for both parties to understand better each other and work together towards a common goal.
There is no common goal. Libertarians are second only to fascists in the list of worst reactionaries. In places where fascist activity is low and libertarian activity is high, libertarians are our worst enemies.

Just because we both happen to oppose the currently existing system, that doesn't mean we are not still enemies. If I had to choose between capitalism as it exists today in Europe and the system proposed by libertarians, I'd choose currently existing capitalism in a heartbeat.

[trivas7]

If I had to choose between capitalism as it exists today in Europe and the system proposed by libertarians, I'd choose currently existing capitalism in a heartbeat.
This is b/c you are an authoritarian statist, and libertarians would abolish or mitigate the power of the state to the point of nullity.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

*yawn* You can think whatever you want. The point is that we are enemies. That much we can agree upon, yes?

[New Tet]

This is b/c you are an authoritarian statist, and libertarians would abolish or mitigate the power of the state to the point of nullity.

Only in your feverish dreams; Utopianism in its most aberrant expression.

[Bud Struggle]

Only in your feverish dreams; Utopianism in its most aberrant expression.

Stalinism is the utopianism of Hell.

[trivas7]

Stalinism is the utopianism of Hell.
But that wasn't a dream... :(

[Bud Struggle]

But that wasn't a dream... :(

Nightmare.

[Havet]

*yawn* You can think whatever you want. The point is that we are enemies. That much we can agree upon, yes?

I don't see any physical, psychological, intellectual advantage of me hating you and you hating me. That is truly child talk.

[mikelepore]

The "free market" they imagine is impossibleImpossible why? You're saying that man no longer can do what he's been doing since the dawn of time.

Since the dawn of time, where? Not on this planet. For the first 99 percent of human history, the means of production were the forests, savannahs and streams, and these were collectively owned by everyone.

[Havet]

Since the dawn of time, where? Not on this planet. For the first 99 percent of human history, the means of production were the forests, savannahs and streams, and these were collectively owned by everyone.

i'm pretty sure that there were both examples of privately owned forests and collectively owned forests.

its actually no basis for an argument (its what its been done since the dawn of time). From the logical follow.up of that argument, anyone could claim slavery is justified because its been done since the dawn of time..

[trivas7]

Since the dawn of time, where? Not on this planet. For the first 99 percent of human history, the means of production were the forests, savannahs and streams, and these were collectively owned by everyone.
Since the dawn of time men (and women) have pursued their own self-interest by co-operation and trade. You collectively labored w/ your own tribe and traded w/ another. Is this your point?

Why is the free market impossible?

[mikelepore]

Why is the free market impossible?

What I said was: "the 'free market' that they [the so-called libertarians] imagine" is impossible.

The so-called libertarians say the nuttiest things. They say they want to privatize the streets, and every time someone going down the street turns the corner they would have to stop and negotiate with the owner about how much of a fee they are asking for to allow passage. They say they want to do away with safety inspections of job sites and health inspections of restaurants, since no business that wants to make a profit would ever even consider having any unsafe or unhealthy conditions. They say they want to do away with mandatory inspections of airlines, because if the owners want to risk a crash then that would be a purely private issue for the owners and customers to conduct negotiations about. They say they want to repeal the child labor laws, forgetting all about the fact that such laws now exist because people once determined it to be intolerable to have such situations as five-year-old children working in the coal mines.

Why impossible? Because, since the human race is not insane, proposals that are this irrational are also impossible.

Maybe when Alice goes into the rabbit hole she would find their ideas to be possible.

[trivas7]

What I said was: "the 'free market' that they [the so-called libertarians] imagine" is impossible.

Why impossible? Because, since the human race is not insane, proposals that are this irrational are also impossible.

This begs the question of why these proposals are irrational, but I don't expect explanation from you. Moreover none of those arrangements are mandated by libertarianism. You've set up another strawman.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's quite simple, actually: a market is not free unless it is socialist. If markets can never be socialist, no market can ever be free.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Since the dawn of time men (and women) have pursued their own self-interest by co-operation and trade. You collectively labored w/ your own tribe and traded w/ another. Is this your point?

Why is the free market impossible?

Labeling pre-neolithic economies "free markets" with off hand nuances has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest statements made thus far.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Impossible why? You're saying that man no longer can do what he's been doing since the dawn of time.

Capitalism has only existed since recent times, previous economic systems were not in any way capitalistic. Most of historical economics relied on lands, not production and capital(ie money.).


Since the dawn of time men (and women) have pursued their own self-interest by co-operation and trade. You collectively labored w/ your own tribe and traded w/ another. Is this your point?

Correction, you warred with the other tribes. Killed there men, raped there women, and looted there stuff.

[Havet]

What I said was: "the 'free market' that they [the so-called libertarians] imagine" is impossible.

The so-called libertarians say the nuttiest things. They say they want to privatize the streets, and every time someone going down the street turns the corner they would have to stop and negotiate with the owner about how much of a fee they are asking for to allow passage. They say they want to do away with safety inspections of job sites and health inspections of restaurants, since no business that wants to make a profit would ever even consider having any unsafe or unhealthy conditions. They say they want to do away with mandatory inspections of airlines, because if the owners want to risk a crash then that would be a purely private issue for the owners and customers to conduct negotiations about. They say they want to repeal the child labor laws, forgetting all about the fact that such laws now exist because people once determined it to be intolerable to have such situations as five-year-old children working in the coal mines.

Why impossible? Because, since the human race is not insane, proposals that are this irrational are also impossible.

Maybe when Alice goes into the rabbit hole she would find their ideas to be possible.

streets can be privately owned (with a cost) and not impose any cost on passers by. How? ADSVERTISING!

And yes, children labor is very bad, but you are thinking out of context. Children labor existed in a world where the only alternative was theft or prostitution (end of 19th century). Children made 3 cents a day. That seems a very low quantity, but you have to take into account what that money could get you at the time.

Anyway, its not like if allowed children labor every children would go to work right away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSP3UITz_GM

[WhitemageofDOOM]

streets can be privately owned (with a cost) and not impose any cost on passers by. How? ADSVERTISING!

I highly doubt private roads would be funded by advertising.


Anyway, its not like if allowed children labor every children would go to work right away...

Well no, nowadays we have public education. Of course you oppose education for the poor on principle.

[Havet]

I highly doubt private roads would be funded by advertising.

i HIGHLY DOUBT people would accept paying to walk on streets. This is why, if streets ever get privatized, they could only generate revenue through advertising. Even you claim "who would ever walk on a private street and having to contract the fee they are going to pay". Thats exactly my point here.


Well no, nowadays we have public education. Of course you oppose education for the poor on principle.No you idiot. I OPPOSE EDUCATION BEING FUNDED BY THEFT AND THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE

Which is how public institutions are funded. Those that don't use it still have to pay for them. If not they get a warning to pay their taxes. If not police comes to take their property to pay for taxes. If they defend their property, they will be fired upon and arrested. If they fight for their lives, they'll likely end up killed.

