Products of my Labor - redux

[ThorsMitersaw]

Hello,

I followed a link within the statistics of a video of mine here: (youtube.com/watch?v=X686U8vEJ7E) to this post on your forums here: ( revleft.com/vb/you-have-no-t113373/index.html?amp; ) by "FreeMan". I read through some of the responses to my video I made posted here and wanted to clarify some things.


If you visit youtube and read my description you will see that I was saying this is the traditional defense of ownership and contractual relationships assuming the context of a free market. I make the assumption here that the land was not stolen from another. Again, contexts. This is entirely different than using this in the context of a cartelized state economy which brings me to my second point.


I posted a follow up to this video here (youtube.com/watch?v=824wIZ6arvs) called "Products of my Labor - revisited" which I would encourage you to watch and give your opinion on. These two videos were meant to compliment one another. In this video I take the context of a corporatist, neo-mercantile, state-capitalist/state-socialist, Keynesian, fascist (whatever you want to call it) economy as exists in the states and the rest of the western world to most extents. I will embed the video below here. Hopefully that is OK. A choice comment from the second video which may give you a bit of a hint to the direction I was aiming (think "Confiscation and the Homesteading Principle") at and my beliefs (Agorism):

Homestead that corporate state ******!


I am attempting to employ myself on my own through graphic/web design and the like and find it rather odd that I am being criticized for being unemployed. One major reason for my unemployment is that I have a criminal record which will not be cleared for many more years. I was attempting to get a part time job to help with the transition from corporate environment to freelancing. But my weapons charge seems to be preventing this. (Bit of advice: I got this charge while trying to obey the law, shows you what obeying the state gets you in the end). I fail to see how myself being unemployed is related to the video or the ideas there in.


I specifically addressed a user named "Budguy68" in the comments section when he praise the video and switched contexts to the current economy by praising Walmart and microsoft as he lashed out at "buddhagem" (who I would not consider an enemy) for it. My response to "Budguy68" in defense of "buddhagem" and a free market:

"Budguy please google the following: "Government and Microsoft: a Libertarian View on Monopolies", "Why do libertarians love Walmart?" (this is not in praise of walmart), "The role of state monopoly capitalism in the american empire" - Joseph Stromberg, "Big Business and the Rise of American Statism", "CORPORATIONS VERSUS THE MARKET; OR, WHIP CONFLATION NOW""


Thank you,
TM

Again the second video. Please watch - youtube.com/watch?v=824wIZ6arvs

Note: I do not consider myself "right" but "left" or a capitalist (or a socialist for that matter). I helped the Alliance of the Libertarian Left this summer with a table and display. But I suspect we may have differing interpretations of that whole L-R dichotomy, and the same goes for cap-soc definitions which seem to vary as wildly as the wind. I am also unfamiliar with the general demeanor or ideology of this forum or its patrons aside from a few topic titles I saw seconds before creating a new post. So, I posted in this sort of quarantine section where the post that contained this video was sent and then locked.

[Conquer or Die]

You display typical signs of libertarian aggression: Ahderence to a philosophical principal while producing nothing of actual value to anybody besides your mother. Using language and bigotry to reinforce your points to destroy strawmans which indicate that you derive pleasure from ideology and a simplistic good/evil diametric. Both of the "dumb ****s" in your video are in fact women indicating that you are sexist and find females as damaging to your personal esteem and a critical part of your evil diametric.

You have a religious faith that you're preaching.

[trivas7]

Why aren't sock puppets banned? :(

[danyboy27]

Why aren't sock puppets banned? :(

they are, just call the fucking police :D

[ThorsMitersaw]

You display typical signs of libertarian aggression: Ahderence to a philosophical principal while producing nothing of actual value to anybody besides your mother.

I was not aware that anyone professing to be an anarchist had some duty to work and produce. This is awfully fascist sounding of you. And just to be clear: being unemployed and seeking employment or buyers for the fruits of my labor... and failing thus far... does not make mean I possess no skills that others find valuable. Again, I did handle graphic design work for a presentation for the Alliance of the Libertarian Left.


Using language and bigotry to reinforce your points to destroy strawmans which indicate that you derive pleasure from ideology and a simplistic good/evil diametric.

