Personal restrictions [Archive]

RGacky3

18th March 2010, 14:21

Beacause if there are no government restrictions on these things then the capitalst has the choice as to whether s/he wants to allow it or not. Obviously when the government sets restrictions then this choice is gone.

Yeah, but withits the government making at least we have a vote. When its a capitalist we have no vote.

BTW, THIS is what your interested, choice for Capitalists, the rest be damned.

I love it when a little honesty comes out.

When a capitalist sets these restrictions, all they are doing is making a choice concerning their own property. When the government sets these restrictions, they are making a choice concerning property that isn't theirs.

So although it may not make much difference to you, the worker, there is a difference beyond what affects you.

By me the worker you mean 99% of the population. But your right, the only difference is, the Capitalist does it through supposed property rights, the governmetn does it through the supposed social contract.

When that happy day of the Revolution comes and true "democracy" rains down on the earth--do you think the nonsmokers in the factory will let the workers smoke? Do you think the non drug takers in the factory will be happy to have their lives endangered by drug taking Comrades? For the most part, and that is the most part not all, these are rules not of evil Capitalism but of public safty.

I think they will let the workers smoke outside, I don'nt see why they would'nt. As far as drugs, probably not at work. But let me ask you, Whats the difference? Why is when a governmetn does it bad, but a Capitalist good? At least the governmetn is democraticallyaccountable.

And don't forget after the Revolution when a person endangers his/her health he/she is diminishing the wealth of the entire "People of the Revolution." Logically no smoking or drug taking or drinking should be allowed.

That has NEVER even come close to happening in any anarcho-socialistic society, so your just talking out of your ass. Also why would I want to restrict other peoples freedom when it does'nt directly effect me?

Also even if that were true, logically, Capitalists, who are driven by pure profits, not even public walfare, should be even worse than your doomsday prediction bullshit.

As far as drinking goes--in Capitalist societies for safty reasons you can't do it on the job but back in the great days of Glorious Soviet Union the government itself tried to stop comrades from drinking in their private life right up until the day Glorious Soviet Union was disolved.

Yeah, so did you US, but whats your point, who's talking about the soviet union?

Come the Revolution: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Except the new boss is entirely democratically accountable.

But Bud, I digress, rather than vometing up Glenn Beck talking points, answer the question, whats the difference? Why is one Bad and the other OK?

Dean

18th March 2010, 14:25

All tosh....

When that happy day of the Revolution comes and true "democracy" rains down on the earth--do you think the nonsmokers in the factory will let the workers smoke? Do you think the non drug takers in the factory will be happy to have their lives endangered by drug taking Comrades? For the most part, and that is the most part not all, these are rules not of evil Capitalism but of public safty.

And don't forget after the Revolution when a person endangers his/her health he/she is diminishing the wealth of the entire "People of the Revolution." Logically no smoking or drug taking or drinking should be allowed. As far as drinking goes--in Capitalist societies for safty reasons you can't do it on the job but back in the great days of Glorious Soviet Union the government itself tried to stop comrades from drinking in their private life right up until the day Glorious Soviet Union was disolved.

Come the Revolution: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. :)
You might be right, I sure hope not, but we can't really know for sure how a democratic society would act. But these aren't the rules of "non-smokers" and "anti-drug moralists," but rather capitalists who see such bans as beneficial to their interests. That is all.

Dimentio

18th March 2010, 14:29

Beacause if there are no government restrictions on these things then the capitalst has the choice as to whether s/he wants to allow it or not. Obviously when the government sets restrictions then this choice is gone.

When a capitalist sets these restrictions, all they are doing is making a choice concerning their own property. When the government sets these restrictions, they are making a choice concerning property that isn't theirs.

So although it may not make much difference to you, the worker, there is a difference beyond what affects you.

The problem is - if you have no property, how should you be able to affect your life?

Dean

18th March 2010, 15:08

The problem is - if you have no property, how should you be able to affect your life?

This is one of the most succinct explanations of the moral disparity between communism-capitalism that I've seen. +1

Ovi

18th March 2010, 15:14

Anti-state capitalists or so called right libertarians don't care about freedom but about property. You can impose any rules on your property as long as it's 'legitimate', meaning the authority of a dictatorial regime is ok as long as the state is legitimate.
Here's a quote from An Anarchist critique of Anarcho-Statism (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/an-anarchist-critique-of-anarcho-statism)

And the difference is?

It is no coincidence that "anarcho"-capitalists try to limit the definition of anarchy or anarchism purely to opposition to the state or government. This is because capitalist property produces authoritarian structures (and so social relations) exactly like the state. By focusing on "government" rather than "authority," they hide the basic contradiction within their ideology namely that the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of private property is remarkably close to its definition of the state.

This is easy to prove. For example, leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray Rothbard thundered against the evil of the state, stressing that it "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area." Then, in the chapter's endnote, he quietly admitted that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [5]

Opps. How did the editor not pick up that one? But it shows the magical power of the expression "private property" - it can turn the bad ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area) into the good ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area). For anarchists, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst." [6] It should also be stressed that capitalist authoritarianism is dictatorial in nature, with significantly less freedom than that in a democratic state.

Anarchists, obviously, wonder what the difference actually is. Why is the authority of the state considered anti-anarchist while that of the property owner is not? Rothbard did provide an answer: the state has got its land "unjustly." Thus the answer lies in whether the state legitimately owns its territory or not. If it did, then "it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that area . . . So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property." [7]

So if the state were a legitimate landlord or capitalist then its authoritarianism would be fine? Sorry? This is an anarchist analysis? The question is, ultimately, one of liberty. Anarchists simply note that Rothbard himself shows that capitalism and the state are based on the same authority structures and, consequently, neither can be considered as anarchist.

Robert

18th March 2010, 16:12

What on earth are you talking about?

Also the fact that nicotine is addictive is not a conspiracy you idiot.

Gack, why are you so grouchy?