If taxation as a means to fund public schools were abandoned, as well as the regulations and "guides of conduct" all private, coop and commune schools must abide by were removed, schooling would be a hell of a lot cheaper, providing even more quality of services.

In fact, just having a voucher system (instead of the mandatory zone schooling) would be helpful already. This system means the government pays the schooling on the child directly by giving them a voucher which then the parents can decide where to send their kids to.

And ultimately, by getting rid of compulsory education, costs of education would lower and it is likely kids and parents would still prefer they went to school instead of working.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

No you idiot. I OPPOSE EDUCATION BEING FUNDED BY THEFT AND THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE

Which is how public institutions are funded. Those that don't use it still have to pay for them. If not they get a warning to pay their taxes. If not police comes to take their property to pay for taxes. If they defend their property, they will be fired upon and arrested. If they fight for their lives, they'll likely end up killed.

This is any different from any other property rights how?
You live on someones land, that person sells you a transferable leasehold, in exchange you abide by there rules.
Perfectly libertarian right? Well that's government in a nutshell, everything within U.S. borders belongs to the U.S., and by living on there land you agree to abide by there rules. Taxes are not theft(any more so than rent anyways) they are club dues.

Government is not magically separate from other forms of property, all property relies on the threat of violence to maintain it's integrity. If you don't like the government, you can leave. Vote with your feet as it were.


If taxation as a means to fund public schools were abandoned, as well as the regulations and "guides of conduct" all private, coop and commune schools must abide by were removed, schooling would be a hell of a lot cheaper, providing even more quality of services.Schooling available for the impoverished did not exist until public schools, there is no reason to believe schools affordable to the impoverished would magically appear if we removed government intervention.



And ultimately, by getting rid of compulsory education, costs of education would lower and it is likely kids and parents would still prefer they went to school instead of working.

Expect among the poor, who couldn't afford school.

[Havet]

This is any different from any other property rights how?
You live on someones land, that person sells you a transferable leasehold, in exchange you abide by there rules.
Perfectly libertarian right? Well that's government in a nutshell, everything within U.S. borders belongs to the U.S., and by living on there land you agree to abide by there rules. Taxes are not theft(any more so than rent anyways) they are club dues.

Government is not magically separate from other forms of property, all property relies on the threat of violence to maintain it's integrity. If you don't like the government, you can leave. Vote with your feet as it were.

The problem is, in societies eyes, the owners of land got the land through the prevalent criteria for ownership (it could have been through the homestead principle or through use and occupancy or something else), whereas what distinguishes a state is that it is a person or group of persons who acquire property WITHOUT using the prevalent criteria for ownership. In the case of the USA, the state just said "all of this land is now ours, and we wont need to occupy it, use it or something else because we can use force to protect it". Thats it. Thats the difference (assuming the landlord or the person who owns the land and is now renting it didnt do the same as the state and instead acquired it through "prevalent criteria" means).


Schooling available for the impoverished did not exist until public schools, there is no reason to believe schools affordable to the impoverished would magically appear if we removed government intervention.Proof? facts? historical evidence?

Education in a stateless society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdcqbUozpI

Why america's students are underperforming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Sometimes even going to college for an education isn't the best option unles you are really passionate about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_24uSPedM



Expect among the poor, who couldn't afford school.If its cheaper, more people can afford it, including the poor...

[mikelepore]

This begs the question of why these proposals are irrational,

Such proposals are irrational because they assume perfect information, pefect honesty, and perfect opportunities for workers and consumers to act on all information without any practical repercussions.

The so-called "Libertarian" argument goes something like this. No used car salesman would ever even consider cheating a customer, because, if they did, all potential customers would immediately and unanimously decide not to do business with that used car saleman, causing immediate bankruptcy. Therefore, we can be sure that all used car salesmen who are motivated by profit will be completely honest at all times. However, if the government passes any regulations, the existence of such regulations is what forces the honest business to act in antisocial ways, so the wrongs that businesses commit is to be blamed entirely on the existence of government regulations.

Regarding workers and employers, their argument goes something like this. No employer would ever even think of imposing poor working conditions or treating workers disrespectfully. If they did, all of their workers would immediately quit. Even a worker who is eligible for a pension at 30 years, and now has 29 years and 11 months, would walk right out the door. The business would be destroyed. Knowing that this is what would happen, every employer is highly motivated to provide wonderful working conditions. However, the government comes in and passes some regulations that businesses must follow, and then the business has no choice but to make the workplace unsafe and unpleasant -- the government's regulations being entirely at fault for that.

That's their world view. It's completely irrational. It's oblivious to the facts to the same extent as staring right at the noonday sun and not being able to find it.


but I don't expect explanation from you.

Since I'm not your psychiatrist, I don't need to hear about your expectations of other people.


Moreover none of those arrangements are mandated by libertarianism. You've set up another strawman.

The second time I have been misquoted in this one topic. What I said was, "Libertarians say...."

I have known and conversed with many of them over the years. I have debated with them in my home town. I have read the leaflets they hand out, and heard the speeches they make. I have worked with them, and lived on the same street as them. Before the internet existed, and computer networks were dialup bulletin boards, I've been arguing with them online. You weren't there, so you have no way to know what I heard them say until I tell you. The kinds of arguments they typically make are those that I above attributed to them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If its cheaper, more people can afford it, including the poor...
The full cost of a year in college in the United States, in the absence of government aid, is between $40,000 and $50,000. Even if the cost were cut in half, the vast majority of people (never mind the poor) could not afford it. Even if the cost was reduced to a third or a quarter of what it is now, most people could not afford it.

And as for the poor, college would not be affordable to them even if it was 10 times cheaper than now.

Making college cheaper isn't enough to make it affordable. You would need college to be tremendously, amazingly, ridiculously cheaper in order to make it affordable to an ordinary person without state help.

[trivas7]

Such proposals are irrational because they assume perfect information, pefect honesty, and perfect opportunities for workers and consumers to act on all information without any practical repercussions.

You've proved none of this; you've merely assumed this to be the case. Your argument boils down to: libertarian proposals are irrational b/c I say so.

Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force. Of course being a statist, you don't believe in these principles.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You've proved none of this; you've merely assumed this to be the case. Your argument boils down to: libertarian proposals are irrational b/c I say so.
You are willfully ignoring his argument - but then, that's to be expected from you. Now tell me, what exactly are you denying here? That libertarianism is based on fantasies of perfect information, perfect honesty, and perfect opportunities for workers and consumers to act on all information without any practical repercussions? Or that such fantasies are, in fact, false?


Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
I do not have a right to own means of production and exploit workers, and I sure as hell won't respect your self-proclaimed "right" to do those things.


Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
But it's perfectly fine to let innocents starve while you swim in luxury, or to hire ten year old children to work in your coal mine, or to put a bullet through the head of an old beggar who stole a loaf of bread to survive.


Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).
There is nothing to be admired in the liberty of the powerful to abuse the powerless, the responsibility of the obscenely rich to guard their wealth from those who produced it, or the tolerance of evil.

You speak of peace? There is peace in dungeons. There is peace in graveyards. There is peace in the gutters and the slums. To hell with your peace.


Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force. Of course being a statist, you don't believe in these principles.
Wrong. The Golden Rule states "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Most "statists," as you call them, follow this rule. I am statist onto others, and I wish others to be statist onto me. I do not tolerate capitalism in others, and I do not wish others to tolerate capitalism in me.

But no, I do not believe that we should live and let live, and I do not believe injustice should be met with anything other than unrelenting force.

[Havet]

I do not have a right to own means of production and exploit workers, and I sure as hell won't respect your self-proclaimed "right" to do those things.

By what right do the owners of this website ARE actual OWNERS? And by what right they EXPLOIT me of my right to post outside OI?



But it's perfectly fine to let innocents starve while you swim in luxury, or to hire ten year old children to work in your coal mine, or to put a bullet through the head of an old beggar who stole a loaf of bread to survive.

And its perfectly innocent to let an innocent person like me STARVE of information discussion outside OI while CC and unrestricted folks SWIM IN LUXURY.

Or to allow 10 years old to enter this website at all.

Or to actively shoot me down and cripple me of posting outside OI, when i NEED that information so the intellectual information in my brain can SURVIVE. (actually my argument is so idiotic it might be best you don't answer it haha)


There is nothing to be admired in the liberty of the powerful to abuse the powerless, the responsibility of the obscenely rich to guard their wealth from those who produced it, or the tolerance of evil.

"There is nothing to be admired in the liberty of the POWERFUL UNRESTRICTED to abuse the POWERLESS RESTRICTED, the responsibility of the OBSCENELY RICH IN INFORMATION to guard their information from THOSE WHO PRODUCE IT, WE THE RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED POSTERS."


You speak of peace? There is peace in dungeons. There is peace in graveyards. There is peace in the gutters and the slums. To hell with your peace.

"You speak of PEACE? There is PEACE in LEARNING thread. There is PEACE in POLITICS thread. There is PEACE in the IRANIAN UPRISING thread. There is PEACE in WORKER STRUGGLES thread. There is peace in HISTORY thread. There is PEACE in THEORY thread. There is peace in all the other threads except OI, where we are all forced into. TO HELL WITH YOUR PEACE."

And if there is found that peace does not exist in those threads, then moderators arent working enough, and they need to restrict more, for the sake of not letting dissent BE HEARD

[Kwisatz Haderach]

ZOMG! Restriction on Revleft:

http://ohaidubai.com/images/serious_business.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/serious%20business/auciker/internet_serious_business3.jpg

[Havet]

ZOMG! Restriction on Revleft:

http://ohaidubai.com/images/serious_business.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/serious%20business/auciker/internet_serious_business3.jpg

I think you forgot to hit the "actually-reply-to-arguments button". In any case:

http://magsol.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/funny-pictures-lifeguard-cat-is-on-duty.jpg

Ignoring my arguments isn't going to help, y'know...

[#FF0000]

Ignoring my arguments isn't going to help, y'know...

That isn't an argument. It's a tantrum.

[Havet]

That isn't an argument. It's a tantrum.

my arguments were:


By what right do the owners of this website ARE actual OWNERS? And by what right they EXPLOIT me of my right to post outside OI?

And its perfectly innocent to let an innocent person like me STARVE of information discussion outside OI while CC and unrestricted folks SWIM IN LUXURY.

Or to allow 10 years old to enter this website at all.

Or to actively shoot me down and cripple me of posting outside OI, when i NEED that information so the intellectual information in my brain can SURVIVE. (actually my argument is so idiotic it might be best you don't answer it haha)

"There is nothing to be admired in the liberty of the POWERFUL UNRESTRICTED to abuse the POWERLESS RESTRICTED, the responsibility of the OBSCENELY RICH IN INFORMATION to guard their information from THOSE WHO PRODUCE IT, WE THE RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED POSTERS."

"You speak of PEACE? There is PEACE in LEARNING thread. There is PEACE in POLITICS thread. There is PEACE in the IRANIAN UPRISING thread. There is PEACE in WORKER STRUGGLES thread. There is peace in HISTORY thread. There is PEACE in THEORY thread. There is peace in all the other threads except OI, where we are all forced into. TO HELL WITH YOUR PEACE."

And if there is found that peace does not exist in those threads, then moderators arent working enough, and they need to restrict more, for the sake of not letting dissent BE HEARD

sure i mightve ranted a bit, but there is...wow...LOGIC...in my arguments, which they haven't been adressed since i started raising them.

[Luís Henrique]

hayenmill, when you speak of a "free market", different from "really existing capitalism", are you talking about a system where there is a labour market, in which people buy and sell labour power?

Luís Henrique

[Bud Struggle]

hayenmill, when you speak of a "free market", different from "really existing capitalism", are you talking about a system where there is a labour market, in which people buy and sell labour power?

Luís Henrique

Ha!

Nice to see you, Luis!

[Luís Henrique]

Ha!

Yes, "ha"... I wonder why it has taken three pages for someone to take this issue to its actual material basis.


Nice to see you, Luis!

Thank you!

Luís Henrique

[Havet]

hayenmill, when you speak of a "free market", different from "really existing capitalism", are you talking about a system where there is a labour market, in which people buy and sell labour power?

Luís Henrique

the point is, you CAN'T buy labour power, or sell it. Labour power belongs to the person who has the ability to...well...use that labor in the first place. You can't sell your labour, but you would be free to sell the products of your labour in a more fair way that wage labours current experience. Or buy the products of labour from someone else, of course, only by their consent. A fairer free market.

[trivas7]

the point is, you CAN'T buy labour power, or sell it.
Sure you can. What is it you think the wage-laborer sells?

[Nwoye]

Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
and the people with no property...?

[Havet]

Sure you can. What is it you think the wage-laborer sells?

the wage laborer sells the products of his work which are already contracted to go to the owner once the worker finishes producing them in exchange for a wage. You cannot buy or sell labor because only the worker CAN CONTROL his body and his energy and the way he wants to use that energy. I think this confusion may just be a matter of semantics. What you are calling trading wage labor is actually trading products of labor that were already contracted to go directly to another person. The LABOR itself CANNOT be traded.

To trade would mean you would gain ownership of it. But its phisically impossible for me to trade my labor with you, because i still have control over it. Unless I'm chained, that is.

[Havet]

and the people with no property...?

they can come to statist leftist forums and complain that its "the system" that's preventing them from gaining property, when in fact the current system only extracts a bit of someone's wealth (we don't have 100%tax yet).