Psychologizing others is a rather disingenuous tactic used by the likes of Stephan Molynuex... who I am sure you are familiar with. Doing so is basically a form of ad hominem and a non sequitor. However if you would like to actually address an idea or proposition put forth: feel free to outline exactly what the strawman is. (I was mostly addressing mutualist types who have put forward propositions like those in the video)


Both of the "dumb ****s" in your video are in fact women indicating that you are sexist and find females as damaging to your personal esteem and a critical part of your evil diametric.

Lol. More psychologizing. Honestly I just wanted to change up the characters to be the opposite of what they were in the first one. white male to white woman, black woman to black male.


You have a religious faith that you're preaching.

Show me. You have not addressed anything.

[ThorsMitersaw]

I had never heard this term "sock puppet" before so I looked it up on wikipedia:

"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person"

Who exactly do you think I am a sock puppet for? Would you like me to validate my identity through picture or video? Just say how.

[Jack]

Why aren't sock puppets banned? :(

Check the "moderader actions" thread in the Members Forum, they're banned more than anything else.

[Rosa Provokateur]

they are, just call the fucking police :D

Police! Eww, gross.

[danyboy27]

Police! Eww, gross.

call the milita?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/focus/xinsrc_98c78f19d4574ca196b66f3a576a9baf_militia.jp g

[IcarusAngel]

I don't think he's a sockpocket. His thoughts are too complete to be RamblinMan.

Anyway, what I meant by the statement that there is no land that hasn't been appropriated in an unjust way, is that state monopolization of land, private tyrannies and dictatorships, etc., have gone on for centuries, and still do exist, so how do you determine who the "new" private owners of the land will be.

Just allow the government to sell off all the land to the big companies? They already receive so much favor from the government, that their land might as well be government sanctioned, which it is.

These "markets" you favor simply create a new slave owning class that derives power from their ownership of land, to the point where everybody else must submit themselves to said power.

And how can you remove all these protections on the market and still get capitalism? It makes no sense.

Second, you're very selective with what is property. Land is property, but for some reason ideas are not property. Even though it takes ideas to get land in your systems (like to produce). So, essentially, those who produce can come to be successful with other people's ideas.

For example, a brilliant engineer comes up with a new car design. His idea some how gets floated to a CEO of a car company. Why is it that the car company can use the idea to further consolidate resources, while the engineer gets the boot out on the street?

Because your so selective with your property rights, you encourage tyranny, rather than letting everybody work democratically to solve things.

In reality, land is not property, since men themselves did not make it. Even some "left libertarians" admit this. Google "A landlord is a government."

And by the way, you can't be left-wing and be pro-capitalist, pro-capitalist market.

[ThorsMitersaw]

I don't think he's a sockpocket. His thoughts are too complete to be RamblinMan.

ty?


Anyway, what I meant by the statement that there is no land that hasn't been appropriated in an unjust way, is that state monopolization of land, private tyrannies and dictatorships, etc., have gone on for centuries, and still do exist, so how do you determine who the "new" private owners of the land will be.

Yea I know what you mean but I do not know if that is a problem. If A murders B and takes his television or something, and then A has a son and passes the TV to his son, after B dies... who has any just claim to the television? I really do not dig all of this legal nonsense with genetically similar persons having claims that are the same. I do not think I can act in my fathers stead as though I AM my father in other words.

Even if I did think that some distant decedent of some native american who lived on this plot of land a 400 years ago could make some claim against ME for the actions of my great great great................ grand father. He would have the burden of proof to meet. I am innocent until proven guilty.


Just allow the government to sell off all the land to the big companies? They already receive so much favor from the government, that their land might as well be government sanctioned, which it is.


I do not support 'privatization'. That was one of my first videos as a matter of fact. Taking the flag off the wall and calling it a free is nonsense.


These "markets" you favor simply create a new slave owning class that derives power from their ownership of land, to the point where everybody else must submit themselves to said power.

I do not see that as the case being that I do not support handing out government lands in that manner you outlined above. Selling to the highest bidder. Even if you thought they SHOULD be able to sell them off... who gets the money? You cant keep proceeds to the sale of stolen goods. Is Obama gonna walk off with a cool 100,000,000,000 after he liquidates the state? Fuck no.


And how can you remove all these protections on the market and still get capitalism? It makes no sense.

First, I would like you to define capitalism. This is why I hate using the word capitalism or socialism. The definitions mutate between persons and thinkers and writers through all of history.