What I'm suggesting is that the capitalist slave master has no ulterior motive in prohibiting its employees from smoking on company property.

In fact, he'd be more likely to get heat from his non-smoking employees (you know, your co-slaves) if he did let you smoke. He'd even make more money, I think, actually selling the cigarettes to you in the company break room.

So he's accomodating worker interests with his policy. Capiche?

Bud Struggle

18th March 2010, 16:13

I think they will let the workers smoke outside, I don'nt see why they would'nt. As far as drugs, probably not at work. But let me ask you, Whats the difference? Why is when a governmetn does it bad, but a Capitalist good? At least the governmetn is democraticallyaccountable. In any economic system if people want to smoke outside they should be able to. The rule in you factory has is idiotic. Why stink up any room (which shares no doubt some HVAC system with the rest of the building) when you have all that empty space near the dumpster that can be used for smoking in the back of the building?

That has NEVER even come close to happening in any anarcho-socialistic society, so your just talking out of your ass. Also why would I want to restrict other peoples freedom when it does'nt directly effect me? Maybe because it INDIRECTLY affects you. Besides it's been a loooooong time since there was an anarcho-socialist society. Quite a lot may have changed since then.

Also even if that were true, logically, Capitalists, who are driven by pure profits, not even public walfare, should be even worse than your doomsday prediction bullshit. Who cares what the "intentions" are? We are materialistic--not idalistic, remember? Besides, the Capitalist government is more than happy to make rules that are for the public and individual good at the expense of business.

Yeah, so did you US, but whats your point, who's talking about the soviet union? I like to make my posts general to ALL Communists when I post here on RevLeft. So I like to take in the other Communist tendancies.

Except the new boss is entirely democratically accountable. (Former) brother, I just don't see that kind of happening in any real world scienario. From my little dip into Owenism I've found that democracy in factories leads to factionalism, fights, disagreements and worst of all: loss of production.

But Bud, I digress, rather than vometing up Glenn Beck talking points, answer the question, whats the difference? Why is one Bad and the other OK?

I already answered the question:

Come the Revolution: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. One is no better or worse than the other--some things never change.

Gack, why are you so grouchy?
The Gackster shure has had a bug up his ass lately, hasn't he? :D

Robert

18th March 2010, 17:05

Well, if my boss wouldn't let me smoke, I'd be pretty grouchy too.

Don't let the bastards get you down, Gack.

mollymae

18th March 2010, 18:46

The libertarian idea of "personal liberty" does not mean "no rules".

And as for Dimentio's comment about property. In an *idealistic* capitalist society, anyone who desires property could potentially aquire it eventually, but I understand and admit that it doesn't always work that way in our current system.

(for the record--i've said before that i'm here to learn and i don't claim to have all the answers, heh.)

But I still maintain that there is a significant difference between a capitalist imposing these rules and a government imposing these rules because the government will always have more power over you than your boss.

Bud Struggle

18th March 2010, 18:53

But I still maintain that there is a significant difference between a capitalist imposing these rules and a government imposing these rules because the government will always have more power over you than your boss.

And in a Capitalist society you can always choose to "sell" your labor not only to the highest bidder but also to the company that provides the amenities that you favor the most (flex hours, child care, catered lunches, smoking availability, etc.)

Government imposes it's iron will on everyone, no choice allowed.

¿Que?

18th March 2010, 19:06

The libertarian idea of "personal liberty" does not mean "no rules".
explain...

And as for Dimentio's comment about property. In an *idealistic* capitalist society, anyone who desires property could potentially aquire it eventually, but I understand and admit that it doesn't always work that way in our current system.

(for the record--i've said before that i'm here to learn and i don't claim to have all the answers, heh.)
Well, you are referring to Dimentio's comment so I'll let him answer.
Of course an "idealistic" capitalist society is just that "idealistic". It has no basis in reality.

But I still maintain that there is a significant difference between a capitalist imposing these rules and a government imposing these rules because the government will always have more power over you than your boss.
Always? What if there is no government, just corporations. Will the government still have more power over you than your boss.

point 2: you are mixing units of analysis. Specifically, the government is an institution, while "your boss" is an individual. The correct way to make this point is to compare say "a police officer" to "your boss" or "the government" to "a corporation".

mollymae

18th March 2010, 19:24

explain...

It's very simple - it means that you cannot do whatever you want to something that isn't yours. Whether you agree with fundamental property rights or not is a different question for a different debate.

Of course an "idealistic" capitalist society is just that "idealistic". It has no basis in reality.

True, but I think several leftists on this board talk in idealistic terms as well, so OI people should also be able to, within reason.

Always? What if there is no government, just corporations. Will the government still have more power over you than your boss.

What do you mean by "if there is no government"? I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...

point 2: you are mixing units of analysis. Specifically, the government is an institution, while "your boss" is an individual. The correct way to make this point is to compare say "a police officer" to "your boss" or "the government" to "a corporation".

The OP said "they see nothing wrong with Capitalists, companies, landlords, doing exactly what the state does, or even worse" - comparing capitalists (individuals) with the state (an establishment) - so I was just following suit.

Besides, it would be incorrect to compare a police officer to a boss because a police officer does not make the laws; he only enforces them. Your boss, on the other hand, creates and enforces the rules.

Bud Struggle

18th March 2010, 19:27

True, but I think several leftists on this board talk in idealistic terms as well, so OI people should also be able to, within reason.

ALL communist societies up to this point in history have been idealistic no matter what their claims to the contrary. From a real world perspective there is very little difference between Utopian and Idealistic.

Comrade Anarchist

18th March 2010, 19:33

Libertarians will whine and cry about public anti-smoking laws (for the record I am not in favor of them), and they will whine and cry about public food services, they will whine and cry about laws restricting anything personal, as they should.