[Nwoye]

they can come to statist leftist forums and complain that its "the system" that's preventing them from gaining property, when in fact the current system only extracts a bit of someone's wealth (we don't have 100%tax yet).
but that would be a complete waste of time wouldn't it?

oh shit

[spiney norman]

streets can be privately owned (with a cost) and not impose any cost on passers by. How? ADSVERTISING!

And yes, children labor is very bad, but you are thinking out of context. Children labor existed in a world where the only alternative was theft or prostitution (end of 19th century). Children made 3 cents a day. That seems a very low quantity, but you have to take into account what that money could get you at the time.

Anyway, its not like if allowed children labor every children would go to work right away...

gSP3UITz_GM

Do you realise that you are posting videos made by a "former" white nationalist who now claims to be an anarcho-nationalist (WTF???) and stormfront regular. His other videos include such riches as "proof" that race and IQ are intrinsically linked and that black men commit more crime not for socioeconomic reasons but simply because they are black and are therefore prone to violence. On his ning site he has his holocaust denial stuff, where he agrees with a prominent fascist when he says that he wishes the holocaust did happen and that more were killed but the "evidence" would suggest otherwise. I think he goes by the name "Confederalsocialist" now but he used to be called "Stodles". He's pretending to be an anarchist in order to slowly recruit gullible n00bs to his disgusting politics.
If you want to give your politics and oxymoron of a title like anarcho-capitalism then that's up to you and all the best, but be VERY wary of this ****. He's a disingenuous little manipulator.

[trivas7]

the wage laborer sells the products of his work which are already contracted to go to the owner once the worker finishes producing them in exchange for a wage. You cannot buy or sell labor because only the worker CAN CONTROL his body and his energy and the way he wants to use that energy. I think this confusion may just be a matter of semantics. What you are calling trading wage labor is actually trading products of labor that were already contracted to go directly to another person. The LABOR itself CANNOT be traded.

Nope. You're denying that labor is a factor of production. The owner of the factory owns the product the wage-laborer makes; the wage-laborer hasn't contracted w/ the owner of the factory to sell a product, but rather his labor-power. That's why Marx distinguishes bt labor and labor-power.

[Havet]

Do you realise that you are posting videos made by a "former" white nationalist who now claims to be an anarcho-nationalist (WTF???) and stormfront regular. His other videos include such riches as "proof" that race and IQ are intrinsically linked and that black men commit more crime not for socioeconomic reasons but simply because they are black and are therefore prone to violence. On his ning site he has his holocaust denial stuff, where he agrees with a prominent fascist when he says that he wishes the holocaust did happen and that more were killed but the "evidence" would suggest otherwise. I think he goes by the name "Confederalsocialist" now but he used to be called "Stodles". He's pretending to be an anarchist in order to slowly recruit gullible n00bs to his disgusting politics.
If you want to give your politics and oxymoron of a title like anarcho-capitalism then that's up to you and all the best, but be VERY wary of this ****. He's a disingenuous little manipulator.

proof of him being a nationalist, going to stormfront and all of that?

and even if it did, what does it matter? sure its BAD and EVIL and WRONG, but thats why i dont adress those arguments from him, i adress the arguments i think are GOOD and RIGHT and LOGICAL from him. This is why i find it useless to judge a person by a person (sum of all the things theyve said) or to even judge her at all. I just nitpick the logical arguments and explore them, and give due credit to their creators

[IcarusAngel]

Do you realise that you are posting videos made by a "former" white nationalist who now claims to be an anarcho-nationalist (WTF???) and stormfront regular. His other videos include such riches as "proof" that race and IQ are intrinsically linked and that black men commit more crime not for socioeconomic reasons but simply because they are black and are therefore prone to violence. On his ning site he has his holocaust denial stuff, where he agrees with a prominent fascist when he says that he wishes the holocaust did happen and that more were killed but the "evidence" would suggest otherwise. I think he goes by the name "Confederalsocialist" now but he used to be called "Stodles". He's pretending to be an anarchist in order to slowly recruit gullible n00bs to his disgusting politics.
If you want to give your politics and oxymoron of a title like anarcho-capitalism then that's up to you and all the best, but be VERY wary of this ****. He's a disingenuous little manipulator.


WOW.

Thanks for all that. It certainly sounds like something an anarcho-capitalist would do. He isn't even the only racist anarcho-capitalist on Youtube, there's another one that say all socialists are "niggers" and all this crap. Buddhagem has a clip of him saying that.

If you watch the video of that "confederatesocialist" you see his arguments are full of philosophical holes that can be easily poked through, but his overall politics obviously discredit him.

These "miseans" are nothing but pukes. Far too many of them are:

pseudo-scientists (i.e. self-ownership, et al.)
Racist
Sexist
Fascist
nationalists.

Interestingly, some "ancaps" at anti-state.com do not like all the racists at the Mises forums and so on, and one of the mods there called them "racists with bow ties." But they have their own racist at that site that continues to post.

This all just shows that any kind of capitalist is really a right-thinking person, not a free-thinking progressive like most anarchists.

[Havet]

WOW.

Thanks for all that. It certainly sounds like something an anarcho-capitalist would do. He isn't even the only racist anarcho-capitalist on Youtube, there's another one that say all socialists are "niggers" and all this crap. Buddhagem has a clip of him saying that.

If you watch the video of that "confederatesocialist" you see his arguments are full of philosophical holes that can be easily poked through, but his overall politics obviously discredit him.

These "miseans" are nothing but pukes. Far too many of them are:

pseudo-scientists (i.e. self-ownership, et al.)
Racist
Sexist
Fascist
nationalists.

Interestingly, some "ancaps" at anti-state.com do not like all the racists at the Mises forums and so on, and one of the mods there called them "racists with bow ties." But they have their own racist at that site that continues to post.

This all just shows that any kind of capitalist is really a right-thinking person, not a free-thinking progressive like most anarchists.

Fail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

[spiney norman]

proof of him being a nationalist, going to stormfront and all of that?

and even if it did, what does it matter? sure its BAD and EVIL and WRONG, but thats why i dont adress those arguments from him, i adress the arguments i think are GOOD and RIGHT and LOGICAL from him. This is why i find it useless to judge a person by a person (sum of all the things theyve said) or to even judge her at all. I just nitpick the logical arguments and explore them, and give due credit to their creators

Just type in stodles racism on a youtube search.
Or look at this video:
http: //www (dot) youtube (dot) com / watch ?v=Dg6vUz3mZXY (remove spaces and replace (dot) with .

Or this blog post:
http : // fringeelements (dot) ning (dot) com/profiles/blogs/modern-day-mass-hysteria

Or type in Stodles Stormfront on google.