Second, you're very selective with what is property. Land is property, but for some reason ideas are not property.

ideas are not tangible. property rights exists for resources that are finite, scarce, limited... matter. Ideas are not scarce in this manner by any stretch of the imagination. Further, intellectual property I would argue is claim to ownership over anothers mind and enslavement of their actions.


Even though it takes ideas to get land in your systems (like to produce). So, essentially, those who produce can come to be successful with other people's ideas.

For example, a brilliant engineer comes up with a new car design. His idea some how gets floated to a CEO of a car company. Why is it that the car company can use the idea to further consolidate resources, while the engineer gets the boot out on the street?

I really did not expect to come here and see defenders of IP. Wow


Because your so selective with your property rights, you encourage tyranny, rather than letting everybody work democratically to solve things.

I oppose decisions being made for me by mobs of men concerning my property and not theirs without my consent or contractual agreement


In reality, land is not property, since men themselves did not make it. Even some "left libertarians" admit this. Google "A landlord is a government."

All properties are transformations of matter. Of natural resources. The same is true of land. And if it is NOT true, if the dirt and field and forest or whatever else was NOT transformed then it is not owned by anyone. I think what you are thinking someone cant own or the like is the space which it occupies... I can address that too


And by the way, you can't be left-wing and be pro-capitalist, pro-capitalist market.

I would beg to differ if by capitalist you mean some typical Austrian definition of just a free market. Sheldon Richman - (fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp) - "Libertarianism: Left or Right?" The notion is also carried by Konkin, Hess, Long, Spangler, Conger, Rothbard in his younger days.

I might also recommend this one by Roderick Long far above that one: "Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later" (mises.org/story/2099)

Again you probably assume a lot from me and I would like you to define capitalism. I do not even like using the word capitalism. Or socialism for that matter. I think they are both worthless terms seeing as how widely they can and are defined. Tucker basically admitted this himself long before we even had televisions and McDonalds.

[ThorsMitersaw]

call the milita?


I like militias... made a 2 part video on militia defense :P

[Havet]

First, I would like you to define capitalism. This is why I hate using the word capitalism or socialism. The definitions mutate between persons and thinkers and writers through all of history.

I also hate to use the word/term capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-and-libertarians-t112434/index.html)



I really did not expect to come here and see defenders of IP. Wow I think almost everyone here do not support Intellectual Property.


All properties are transformations of matter. Of natural resources. The same is true of land. And if it is NOT true, if the dirt and field and forest or whatever else was NOT transformed then it is not owned by anyone. I think what you are thinking someone cant own or the like is the space which it occupies... I can address that too

Would you say you believe in "natural" property rights?



I might also recommend this one by Roderick Long far above that one: "Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later" (mises.org/story/2099)


Just to warn you in advance, but many people here have a prejudice against Mises on an ideological level, which will make them not look at anything coming from the mises institute.

[Conquer or Die]

I was not aware that anyone professing to be an anarchist had some duty to work and produce. This is awfully fascist sounding of you. And just to be clear: being unemployed and seeking employment or buyers for the fruits of my labor... and failing thus far... does not make mean I possess no skills that others find valuable. Again, I did handle graphic design work for a presentation for the Alliance of the Libertarian Left.

"A little fascist sounding of you" is fucking hilarious. I'll just scroll through my permalink to "Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism" and apply anything similar you say as "a little fascist sounding of you."

"had some duty to work and produce" is a straw man.

Good for you on your graphic design work.



Psychologizing others is a rather disingenuous tactic used by the likes of Stephan Molynuex... who I am sure you are familiar with.

No, I'm not. You psychologized your "dumb ****s" in your videos so I don't see where your criticism is coming from.


Doing so is basically a form of ad hominem and a non sequitor.

That's the Kraker calling the Black "nigga."


However if you would like to actually address an idea or proposition put forth: feel free to outline exactly what the strawman is. (I was mostly addressing mutualist types who have put forward propositions like those in the video)

So you were preaching to your own audience?

"actually address an idea or proposition" these have been addressed multiple times. All you can do is create a new theoretical plane where your ideology works without scientific data. I was merely "psychologizing" you :rolleyes:




Lol. More psychologizing. Honestly I just wanted to change up the characters to be the opposite of what they were in the first one. white male to white woman, black woman to black male.

Unlike most liberty lovers you're able to distinguish black people from white people. How can you call yourself a libertarian?




Show me. You have not addressed anything.

And your points remain proven in your mind. Congratulations.