At a factory I worked at, there was no smoking allowed .... Out side, in fact on the property, except for in a small smoking room (I'mt not a smoker btw), there was a kanteen where you had to by your lunch, they did'nt allow people to bring their own food. At the apartment complex I live in I'm not allowed pets, I'm not allowed to smoke inside.

As far as I can tell, in my life personally, my personal freedom is MUCH MUCH more restricted, by Capitalism, than by the state, and in a totally free market situation or anarcho-capitalist situation, essencially, the capitalist will be able to restrict as much personal freedom as they want.

however ANarcho Capitalists and libertarians have no problem with that, they see nothing wrong with Capitalists, companies, landlords, doing exactly what the state does, or even worse? Is'nt that hypocricy?

The reason we are against these smoking laws and such is b/c we believe that you should have full authority what goes on on your property. For example the no smoking laws in restaurants is wrong b/c the decision to allow smokers in a restaurant should be up to the owner not the state. If people are bothered by the smoke they can go to another place or have other options. The fact you were regulated on somebody else's property is okay with us, b/c it is their property not yours. You are selling your work to that person and they are paying you for that but once on their property they have free reign as long as they aren't being inhumane. If you don't like the restrictions then don't work there. Same for the apartment, if you don't like the restrictions then don't live there. What happens on people's private property should ultimately be up to them.

¿Que?

18th March 2010, 20:47

It's very simple - it means that you cannot do whatever you want to something that isn't yours. Whether you agree with fundamental property rights or not is a different question for a different debate.
On the contrary. It is exactly the fundamental nature of "rules" that is at issue. Who's going to enforce these rules?

True, but I think several leftists on this board talk in idealistic terms as well, so OI people should also be able to, within reason.
We should at least give Marx credit for attempting to create a path to a better society based on real world premises, not "idealism" of how we would prefer the world to be.

What do you mean by "if there is no government"? I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...
Never meant to imply. I was just giving a hypothetical of how government could be less powerful than "your boss".

The OP said "they see nothing wrong with Capitalists, companies, landlords, doing exactly what the state does, or even worse" - comparing capitalists (individuals) with the state (an establishment) - so I was just following suit.
Well, RGacky3 got one right. He did mention companies.

But here's is where the problem lies. If you literally mean, the government is always going to be more powerful than a boss, then I can hardly disagree. The government is an institution of thousands. A boss is a single person.

However, if you meant that governments will always be stronger than corporations, I have to say, I think you are probable being dishonest with yourself.

Here is a list of the ten largest companies in the world:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/
Here is a list of countries by GDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

I'm not really an economics guy, so I'll let you do the math.

Besides, it would be incorrect to compare a police officer to a boss because a police officer does not make the laws; he only enforces them. Your boss, on the other hand, creates and enforces the rules.
What do you mean by boss? Every job I've ever had I was manged by low level people who were just part of a bureaucratic system. They didn't make any rules, they just enforced them.
Or do you mean like a CEO?

Die Rote Fahne

18th March 2010, 20:50

Orange Juche

18th March 2010, 22:25

The thing about smoking in public is that it affects other people. I don't support banning smoking, but merely limiting it's use.

It's like saying i should be allowed to fire my gun in public as long as im shooting at myself. But the bullet can go through you and hit someone else is the issue.

To what degree do you feel its use should be limited?

There are some who want it banned in public altogether, that is to say, you can't even smoke on the sidewalk. This is where analogies (like the one you used) are proven to be useless - they take a base relation and ignore the variables, to make a convenient statement on conjecture and not reality.

The smoke I give out on the sidewalk that others inhale is not comparable to that of a bullet hitting someone, it's nowhere near it. Even in a bar or restaurant... nobody is forcing you to go there.

mollymae

18th March 2010, 23:21

On the contrary. It is exactly the fundamental nature of "rules" that is at issue. Who's going to enforce these rules?

Do you mean the rules of someone's own property, or property laws in general?

We should at least give Marx credit for attempting to create a path to a better society based on real world premises, not "idealism" of how we would prefer the world to be.

For the most part I respect Marx and most of his contributions even if I don't necessarily agree.

Never meant to imply. I was just giving a hypothetical of how government could be less powerful than "your boss".

Yes, that's why we must find the ideal balance between government and business. I do think that some government restrictons are necessary; for example I think there should be some restrictions on health insurance companies.

But here's is where the problem lies. If you literally mean, the government is always going to be more powerful than a boss, then I can hardly disagree. The government is an institution of thousands. A boss is a single person.
However, if you meant that governments will always be stronger than corporations, I have to say, I think you are probable being dishonest with yourself.

I see what you mean. But the OP was saying that the rules of his employers and landlords affect him more than the laws of the government. While I'm sure this is true for the individual, it is not true for the country as a whole, because if the government doesn't enforce it then you'll get mixed results.

As far as law enforcement vs. bosses etc. You make a fair point. I suppose it just depends on the situation. Every business has its own hierarchy and structure.

mollymae

18th March 2010, 23:30

I can see the argument against allowing smoking on public property because it does harm others to some extent. But perhaps there could be designated smoking areas or something.

Die Rote Fahne

18th March 2010, 23:33

To what degree do you feel its use should be limited?

There are some who want it banned in public altogether, that is to say, you can't even smoke on the sidewalk. This is where analogies (like the one you used) are proven to be useless - they take a base relation and ignore the variables, to make a convenient statement on conjecture and not reality.

The smoke I give out on the sidewalk that others inhale is not comparable to that of a bullet hitting someone, it's nowhere near it. Even in a bar or restaurant... nobody is forcing you to go there.

I have no problem with someone who wants to light up on the sidewalk, or in any open area.

You say "people don't have to go there" but people do have to work there. That's my big problem. The health of the worker. They don't have the choice to leave the building if it's filled with second hand smoke.

RGacky3

19th March 2010, 09:28

The problem is - if you have no property, how should you be able to affect your life?

There has been lots and lots of good common sense comments lately inthe OI (from socialists), thats exactly my point.