I clearly stated that if you wanted to subscribe to the oxymoronic politics of anarcho-capitalism then that is your lookout. I was merely warning you not to be manipulated by this ****. I don't debate with an-caps anymore, it's like trying to talk to a presuppositionalist christian apologist; plenty of circular arguments and a resolute unwillingness to confront reality.

Stodles is a WN who left his Nazi comrades because they victimised him for being bisexual. His writings and videos on race and IQ are proof enough for me that his methods rather than his aims are what have changed.

[Havet]

Just type in stodles racism on a youtube search.
Or look at this video:
http: //www (dot) youtube (dot) com / watch ?v=Dg6vUz3mZXY (remove spaces and replace (dot) with .

Or this blog post:
http : // fringeelements (dot) ning (dot) com/profiles/blogs/modern-day-mass-hysteria

Or type in Stodles Stormfront on google.

I clearly stated that if you wanted to subscribe to the oxymoronic politics of anarcho-capitalism then that is your lookout. I was merely warning you not to be manipulated by this ****. I don't debate with an-caps anymore, it's like trying to talk to a presuppositionalist christian apologist; plenty of circular arguments and a resolute unwillingness to confront reality.

Stodles is a WN who left his Nazi comrades because they victimised him for being bisexual. His writings and videos on race and IQ are proof enough for me that his methods rather than his aims are what have changed.

Okay, you showed good evidence that in the past (or maybe right now) that person was a White nationalist and racist.

And yes i think being a white nationalist and racist is wrong and illogical and idiotic.

So what?

STOP ENGAGING IN LOGICAL FALLACIES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

Because he is a WN, ALL ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS ARE?

That doesn't follow logically.

Besides, the fact that he is a WN doesn't invalidates some of his other good videos about a stateless society. It at least shows how dckhead he is in what concerns individual liberty.

If i saw a self-proclaimed communist who held that people should discriminate against non-white people and "race traitors", would it be LOGICAL for me to argue that ALL COMMUNISTS MUST BE RACISTS?

No, of course not.

Then why do you keep doing the same?

Because you can't find good arguments when debating anarcho-capitalists and other free market ideologies so you resort to hasty generalizations and ad hom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) (connected with hasty generalizations)

[spiney norman]

Okay, you showed good evidence that in the past (or maybe right now) that person was a White nationalist and racist.

And yes i think being a white nationalist and racist is wrong and illogical and idiotic.

So what?

STOP ENGAGING IN LOGICAL FALLACIES

Because he is a WN, ALL ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS ARE?

That doesn't follow logically.

Besides, the fact that he is a WN doesn't invalidates some of his other good videos about a stateless society. It at least shows how dckhead he is in what concerns individual liberty.

If i saw a self-proclaimed communist who held that people should discriminate against non-white people and "race traitors", would it be LOGICAL for me to argue that ALL COMMUNISTS MUST BE RACISTS?

No, of course not.

Then why do you keep doing the same?

Because you can't find good arguments when debating anarcho-capitalists and other free market ideologies so you resort to hasty generalizations and ad hom (connected with hasty generalizations)

Calm down kid. I can only assume that you didn't read what I said. I wasn't using his racism as an argument; I was giving you the heads up, I was concerned that he might manipulate you, as he has done with. many other an-caps. I have no wish to debate with you; it's futile.

I would also point out that some of the more intelligent an-caps have also called him on this and their analysis of his intentions matches mine - have a look at what a user by the name of brainpolice2 has to say about him.

[Havet]

Calm down kid. I can only assume that you didn't read what I said. I wasn't using his racism as an argument; I was giving you the heads up, I was concerned that he might manipulate you, as he has done with. many other an-caps. I have no wish to debate with you; it's futile.

I would also point out that some of the more intelligent an-caps have also called him on this and their analysis of his intentions matches mine - have a look at what a user by the name of brainpolice2 has to say about him.

I have watched some of brainpolice's videos on him. It seems, whoever, confederalsocialist might have changed opinions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DchdYvHYP0A&feature=related) on that subject.

Anyway, i apologize for the ATTACK on you, i thought you were socialist who keeps using that argument to justify that the anarcho-capitalist position is wrong ebcause some members are dckheads in what concerns race.

Why is it futile to debate with me? Because i also think he is wrong on the matter of race? What im saying is that people shouldnt judge a whole movement by the idiocy of some of its members, and that the fact that some of his arguments regarding race are idiotic doesnt mean his other arguments regarding anarchy and freedom are idiotic as well.

So the message is: don't project racism into libertarianism because its not an argument to invalidate the arguments of libertarianism

[spiney norman]

I have watched some of brainpolice's videos on him. It seems, whoever, confederalsocialist might have changed opinions on that subject.

Anyway, i apologize for the ATTACK on you, i thought you were socialist who keeps using that argument to justify that the anarcho-capitalist position is wrong ebcause some members are dckheads in what concerns race.

Why is it futile to debate with me? Because i also think he is wrong on the matter of race? What im saying is that people shouldnt judge a whole movement by the idiocy of some of its members, and that the fact that some of his arguments regarding race are idiotic doesnt mean his other arguments regarding anarchy and freedom are idiotic as well.

So the message is: don't project racism into libertarianism because its not an argument to invalidate the arguments of libertarianism

I am a socialist.

I never said that I think you're a racist (I don't). I do, however, think that the fact that the libertarian "movement" seems to be a safe-haven for quasi-fascists should be of concern to you (the Ron Paul newsletter controversy is another example). For me it's one of the many weaknesses of your "movement".

I think debate between us would be futile because I've been there before. An-caps do not seem to realise that, rather than the state capitalism and corporatism we see today being an abberation of capitalism, it is its necessary conclusion.

Neither of us is going to be convinced by the other's arguments so it would be a waste of time. Ultimately one of us is right and the other wrong. I know where I'd put my money (if I were a capitalist!)

[spiney norman]

I have watched some of brainpolice's videos on him. It seems, whoever, confederalsocialist might have changed opinions on that subject.

The BNP have "changed their opinions" too, right?

[Havet]

I am a socialist.

I never said that I think you're a racist (I don't). I do, however, think that the fact that the libertarian "movement" seems to be a safe-haven for quasi-fascists should be of concern to you (the Ron Paul newsletter controversy is another example). For me it's one of the many weaknesses of your "movement".

I think debate between us would be futile because I've been there before. An-caps do not seem to realise that, rather than the state capitalism and corporatism we see today being an abberation of capitalism, it is its necessary conclusion.

Neither of us is going to be convinced by the other's arguments so it would be a waste of time. Ultimately one of us is right and the other wrong. I know where I'd put my money (if I were a capitalist!)

well thanks for the warning, but every movement can be a safe haven for any wackos. Its important people understand the theory to be able to identify preachers of contradictions at first sight.

also, regarding BNP, to hell with them. im talking of confederalsocialist, watch the video and you'll understand. Maybe we could only discuss what he says on the video.

and what are your main objections on, not vulgar ancaps, but market anarchy?