[Conquer or Die]

All properties are transformations of matter. Of natural resources. The same is true of land. And if it is NOT true, if the dirt and field and forest or whatever else was NOT transformed then it is not owned by anyone. I think what you are thinking someone cant own or the like is the space which it occupies... I can address that too

If I blow your head off with my gun and fuck your wife while eating your homegrown oatmeal I sure do you own you ;)

[danyboy27]

If I blow your head off with my gun and fuck your wife while eating your homegrown oatmeal I sure do you own you ;)

a little bit agressive and unecessary to explain your point of view dont you think?

[ThorsMitersaw]

"had some duty to work and produce" is a straw man.
Considering you made it seem as though persons are obligated to work... I dont believe it was

No, I'm not. You psychologized your "dumb ****s" in your videos so I don't see where your criticism is coming from.
I did no such thing... Stefan is a growing prominent voice in libertarian circles... which is unfortunate because I cant stand him.

So you were preaching to your own audience?
No. In order for me to be preaching to my own audience I would have had to be aiming this at agorists. I am not a mutualist.

"actually address an idea or proposition" these have been addressed multiple times. All you can do is create a new theoretical plane where your ideology works without scientific data. I was merely "psychologizing" you :rolleyes:
I made it clear that ONE video was taking this in light of state cartelization of industry and the other was not. YOU are the one failing as always to take anything someone argues for in laissez faire in light of the proper contexts. I guess I can not blame you though since many proponents of laissezz faire do the same.

Unlike most liberty lovers you're able to distinguish black people from white people. How can you call yourself a libertarian?
Because I am able to tell the difference between two different objects based upon obviously differing qualities, in this case color of the skin, I am not libertarian? No... that means I HAVE EYES

And your points remain proven in your mind. Congratulations.
you did nothing to address them. Again you just continue your attacks upon my person

[ThorsMitersaw]

I also hate to use the word/term capitalism
Good.


I think almost everyone here do not support Intellectual Property.
Also a good thing.


Would you say you believe in "natural" property rights?
I am not sure what you mean here. I believe in natural rights derived from ethical egoism of the Aristotelian sort which includes rights to property. So I believe in natural rights which explicitly outline what is legitimate and illegitimate property.


Just to warn you in advance, but many people here have a prejudice against Mises on an ideological level, which will make them not look at anything coming from the mises institute.
Then their prejudice limits them. Roderick also gives that article as a speech on youtube for some event at the Mises Institute. If that is more palatable

[Havet]

I am not sure what you mean here. I believe in natural rights derived from ethical egoism of the Aristotelian sort which includes rights to property. So I believe in natural rights which explicitly outline what is legitimate and illegitimate property.



How would say one could only acquire property legitimately? Homesteading principle? mixing one's labor with something?

[Conquer or Die]

Considering you made it seem as though persons are obligated to work... I dont believe it was

I did not state that a "person is obligated to work." This is a straw man.


I did no such thing... Stefan is a growing prominent voice in libertarian circles... which is unfortunate because I cant stand him.

He's right up there with Ron Paul and that guy from ABC, apparently.



No. In order for me to be preaching to my own audience I would have had to be aiming this at agorists. I am not a mutualist.

I'm a Free Market Socialist Populist Religous anti revisionist anti stalinist pre institutionalist post subjectivist.



I made it clear that ONE video was taking this in light of state cartelization of industry and the other was not. YOU are the one failing as always to take anything someone argues for in laissez faire in light of the proper contexts. I guess I can not blame you though since many proponents of laissezz faire do the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding



Because I am able to tell the difference between two different objects based upon obviously differing qualities, in this case color of the skin, I am not libertarian? No... that means I HAVE EYES

This is an argument based in scientific method so therefore it is irrefutable. I've been bested.



you did nothing to address them. Again you just continue your attacks upon my person

LoLerblades

[ThorsMitersaw]

How would you say one could acquire property legitimately? Homesteading principle? mixing one's labor with something?

*edits are what I assume you meant*

Yes, "Homesteading" principle, mixing one's labor with natural resources.

[ThorsMitersaw]

I did not state that a "person is obligated to work." This is a straw man.

"Ahderence to a philosophical principal while producing nothing of actual value to anybody besides your mother." you implied that I was detestable because I produced no value (value that YOU subjectively value).


He's right up there with Ron Paul and that guy from ABC, apparently.
Guy from ABC???