I can see the argument against allowing smoking on public property because it does harm others to some extent. But perhaps there could be designated smoking areas or something.

Smoking in a park, or on the side walk, unless your blowing in someones face, does'nt really harm others significantly.

The reason we are against these smoking laws and such is b/c we believe that you should have full authority what goes on on your property. For example the no smoking laws in restaurants is wrong b/c the decision to allow smokers in a restaurant should be up to the owner not the state. If people are bothered by the smoke they can go to another place or have other options. The fact you were regulated on somebody else's property is okay with us, b/c it is their property not yours. You are selling your work to that person and they are paying you for that but once on their property they have free reign as long as they aren't being inhumane. If you don't like the restrictions then don't work there. Same for the apartment, if you don't like the restrictions then don't live there. What happens on people's private property should ultimately be up to them.

Should'nt the citizens have full authority on what goes on in their country? Is'nt THAT right just as valid as property rights? If you don't like it leave the country, RIGHT!!!

The point I was making, restrictions from the state, or private property owners, all amount to the EXACT SAME THING, except one you have a say over,the other you don't.

I understand the reasoning you give, but the outcome is the same, only worse with Capitalism.

ALL communist societies up to this point in history have been idealistic no matter what their claims to the contrary. From a real world perspective there is very little difference between Utopian and Idealistic.

WHat do you mean by idealistic? If they worked, they wern't idealistic were they? The free market is idealistic, it looks good on paper, but it functions terribally in the real world.

What I'm suggesting is that the capitalist slave master has no ulterior motive in prohibiting its employees from smoking on company property.

In fact, he'd be more likely to get heat from his non-smoking employees (you know, your co-slaves) if he did let you smoke. He'd even make more money, I think, actually selling the cigarettes to you in the company break room.

So he's accomodating worker interests with his policy. Capiche?

Yeah, the same with GOVERNMENT regulations, Capiche? ITS THE SAME THING!!! All your proving is that private regulations are almost as good as government ones.

And in a Capitalist society you can always choose to "sell" your labor not only to the highest bidder but also to the company that provides the amenities that you favor the most (flex hours, child care, catered lunches, smoking availability, etc.)

Government imposes it's iron will on everyone, no choice allowed.

The Choice is called voting, you may have heard of it. In a Capitalist society your choice to sell is extreamly limited by tons of tons of factors, how long you can stay without a job, how many companies are available and so on. At least with Demoracy, EVERYone has one vote. With Capitalism some have billions some ahve none.

tough luck you may say? I agree, which is why don't let me hear you ***** when they raise your taxes, you can vote too.

Maybe because it INDIRECTLY affects you. Besides it's been a loooooong time since there was an anarcho-socialist society. Quite a lot may have changed since then.

What has changed that would make your rediculosu statement true? The principles hav'nt cahnged. Also, there are a few around right now.

Who cares what the "intentions" are? We are materialistic--not idalistic, remember? Besides, the Capitalist government is more than happy to make rules that are for the public and individual good at the expense of business.

Its not intentinos its incentives, and the incentives of government is to get re-elected, the incentives of Capitalits is profit. Also capitalist governments will never do anything for the public good rather than the buisiness good unless they are forced too, history has prooven this time and time again.

I like to make my posts general to ALL Communists when I post here on RevLeft. So I like to take in the other Communist tendancies.

No one on this thread was talking about the soviet union at all, it has nothign to do with it.

(Former) brother, I just don't see that kind of happening in any real world scienario. From my little dip into Owenism I've found that democracy in factories leads to factionalism, fights, disagreements and worst of all: loss of production.

Really? I have actual examples of how taht is untrue, many many many of them, do you have any examples of how it is true? If you want me to list my examples I will, but you've heard many of them before.

Your arguemnt is the exact same when there was a struggle between monarchists and democrats, and its wrong.

One is no better or worse than the other--some things never change.

I'd say a boss taht is accountable to me is better that one that is'nt, pretty common sense would'nt you say?

¿Que?

19th March 2010, 10:30

The libertarian idea of "personal liberty" does not mean "no rules".
explain...

It's very simple - it means that you cannot do whatever you want to something that isn't yours. Whether you agree with fundamental property rights or not is a different question for a different debate.
On the contrary. It is exactly the fundamental nature of "rules" that is at issue. Who's going to enforce these rules?

Do you mean the rules of someone's own property, or property laws in general?

Well, I spent all that time making embedded quotes only to realize that I am making a very big assumption about your argument, in that I'm assuming when you say things like "libertarian idea of ..." that you are referring to some type of social organization that is superior to what we have now (at least from your perspective). Basically, one built on "libertarian ideas".

So you can see where the confusion arises. Your "libertarian ideas" must refer to the dominant ideas of our society as it is now, since that is the only reason to assume that I would even be referring to property laws (as opposed to property rights).

My Bad.

For the most part I respect Marx and most of his contributions even if I don't necessarily agree.
I would say, respect Marxists, since they're the one's that are alive now. Marx is dead. You can disrespect him all you want. He don't care. I mean, have you seen some of the avatars around here ;)

Yes, that's why we must find the ideal balance between government and business. I do think that some government restrictons are necessary; for example I think there should be some restrictions on health insurance companies.
You're a stone's throw from Keynes. Which is only like, a couple blocks to Bernstein. If you take a hard left on Lexumburg you'll reach Marx in no time. Just kidding.

It's easy to see how a government could restrict personal freedom. What RGacky3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8070) was trying to show is how corporations or more generally, capitalist institutions can as well. Also, look at my first post. I'm supposed to have privacy rights, but who was there to enforce them? The government?

In a capitalist society, the government serves the interest of capital. Best to oppose both (at least philosophically). The fight for revolution goes hand in hand with the fight for reforms.

I see what you mean. But the OP was saying that the rules of his employers and landlords affect him more than the laws of the government. While I'm sure this is true for the individual, it is not true for the country as a whole, because if the government doesn't enforce it then you'll get mixed results.