[spiney norman]

well thanks for the warning, but every movement can be a safe haven for any wackos. Its important people understand the theory to be able to identify preachers of contradictions at first sight.

also, regarding BNP, to hell with them. im talking of confederalsocialist, watch the video and you'll understand. Maybe we could only discuss what he says on the video.

and what are your main objections on, not vulgar ancaps, but market anarchy?

I really do not want to get ito a discussion about it; I am worried that I will lose the will to live but my main objection to "market anarchy" is the dogmatic adherance to "property rights". If this system were ever to prevail it would only be a matter of time before we had entities analogous to the state but who are completely unaccountable, being private entities. At least in a bourgeois democracy the state is, potentially, democratic.

By sheer coincidence I have just come across a new holocaust denial video by confederalsocialist, where he claims that the holocaust was "exaggerated" in order to demonise the "fibre" of the German people. He also claims that the only difference between communism and fascism is that the fascists "co-opt" the "moral fibre" of the people and the communist destroy it. He also includes some interesting, a-historical analysis. It's like watching a video by a creation "scientist" - it's so full of shite that you'd have to make a video ten times as long to refute him. I can't believe you take this bigot seriously. There are enough intelligent market anarchists on youtube for you to refer to, without you having to promote the work of scum like him. You're better than that.

Here it is (sorry, Im not allowed to post links yet so you'll have to delete the spaces and change the (dot) to .):

http : //w w w (dot) youtube (dot) com / watch?v = OLp-2JpTgYw

[Havet]

I really do not want to get ito a discussion about it; I am worried that I will lose the will to live but my main objection to "market anarchy" is the dogmatic adherance to "property rights". If this system were ever to prevail it would only be a matter of time before we had entities analogous to the state but who are completely unaccountable, being private entities. At least in a bourgeois democracy the state is, potentially, democratic.

By sheer coincidence I have just come across a new holocaust denial video by confederalsocialist, where he claims that the holocaust was "exaggerated" in order to demonise the "fibre" of the German people. He also claims that the only difference between communism and fascism is that the fascists "co-opt" the "moral fibre" of the people and the communist destroy it. He also includes some interesting, a-historical analysis. It's like watching a video by a creation "scientist" - it's so full of shite that you'd have to make a video ten times as long to refute him. I can't believe you take this bigot seriously. There are enough intelligent market anarchists on youtube for you to refer to, without you having to promote the work of scum like him. You're better than that.

Here it is (sorry, Im not allowed to post links yet so you'll have to delete the spaces and change the (dot) to .):

http : //w w w (dot) youtube (dot) com / watch?v = OLp-2JpTgYw

whoa there, take it easy, you dont need to lose your will to live. A discussion is merely a friendly (or at least intended) trade of information. You dont need to take it that seriously.

In market anarchy, likely there wouldnt end up being dogmatic adherence ot property rights. Freedom means freedom to trade and freedom to not trade. People who might hold such views on property might disagree with communists, so they would be free to set their own cities where there was a common agreement on what ownership was,how ownership could be achieved and what constituted legitimate ownership and property.

Others could disagree and they would be free to set their own communities where property was held in common and perhaps the whole concept of property and ownership would be abolished.

In order for this to work there needs to be a basic level of self-respect and freedom of movement, in case someone is in a place and would like to go somewhere else. Both in propertarian communities and in anti-propertarian communities this could be easily granted and achieved.

Furthermore, communities who didnt have the property notion of propertarian communities could exchange goods and services collectively with other antipropertarian communities. In the end, there is a great deal of freedom and opportunity to seek a better life.

-----------

As for confederalsocialist, thanks for the warning, but i should warn you as well that i don't judge people by their persons, or better, i dont appreciate them as a sum, but instead i appreciate them partially.

This means that even though confederalsocialists views on race and slavery are idiotic according to my own opinion, i still think his points on market anarchy, freedom, state, etc are valid and i appreciate him for that, while dispising him on the others.

This is also why i appreciate Rand in many subjects (freedom, rights, art) while dispising her in others (her views on homosexuality, her views on a state, etc).

So to sum it up, i only look at arguments, not people.

[Luís Henrique]

the point is, you CAN'T buy labour power, or sell it. Labour power belongs to the person who has the ability to...well...use that labor in the first place. You can't sell your labour, but you would be free to sell the products of your labour in a more fair way that wage labours current experience. Or buy the products of labour from someone else, of course, only by their consent. A fairer free market.

When you say one "can't buy labour power", do you mean that they would not be able (or allowed) to do so in your proposed non-capitalist free market society, or that this does not happen in "really existent capitalism"?

If the former, this would demand some discussion. If the latter, it is obviously false. An employee of a automobile factory does not sell automobiles to the company; in fact, the automobiles are the company's property throughout the process, from when they are separate pieces yet to be assembled to the final, when they are complete for sale. At no moment the employee can take "the product of his labour" home and refuse to "sell" it to the company.

Luís Henrique

[Havet]

When you say one "can't buy labour power", do you mean that they would not be able (or allowed) to do so in your proposed non-capitalist free market society, or that this does not happen in "really existent capitalism"?

If the former, this would demand some discussion. If the latter, it is obviously false. An employee of a automobile factory does not sell automobiles to the company; in fact, the automobiles are the company's property throughout the process, from when they are separate pieces yet to be assembled to the final, when they are complete for sale. At no moment the employee can take "the product of his labour" home and refuse to "sell" it to the company.

Luís Henrique

i was merely debating semantics. when people refer to labor what they actually mean is product of labor, because one can't trade labor per se, because its part of one own energy. You can agree to supply it, but at no moment can one trade the energy away.

[Luís Henrique]

i was merely debating semantics. when people refer to labor what they actually mean is product of labor, because one can't trade labor per se, because its part of one own energy. You can agree to supply it, but at no moment can one trade the energy away.

But one evidently can sell their labour power. "Labour power" is not the same thing as "labour". What an employee sells is labour power, not labour, and certainly not "the product of his/her labour".

Luís Henrique

[Havet]

But one evidently can sell their labour power. "Labour power" is not the same thing as "labour". What an employee sells is labour power, not labour, and certainly not "the product of his/her labour".

Luís Henrique

well property has to be alienable

if we were to legitimately consider something someone's property then we are infering that they may do what they wish with the object including buying and selling it on the open market

such an object , by definition , would have to be alienable (alienable , the object in question can be detached from the owner, and given to another owner)

My point is human labor or energy itself isn't alienable, because my energy is mine, and only the products of that energy can be alienable.

This is why self-ownership, as a concept, is meaningless.

i can't think of a valid argument why people ought to be owned in the first place , even by themselves. Yes they control themselves, they have direct action upon themselves, but that is because they ARE themselves.

however they cannot alienate themselves as a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.

the property of themselves , whatever that means , is inalienable physiologically. They can never sell their labor, because it is physically impossible. They don't sell their labor. They sell their products thereof. Labor is inalienable from the individual , the products they produce are alienable.