I'm a Free Market Socialist Populist Religous anti revisionist anti stalinist pre institutionalist post subjectivist.
Holy shit, that is a lot of labels. Cant complain though. I want to apply several to myself as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hilferding
"Writing in the context of the highly cartelized economy of late Austria-Hungary,[45] Hilferding contrasted monopolistic finance capitalism to the earlier, "competitive" and "buccaneering" capitalism of the earlier liberal era." - This is good. What happened to this? Why do we have Chomskyites now?

You might be interested in this: Big Business and the Rise of American Statism (1971) by Roy A. Childs (1949-1992) (praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm). It is regrettable that such vulgar libertarinism as Ayn Rands (so far as she was a libertarian) in her alter years has become more prominent. Big Business is certainly not the most persecuted minority. It is a state inflated cartel.

"In this, Hilferding saw an opportunity for a path to socialism that was distinct from the one foreseen by Marx: "Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of production under its control, it is enough for society, through its conscious executive organ — the state conquered by the working class — to seize financial capital in order to gain immediate control of those branches of production." - this part is still garbage though


This is an argument based in scientific method so therefore it is irrefutable. I've been bested.
:rolleyes: sigh


LoLerblades
more childishness

[Rosa Provokateur]

call the milita?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/focus/xinsrc_98c78f19d4574ca196b66f3a576a9baf_militia.jp g

Screw that, call the Department of Homeland Security

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/484012121_a4b45578f3.jpg

[Havet]

*edits are what I assume you meant*

Yes, "Homesteading" principle, mixing one's labor with natural resources.

Is the homesteading principle, in your opinion, objectively verifiable? If so, how and why?

[IcarusAngel]

The problem with things like intellectual property rights is that they can be dominated by the rich, like everything else in society. In communism, people would work together to determine who is the one contributing resources to the public good, who is the true genius engineer, so that they ensure that the most productive members of society receive the resources that they need.

In capitalism, intellectual property comes to be dominated by corporations. So, even if a guy gets a patent for something, there is a very real chance that something in his idea "looks like" something in one of the patents the large corporations hold, and he can be sued. Or maybe, they can buy the guy off, because of licensing issues or something, this is cheaper than actually turning it into something useful.

The point is, agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and most people who call themselves "market anarchists" deny this totalitarian hierarchy of property rights and want all resources to be controlled by what you can get in the "market."

This makes them even more anti-left, anti-anarchist, anti-freedom, than even liberals, who ADMIT property can be totalitarian, although their solutions do not go far enough and they don't recognize that the 'profit motive' is evil across the board, not just in certain areas.

Anarchists oppose profit making and domination over others, thus the OP is not an anarchist but indeed a capitalist.

[ThorsMitersaw]

The point is, agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and most people who call themselves "market anarchists" deny this totalitarian hierarchy of property rights and want all resources to be controlled by what you can get in the "market."

You will be hard pressed to find an agorist or a consistent anarcho-capitalist who is a fan of corporations. Especially with all the debate about whether a corporation is even a legitimate free market mechanism... It was obvious to me where I ought to stand on that considering the first corporations were explicitly created as government chartered and privileged oligopolies with transfered state powers.

Never the less, I do not see how an allocation of resources based upon original labor has anything to do with intellectual property being a completely illegitimate form of property. The "point" has nothing to do with trade or communes or cooperatives or profit and loss... it has to do with the legal restriction and domination of minds and ideas. THAT is the "point".


This makes them even more anti-left, anti-anarchist, anti-freedom, than even liberals, who ADMIT property can be totalitarian, although their solutions do not go far enough and they don't recognize that the 'profit motive' is evil across the board, not just in certain areas.

Acting in ones perceived self interest is not evil. I fail to see how calling property authoritarian is a strike against me. Especially considering that proportionality is so central to agorist/rothbardian takes on crime and justice and violations of property rights. It is a matter of who has the proper authority in a question of what is just. Its not that I have power over myself that is wrong, I ought to be the tyrant of my own body, but that it is only just that I do. And not a single other.


Anarchists oppose profit making and domination over others, thus the OP is not an anarchist but indeed a capitalist.

Not all anarchists normatively oppose profit. That is both false and something I find ludicrous to begin with. This true of anarchists who hold the LTV but not as a norm and of those who do not dig the LTV.

It is precicely because I oppose domination of others that I must oppose Intellectual 'property'.