What do you mean, for the country as a whole? Are you placing social relations above the individual. I would think that libertarians frowned on that kind of thinking.

As I mentioned earlier on my first post on this thread. The government was not about to enforce my privacy rights. Even if they would have, it would have involved a costly court procedure which would have made it prohibitive anyway.

And if I don't pay my rent. Do you suppose it will be as prohibitive for the landlord to enforce his property rights?

As far as law enforcement vs. bosses etc. You make a fair point. I suppose it just depends on the situation. Every business has its own hierarchy and structure.
It is generally good practice in debate and discussion to use unambiguous words. If you do use ambiguous words, you have to be prepared to define them clearly. Hope that doesn't come off as patronizing.

mollymae

19th March 2010, 17:35

I'm assuming when you say things like "libertarian idea of ..." that you are referring to some type of social organization that is superior to what we have now (at least from your perspective). Basically, one built on "libertarian ideas".
So you can see where the confusion arises. Your "libertarian ideas" must refer to the dominant ideas of our society as it is now, since that is the only reason to assume that I would even be referring to property laws (as opposed to property rights).

Ah I see. There really isn't *too* much difference between the ideal libertarian property rights and the property rights we have now in the US. Except for these anti-smoking laws and such. -__-

It's easy to see how a government could restrict personal freedom. What RGacky3 was trying to show is how corporations or more generally, capitalist institutions can as well. Also, look at my first post. I'm supposed to have privacy rights, but who was there to enforce them? The government?

Your situation that your brought up earlier definitely sucks--from what I've heard, those corporations can be pretty invasive to their employees. I can't really make a great retort to this because I don't know what they can and can't do legally.
I'm not denying that capitalist institutions can limit personal freedom, but the idea is that no one is forcing you to be there. Everyone can agree that it's much easier to find a new job than it is to find a new government.

In a capitalist society, the government serves the interest of capital. Best to oppose both (at least philosophically). The fight for revolution goes hand in hand with the fight for reforms.

I actually have a question about this idea that I've been meaning to ask someone. Socialists naturally put a lot of faith in the government, but how do you guys *know* that the government will do everything in your best interests? Through democracy?
And yes I do understand that many socialists are anarchists, but I'm talking about the government that would inevitably be necessary on the path to anarcho-communism.

What do you mean, for the country as a whole? Are you placing social relations above the individual. I would think that libertarians frowned on that kind of thinking.

No, I'm saying that if there were a national (or even state) law against something like pets in apartments or smoking indoors, it would affect more people (more individuals) than if there were no laws banning such things on private property. Because some capitalists and landlords would choose to make limits and others wouldn't.
But from the libertarian perspective, that's really not the point. The point is that the government shouldn't be setting restrictions on what isn't theirs.

And if I don't pay my rent. Do you suppose it will be as prohibitive for the landlord to enforce his property rights?

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain further?

It is generally good practice in debate and discussion to use unambiguous words. If you do use ambiguous words, you have to be prepared to define them clearly. Hope that doesn't come off as patronizing.

No worries. :) Sorry if I wrote too much. As a completely unrelated side note, whenever you post I always read what you say in Stewie's voice because of your avatar. o__O

Che a chara

19th March 2010, 19:06

All tosh....

When that happy day of the Revolution comes and true "democracy" rains down on the earth--do you think the nonsmokers in the factory will let the workers smoke? Do you think the non drug takers in the factory will be happy to have their lives endangered by drug taking Comrades? For the most part, and that is the most part not all, these are rules not of evil Capitalism but of public safty.

And don't forget after the Revolution when a person endangers his/her health he/she is diminishing the wealth of the entire "People of the Revolution." Logically no smoking or drug taking or drinking should be allowed. As far as drinking goes--in Capitalist societies for safty reasons you can't do it on the job but back in the great days of Glorious Soviet Union the government itself tried to stop comrades from drinking in their private life right up until the day Glorious Soviet Union was disolved.

Come the Revolution: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. :)

I think Bud has it right here. It's a question of public safety and not some sort of capitalist conspiracy. As a society we're becoming more liberal in our policies, and to tell the truth such 'personal' restrictions must be adhered to if the safety of the worker and society as a whole is to come first.

LeftSideDown

19th March 2010, 22:37

Libertarians will whine and cry about public anti-smoking laws (for the record I am not in favor of them), and they will whine and cry about public food services, they will whine and cry about laws restricting anything personal, as they should.

At a factory I worked at, there was no smoking allowed .... Out side, in fact on the property, except for in a small smoking room (I'mt not a smoker btw), there was a kanteen where you had to by your lunch, they did'nt allow people to bring their own food. At the apartment complex I live in I'm not allowed pets, I'm not allowed to smoke inside.

As far as I can tell, in my life personally, my personal freedom is MUCH MUCH more restricted, by Capitalism, than by the state, and in a totally free market situation or anarcho-capitalist situation, essencially, the capitalist will be able to restrict as much personal freedom as they want.

however ANarcho Capitalists and libertarians have no problem with that, they see nothing wrong with Capitalists, companies, landlords, doing exactly what the state does, or even worse? Is'nt that hypocricy?

The difference is its his property. If you invite people over to your house, are they allowed to do whatever they want? If you don't want people to smoke on the couch, they don't smoke on the couch... they can leave. If you need to smoke and this company won't let you, you go to a different company. As to the Canteen? Its probably to raise revenue, but if you don't like it, work somewhere else.

¿Que?

20th March 2010, 22:19

Your situation that your brought up earlier definitely sucks--from what I've heard, those corporations can be pretty invasive to their employees. I can't really make a great retort to this because I don't know what they can and can't do legally.
I'm not denying that capitalist institutions can limit personal freedom, but the idea is that no one is forcing you to be there. Everyone can agree that it's much easier to find a new job than it is to find a new government.
How is finding a new job going to change anything? If every corporation and business owner has a "right" to their property, the bottom line is, regardless of where I work, I give up my rights as a human being because I have to work (or else starve). Even in the event that I find a super cool boss that doesn't restrict my rights as a human being, I am relying on them to protect my rights.