There is no other way to look at it, labor IS inalienable.

I mean if I make a contract to grow 10 apples for you, and I back out, you don't have a right to my labor and servitude. you only have the right to what I can produce that values 10 apples plus interest probably, for defecting. I owe you some object eqivolent to 10 apples plus interest , not my labor.

In a way, you owe me only the product of my labor, not the labor itself. Not the motions of growing the apples, but the apples. Even if I wanted to 'owe you the labor' i really can't. Its impossible to alienate my human energy from me. Since its my spine that connects the nerves to my brain to perform actions, you can't will me to raise my hand like I can do

--------------------------End of rebuttal to quote, beginning of philosophical rant---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Continuing from above)

This is why the whole concept of slavery is philosophically and logically bunk. With implying that energy or the human itself can be owned , at all , opens the door for some twisted philosophical justification for slavery. Slavery is impossible on a voluntary basis (if its voluntary , its not slavery to be more frank).

Some ancaps have fallen victim to this trap and have made some pretty absurd justifications for voluntary slavery

I suppose, in a sense, one can be a voluntary slave, becayse he is being compensated with something he wants , being subject to the whim of someone else. Someone can draw up a slave contract but i don't see how its enforceable and doesn't become null n void the minute the 'slave' decides to defect.

He can't pay out his labor, the only thing that can be technically paid out is something that alienable from the individual so it can be legitimately transferred to another owner.

But if he owns my actions , why is it that I still ultimately control my actions ?

For slavery there is always some form of force needed

/rant :)

[Luís Henrique]

well property has to be alienable

if we were to legitimately consider something someone's property then we are infering that they may do what they wish with the object including buying and selling it on the open market

such an object , by definition , would have to be alienable (alienable , the object in question can be detached from the owner, and given to another owner)

My point is human labor or energy itself isn't alienable, because my energy is mine, and only the products of that energy can be alienable.

This would be a complete revolution in the science of Economics. But I think you are missing a point, instead. How would, under your criteria, we classify commonplace market operations such as the selling of electric energy or the renting of a building? Apparently, according to your reasoning, those things would be impossible, or at least should be forbidden.


however they cannot alienate themselves as a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.

No, they cannot, but this has nothing to do with the selling of labour power. Just like I can rent a house and earn money for this without alienating it, I can rent myself and earn a wage for it. In the first case, I am not selling the house, but I am indeed selling the use of the house. In the second case, similarly, I am not selling myself, but I am indeed selling the use of my energy and skills - or, in precise terminology, my labour power.


the property of themselves , whatever that means , is inalienable physiologically.

No, of course there is no physiological problem here; otherwise the property of animals would be equally "impossible". The problem is juridical; the slave is a non-person, and only persons can sign contracts. At the moment a person sells herself into slavery, she denies herself the right to contract. As such, the contract by which the slave sells himself into slavery is void. Thus, slavery as an institution must depend on the violent acquisition of slaves via military operations.


They can never sell their labor, because it is physically impossible. They don't sell their labor. They sell their products thereof. Labor is inalienable from the individual , the products they produce are alienable.

It is impossible to sell labour. Labour, however, is a completely different thing from labour power.

That you are wrong is proven by any analysis of real data. The employee in any capitalist company does not sell "the product of his labour". If this was the case, the product of the company would belong to the employees until they were paid for it. Which would mean, the products would have to be counted, evaluated, it's price divided by the number of employees, who would then be paid for their individual fractions of the product; and in case of disagreement over the price, the product would belong to the employees. Nothing similar happens; the employees are paid for their time and the product always belong to the company, never to the employees.

You can easily fancy how would social relations if you were right. In this case, workers would hire factories, machines, land, etc., from the owners of those things. It is easy to see in this case profits would not belong to owners of means of production, but to the workers themselves. It may seem even a more rational system than the one we actually have; people hiring things seems more logical than things hiring people. But it is not what happens.


I mean if I make a contract to grow 10 apples for you, and I back out, you don't have a right to my labor and servitude.

In real life a make a contract with you to use your labour force for eight hours a day, five days per week. And I am entitled to precisely that amount of you labour power; if you think you can go home and do something else because you have already produced what you were paid for, you are sorely mistaken; next day you will be refused entrance into the workplace, told that your services are no longer needed, and laughed at if you ask to take "the product of your labour" home.


you only have the right to what I can produce that values 10 apples plus interest probably, for defecting. I owe you some object eqivolent to 10 apples plus interest , not my labor.

If it is a buy and sell contract of ten apples, yes. If it is a labour contract, no. In this case, what you owe me is your time and effort for the time stipulated in the contract. You can't bring me ten apples from another source and tell me that your part in the contract was fulfilled because they are equivalent to the time and effort I bought from you.

Luís Henrique

[Misanthrope]

Fuck Stodles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slsw5JG847g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_fd96PIVNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgV1RhPB5M

[Havet]

Fuck Stodles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slsw5JG847g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_fd96PIVNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgV1RhPB5M

That (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom) adds nothing to the conversation, and it doesn't adress the issues we were discussing.

[Havet]

This would be a complete revolution in the science of Economics. But I think you are missing a point, instead. How would, under your criteria, we classify commonplace market operations such as the selling of electric energy or the renting of a building? Apparently, according to your reasoning, those things would be impossible, or at least should be forbidden

Those kinds of energy (electricity) are possible to trade precisely because they are alienable, and you don't force a living being into creating them. You can take electricity, trade it, destroy it, use it, and so on.


No, they cannot, but this has nothing to do with the selling of labour power. Just like I can rent a house and earn money for this without alienating it, I can rent myself and earn a wage for it. In the first case, I am not selling the house, but I am indeed selling the use of the house. In the second case, similarly, I am not selling myself, but I am indeed selling the use of my energy and skills - or, in precise terminology, my labour power.

look, we are merely debating semantics. Yes you can sell and use your energy and skills, but you cannot take them away from you. They will always be a part of you. This is why you don't effectively trade your energy, because if that were the case you could "extract" your energy like electricity and then trade it away or send it by a copper wire.




No, of course there is no physiological problem here; otherwise the property of animals would be equally "impossible". The problem is juridical; the slave is a non-person, and only persons can sign contracts. At the moment a person sells herself into slavery, she denies herself the right to contract. As such, the contract by which the slave sells himself into slavery is void. Thus, slavery as an institution must depend on the violent acquisition of slaves via military operations.

I think i agree with what you say here.




It is impossible to sell labour. Labour, however, is a completely different thing from labour power.