I actually have a question about this idea that I've been meaning to ask someone. Socialists naturally put a lot of faith in the government, but how do you guys *know* that the government will do everything in your best interests? Through democracy?
And yes I do understand that many socialists are anarchists, but I'm talking about the government that would inevitably be necessary on the path to anarcho-communism.
Well, I don't know anything about anarcho anything. I read a bit of Marx and I am currently unaffiliated. The short answer is, depends on who you ask.

If you really are interested, though, you should read Lenin's State and Revolution. Now I am no Leninist, in fact, this short book is all I've read of his. The reason I bring it up, though, is because regardless of sectarianism, this would fall under the category of "orthodox" Marxism. If you don't want to read the whole thing (although it is very short) just read chapter 5 "The Economic Base of the Withering Away of the State."

No, I'm saying that if there were a national (or even state) law against something like pets in apartments or smoking indoors, it would affect more people (more individuals) than if there were no laws banning such things on private property. Because some capitalists and landlords would choose to make limits and others wouldn't.
This is true. The point is (and I'm not a government apologist or anything) that government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens. Yet most of what the government does is protect the property "rights" of corporations and businesses. So while your hypothetical may be true, it bears no relation as to what government actually does in practice.

But from the libertarian perspective, that's really not the point. The point is that the government shouldn't be setting restrictions on what isn't theirs.
From a libertarian perspective, everything boils down to property rights. yes. As Marx explained, though, under the bourgeois mode of production "All that is solid melts into air." Think about that.

As I mentioned earlier on my first post on this thread. The government was not about to enforce my privacy rights. Even if they would have, it would have involved a costly court procedure which would have made it prohibitive anyway.
And if I don't pay my rent. Do you suppose it will be as prohibitive for the landlord to enforce his property rights?

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain further?
I have added the relevant part of what I said to make it easier to see what I'm getting at.

This basically gets to the bottom line of this whole thread. It is far and away a lot easier for a corporation to exercise their rights than it is for an individual person. Especially when we are dealing with property rights.

Furthermore, when it comes to the government enforcing the rights of individuals, they are far more likely to enforce the rights of individuals who happen to be corporations rather than individuals who happen to be human.

No worries. :) Sorry if I wrote too much. As a completely unrelated side note, whenever you post I always read what you say in Stewie's voice because of your avatar. o__O
Literally LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYRvaD-xkQ

Wolf Larson

20th March 2010, 23:08

The difference is its his property. If you invite people over to your house, are they allowed to do whatever they want? If you don't want people to smoke on the couch, they don't smoke on the couch... they can leave. If you need to smoke and this company won't let you, you go to a different company. As to the Canteen? Its probably to raise revenue, but if you don't like it, work somewhere else.

In a world where everything is private property the only true place one will be free is on his own property correct? What a wonderful world that would be. Especially for the exploited class who cannot afford their own property. This is the propertyless class which will have NO CHOICE but to sell their labor to a boss, rent a home from a landLORD or take on interest bearing loans from a bank in order to survive. Private property is the coercive mechanism which FORCES a large portion of the population into wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. Private property also cannot be enforced and legitimized without a state which is why Rothbard advocated a private state not only to legitimize and enforce property but to subjugate organized labor under the capitalist [property] class' control. You will also confuse the difference between property and possession I'm sure. Property is exclusion- it is the process of using the means of production to exploit. Possession is using your own means of production either individually or collectively to provide sustenance while letting all workers keep the full value of their labor without a boss/owner leeching off of them. Why do you think Proudhon said property is theft?

At no time in human history has a society based on property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury existed without a state to enforce and legitimize property which in turn existentially forces the propertyless class into wage slavery, rent, interest and ususry. The American dream was the vision to escape the new system of property which replaced feudalism in Europe. The early settlers, in reality, were christian socialists running from the embryonic stages of capitalism. The dream was to leave the involuntary wage slavery, rent, interest and usury behind to come to the New World in order to homestead without working for a boss, landlord or bank. The white Europeans chose to not subject themselves to wage slavery, rent and interest because there was no government to enforce property in the new world. During that brief time pre 1776 wage slavery, rent, interest and usury became voluntary and the vast majority of white Europeans in America chose to homestead. The result was the businessmen could not profit because there was next to no labor force. Those who did choose to be exploited could demand high pay since there was no pool of available workers to lower wages. This environment was unacceptable for business so the result of wage slavery being voluntary was the enslavement of 8 million chattel slaves and the birth of industrial capitalism.<br><br>
My point is, capitalism cannot exist without a sate to enforce property in so creating a large population of workers who have no choice but to sell their labor to a boss. Private property creates wage slavery and private property cannot exist without a state. With no large labor force manufactured by private property early capitalists attained their labor force by other means. Chattel slavery was introduced to the New World. Many people working for the benefit of one man. That paradigm cannot exist without force.

Ayn Rand has the saying- " I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine". What do you think the capitalist is doing when profiting off of the labor of wage slaves if not asking other men to live for his sake? What has history shown us in the very brief time wage slavery, rent, interest and usury became somewhat voluntary? History shows us that capital will subjugate labor in any way it can but the common means is coercion. Property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury has never been free association. It has always been the offspring of compulsion.

anticap

20th March 2010, 23:55

Reminding those who've forgotten, and informing those who're unaware: The state is a union of capitalists.

Thus, translating the following select quotations, we arrive at a bunch of redundant nonsense:

my personal freedom is MUCH MUCH more restricted, by Capitalism, than by [the union of capitalists]

if there are no [...] restrictions on these things [by the union of capitalists] then the capitalst has the choice as to whether s/he wants to allow it or not. Obviously when the [union of capitalists] sets restrictions then this choice is gone.