That you are wrong is proven by any analysis of real data. The employee in any capitalist company does not sell "the product of his labour". If this was the case, the product of the company would belong to the employees until they were paid for it. Which would mean, the products would have to be counted, evaluated, it's price divided by the number of employees, who would then be paid for their individual fractions of the product; and in case of disagreement over the price, the product would belong to the employees. Nothing similar happens; the employees are paid for their time and the product always belong to the company, never to the employees.

What you are describing is a relationship that has evolved into a much quicker means of production. Instead of doing it old-fashionadely, the company just pays the time the workers spend working instead (even though i dont find that particularly productive). My main point is that individual energy cannot be extracted and then traded in the same way electricity is.



In real life a make a contract with you to use your labour force for eight hours a day, five days per week. And I am entitled to precisely that amount of you labour power; if you think you can go home and do something else because you have already produced what you were paid for, you are sorely mistaken; next day you will be refused entrance into the workplace, told that your services are no longer needed, and laughed at if you ask to take "the product of your labour" home.

You are entitled to what i contracted to supply: 10 apples

Obviously in real life people make long term contracts, which is why they don't go home and do something else, because they have contracted to supply a lot more than 10 apples.


If it is a buy and sell contract of ten apples, yes. If it is a labour contract, no. In this case, what you owe me is your time and effort for the time stipulated in the contract. You can't bring me ten apples from another source and tell me that your part in the contract was fulfilled because they are equivalent to the time and effort I bought from you.

Luís Henrique

What you bought from me was the ability to make 10 apples. The 10 apples are the end result of my actions, and the payment for your money. I can't bring you 10 apples from another source because in the contract we are assuming the owner of the field wanted to have the apples in his field and to have the trees so he can collect them each year.

The only time and effort i owe you, if i fail my contract, is the time and effort needed to make exactly 10 apples (unless there was some stipulation in the contract about interest). Obviously i cannot give you time individually and effort as an abstract concept. The effort must be on something to produce something. That something is what I owe you. In the contract there will be the ways i can make the apples, with more or less effort.

[Luís Henrique]

You are either merely confusing "labour" with "labour power", or you are trying to propose a market-based society without a labour market - which seems to be impossible.

Luís Henrique

[Havet]

You are either merely confusing "labour" with "labour power", or you are trying to propose a market-based society without a labour market - which seems to be impossible.

Luís Henrique

one of us is confusing a term, so we're basically debating semantics.

Labour or labor may refer to:


Work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work) of any kind
Wage labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labour), in which a worker sells their labour and the employer buys it

Employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment)


Manual labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_labour), physical work done by people

Labour power (in German: Arbeitskraft, or labour force; in French: force de travail) is a crucial concept used by Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) in his critique of capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) political economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy). He regarded labour power as the most important of the productive forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces) of human beings. Labour power can be simply defined as work-capacity, the ability to do work.

From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_power).

They kinda seem the same. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate the differences between them so I can understand it better?

[Havet]

Anyway Luis, to get to your original point, in a free market whoever wants to sell their labour can do so, to those who are willing to pay for it. And in a truly free market the poorest workers really do have more options than now, where they are restricted to only be employed and put their fate in the hands of the employers.

Going on with an argument of my own i posted in a dead thread:




In a free society, not actually existing capitalism, you would be free to set up your own community and abolish owners, if that was your purpose.

You would be far more able to self-employ yourself and if you were a wage labor, the bargaining power you would have against an owner would be far more tremendous, unlike now where there is an artificial oversupply of wage labour, which pulls their bargaining power down.

In essense, there would be more alternatives to supply for oneself than the current system. The current system is, in fact, regulated so that there is an oversupply of wage labor. This is done by physical and ideological means.

The physical means are government regulations, barriers to entry, barriers to exit, fees, taxes and tariffs.

The ideological means are the ones that being mentioned less are believed to exist less, which is not true. Most kids today are trained to think that the only purpose schools serves is to "learn" something to trade to an employer. Very rarely it is even mentioned that anyone can become an employer, or self-sustain himself without hiring or being hired by anyone. The whole concept of an employer is somewhat mystical to most people, partially because they don't question their power (which currently is artificially increased), but mostly because they can't conceptualize that one does not need to become employed by someone else in order to survive or to have a good life. The thought of self-employment, entrepeneurship and innovation is often repressed (both by public schools and by private schools which follow government regulations), and many people live somewhat at the mercy of the guillotine of unemployment coming down onto them.

The idea of creating communities and gathering similar people to "trade" without money or according to need, like many communists propose is even less mentioned.

My point is, in actually existing capitalism, there still are alternatives, but they are much harder to common people, or sound too difficult to most people, and because of the ideological beliefs, many never consider them at all.

[Luís Henrique]

They kinda seem the same. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate the differences between them so I can understand it better?

Labour is the actual activity, and what it accomplishes. Labour power is the potential to engage in such activity. Selling labour power means that the labourer, the seller, puts himself under the command of other, the capitalist, the buyer, for a period of time, and that anything produced by the seller during that period belongs to the buyer, not to the worker.

If I buy you ten apples, you work to produce (or you buy, steal, etc) ten apples, give them to me, and then you do whatever else you want. If I buy you eight hours of your labour power, and you produce ten apples in half an hour, you still owe me seven and a half hours of your labour power. Conversely, if after eight hours of labour you have only produced half an apple, you owe me nothing; I haven't paid for a number of apples, but for the use of your labour power during a fixed period.

Luís Henrique

[ThorsMitersaw]

I liked this post. I would dump "socialism" right along with it.

[Mo212]

The problem with libertarianism is that money is an imperfect store of value, inflation/deflation is a form of collectivized theft by those who who can take advantage of human behaviour. Most thought is unconscious and people make terribly bad financial decisions that effect their neighbors.

A society with no government would eventually have a governing institution by another name, this is totally lost on anti state people, you're just changing the name of an institution and moving it to another location in the private sector.

Language tends to obscure the truth in these matters, its the power of the people 'the deciders' and their influence over others without that power that matters.

A libertarian or totally free market world is merely rule by price, or tyranny of price, and we already have that to a large extent already.

The problem with free markets is the invention of money itself, supremely wealthy people do not really earn their wealth they take advantage of the invention of money's flaws and the law of large numbers, if you live in a society of 30 people, you make a widget the society wants, you're not going to become insanely wealthy because society is only X big, now you are teh same person with the same skills in a society of hundreds of millions and you can start to see the flaws inherent in the nature of money and the myth of voluntary transactions.

All economic transactions are political transactions and because nature is always connected to herself (she's a collectivist sorry to say it, our economies live off the free energy of the sun and the wealth of the earth whom no one truly owns, only really borrows from nature for a time until it is returned)

Reality is integrated, human beings are generally dumb for rebelling against the unity of nature by taking their individualism to extremes and taking their nature as the starting point as if it was something sacred, I'd rather use technology and science to root out the bad aspects of human nature to begin with, because huamn beings by and large are failures.