When a capitalist sets these restrictions, all they are doing is making a choice concerning their own property. When the [union of capitalists] sets these restrictions, they are making a choice concerning property that isn't theirs.

withits the [union of capitalists] making at least we have a vote. When its a capitalist we have no vote.

the Capitalist does it through supposed property rights, the [union of capitalists] does it through the supposed social contract.

Why is when [the union of capitalists] does it bad, but a Capitalist good?

there is a significant difference between a capitalist imposing these rules and a [union of capitalists] imposing these rules because the [union of capitalists] will always have more power over you than [a member of the union of capitalists].

in a Capitalist society you can always choose to "sell" your labor not only to the highest bidder

[The union of capitalists] imposes it's iron will on everyone, no choice allowed.

What if there is no [overarching union of capitalists], just [smaller unions of capitalists]. Will the [overarching union of capitalists] still have more power over you than [a smaller union of capitalists, or a member of the smaller union of capitalists].

The OP said "they see nothing wrong with Capitalists, companies, landlords, doing exactly what the [union of capitalists] does, or even worse" - comparing capitalists (individuals) with the [union of capitalists] (an establishment) - so I was just following suit.

the decision to allow smokers in a restaurant should be up to the [capitalist] not the [same capitalist in his capacity as a member of the union of capitalists].

I was just giving a hypothetical of how [the union of capitalists] could be less powerful than "[a capitalist]".

If you literally mean, the [union of capitalists] is always going to be more powerful than a [capitalist], then I can hardly disagree. The [union of capitalists] is an institution of thousands [of capitalists, working in the interest of the capitalist who employs you]. [The capitalist who employs you] is a single person [working in the interest of the capitalist who employs you].

However, if you meant that [overarching unions of capitalists] will always be stronger than [smaller unions of capitalists], I have to say, I think you are probable being dishonest with yourself.

we must find the ideal balance between [the union of capitalists] and [capitalists].

¿Que?

21st March 2010, 04:14

Reminding those who've forgotten, and informing those who're unaware: The state is a union of capitalists.

The government (and I mean the government, not the state) performs different functions than corporations. Corporations do not make laws, the government makes laws (for the benefit of corporations). The government defines the boundaries of the state, corporations operate across these boundaries. Corporations produce commodities and accumulate capital, governments do not. "Democratic" governments have elected representatives, corporations do not.

I am not disagreeing that "the state is a union of capitalists" as are corporations. However, they are two different things in the sense that they function differently. If I were to make a functionalist argument, I would further say that they perform different functions which sustain capitalism.

I'd say you are making a composition fallacy.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-and-common-t129704/index.html

anticap

21st March 2010, 05:00

¿Que?

21st March 2010, 05:33

My choice of quotations was nothing personal, mind you, but selected without regard for the source as I skimmed the page for specimens. If you don't disagree, then there's no need to split hairs in an attempt to defend against a perceived attack. :)

The point ought to be clear enough: arguing over which is worse, the state or its units, is quite absurd, at least when the implication is that their interests differ. Clearly it will suck less to be beaten by a lone thug than by a gang, but you're still going to end up robbed. The interest of the capitalist is to exploit you; the interest of a union of capitalists is to see to it that they can can go on exploiting you. When we forget that the state is a union of capitalists, it becomes possible to imagine that the capitalist might sometimes play the good guy to the state bad guy, which is, of course, utterly ridiculous.
I didn't see it as an attack, although we are here to discuss and debate, and so since I saw my name on one of those quotes I thought I'd make my position clear.

I am well aware of the government's role in perpetuating the capitalists system, as any reading of my posts will make clear. However I have never heard it referred to as a union of capitalists, and for that I thank you.

However, I don't see it as splitting hairs. Maybe because I have been trained to think sociologically, I consider institutions defined by who makes them up but also by what role they play in society. Institutions are basically a type of social structure that has some effect on the individual. When we look at the effects of different institutions on individuals (along with who makes up these institutions) we can define them and analyze them. Of course there is the danger of reification, but that's a completely different subject.

As for your very last sentence, quite often on the left it's the other way around. The state plays good cop to capitalists' bad cop. This is also a problem particularly amongst reformists.

mollymae

21st March 2010, 08:06

How is finding a new job going to change anything? If every corporation and business owner has a "right" to their property, the bottom line is, regardless of where I work, I give up my rights as a human being because I have to work (or else starve). Even in the event that I find a super cool boss that doesn't restrict my rights as a human being, I am relying on them to protect my rights.

But different companies compete for your work. Again, I'm sure leftists think this is somewhat idealistic, but this is why I strongly support unions. I posted a thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/decline-unions-t131265/index.html?t=131265) about it. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that currently the very last post in this thread is me asking the question "Do you think it's realistic to assume that strong unions could ever counterbalance the wants of capitalists" (paraphrased). Unfortunately I didn't get a reply. What do you guys think?

You are depending on your boss for job security, but he is also depending on your work. And if workers were more demanding of their employers, it wouldn't be so easy for your boss to just throw you away and hire someone who will put up with more shit than you do.

you should read Lenin's State and Revolution.

Noted!

This is true. The point is (and I'm not a government apologist or anything) that government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens. Yet most of what the government does is protect the property "rights" of corporations and businesses. So while your hypothetical may be true, it bears no relation as to what government actually does in practice.
...
From a libertarian perspective, everything boils down to property rights. yes. As Marx explained, though, under the bourgeois mode of production "All that is solid melts into air." Think about that.
...
This basically gets to the bottom line of this whole thread. It is far and away a lot easier for a corporation to exercise their rights than it is for an individual person. Especially when we are dealing with property rights.
Furthermore, when it comes to the government enforcing the rights of individuals, they are far more likely to enforce the rights of individuals who happen to be corporations rather than individuals who happen to be human.

I clumped these quotes together because they all had the same main point.

I really do understand your point of view. You're saying that property=freedom, but since not everyone can afford property, this makes some people more free than others.
But when you say: "[the] government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens. Yet most of what the government does is protect the property "rights" of corporations and businesses." This is probably true right now in the US. But you have to realize that the US system is not the epitome of capitalism, and is certainly not the kind of system I would spend time defending. *
As I mentioned earlier in the thread: under our current system, people often work their tails off and do not get what they want out of it. Do not ask me why this is, because I don't know the answer to that question. All I know is that it makes logical sense that if workers were to unionize (like I mentioned above) and make better deals with their employers, they would reap more benefits from their labor and therefore everyone would be more empowered to own property.

* Since we had a little confusion earlier about what I meant when I said "libertarian idea of...", I wanted to clear up my intention of my above paragraph. In a previous post I said: "There really isn't *too* much difference between the ideal libertarian property rights and the property rights we have now in the US." I realize that this statement and my above paragraph may at first sound like they contradict each other, but they don't, because in that one sentence I was simply referring to how the libertarian theroies of property and US theroies of property are similar. But in the paragraph, I was talking about how the ideal capitalist system as a whole is different from US capitalism, and how idealist capitalism would open more oppertunities to property. I hope what I just said makes sense, heh.

mollymae

21st March 2010, 08:09

How is the government a 'union of capitalists'? I understand that capitalists often use the state to their advantage and vice versa, but how does this make them one and the same? If the government always worked in favor of the capitalists then there would be no such things as child labor laws, minimum wages, etc.

I admit that if I was more well versed in Marxist theroy I would understand this concept better. Educate me?

¿Que?

21st March 2010, 09:14

I really do understand your point of view. You're saying that property=freedom, but since not everyone can afford property, this makes some people more free than others.
No I'm not saying that at all. Basically I'm questioning what property is, fundamentally. Let's think about that, shall we. What is property? The most basic, least descriptive definition would be that property is a relationship between things and people. More specifically, that relationship is unequal since for someone to own property requires someone else not to have access to that same property. But there is also another variable, because for someone to be able to control property that others can't control, requires power. Ultimately, it's not about being able to afford property, but being able to control it. Then of course, some people would say that there is a difference between possessions and property, but I think that point is not necessary to be made in the context of this discussion.

But when you say: "[the] government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens. Yet most of what the government does is protect the property "rights" of corporations and businesses." This is probably true right now in the US. But you have to realize that the US system is not the epitome of capitalism, and is certainly not the kind of system I would spend time defending.
So what is the "epitome of capitalism" and what kind of system would you spend time defending? Don't feel you have to describe it all yourself. If you could point me to some literature, I will accept that.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread: under our current system, people often work their tails off and do not get what they want out of it. Do not ask me why this is, because I don't know the answer to that question.
The reason is simple. Jobs simply don't pay enough, or provide enough benefits. I'll even go so far as to say it has nothing to do with capitalism versus communism. It's a matter of quantity not quality.

All I know is that it makes logical sense that if workers were to unionize (like I mentioned above) and make better deals with their employers, they would reap more benefits from their labor and therefore everyone would be more empowered to own property.
We often hear people say that once conditions get so bad for workers, that they'll have no other option but to revolt. There is a flip side to this not too many people are privy to. They say, for example, that the more benefits afforded to workers, the more complacent they become. This is true, only if workers are uneducated as to the significance of their place in history. A mass of class-conscious workers, given any number of reforms, will always want more. Until the only thing left to give to them is the means of production themselves.

This is the contradiction between capital and labor. No matter how my views might change, I will always side with labor.

mollymae

21st March 2010, 20:48

No I'm not saying that at all. Basically I'm questioning what property is, fundamentally. Let's think about that, shall we. What is property? The most basic, least descriptive definition would be that property is a relationship between things and people. More specifically, that relationship is unequal since for someone to own property requires someone else not to have access to that same property. But there is also another variable, because for someone to be able to control property that others can't control, requires power. Ultimately, it's not about being able to afford property, but being able to control it.

oops! Sorry.

There's a difference between 'unequal' and 'unfair'. I see nothing wrong with a situation in which one person owns property and another doesn't, as long as a) the property owner aquired their property legitimately and b) the non-property owner could potentially aquire property elsewhere.

I wouldn't say it requires power to aquire property because I wouldn't look at any old homeowner and say that they are a powerful person. It requires effort, yes, but effort does not equal power. Is it still considered power when it is just individual property that is not used to control others?

I'm not sure exactly what your ideas about property as a whole are. Do you think that nobody should be able to own property--not even individuals? Or do you just think the bourgeoisie abuses their property rights?

So what is the "epitome of capitalism" and what kind of system would you spend time defending? Don't feel you have to describe it all yourself. If you could point me to some literature, I will accept that.

The most fundamental basis for the ideal form of capitalism is that everyone truely does get out of it what they put in. Not everyone has equal property or power, but everyone has the oppertunity. Whether they use that oppertunity to their advantage or not is not society's concern. The greatest thing about capitalism is that it is a system built upon mutual agreements and voluntary action. Of course you still have to work to stay afloat--you have to work in any system. But no matter who you are, your labor is valuable to the bourgeoisie and they need you just like you need them.
I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but again, I believe unions are the key to a functioning capitalist system because unions are not contradictory to the idea of voluntary action. Therefore, we must lift all restrictons on unions. If workers became empowered enough then perhaps we could even get to the point where we can slowly dissolve state restrictions on businesses.
We also need to back our currency up with gold or other precious metals to attempt to control inflation (somewhat unrelated to this particular discussion but still important and relevant).

I can certainly sympathize with the idea that as long as we have restrictions on our economy, we are not truely free. However, I separate myself from the ancap and lasseiz-faire groups. I do not completely disregard the concept of the Greater Good. I do not think that all government interference is detrimental--I think that is an oversimplification of a more complicated situation. However, I still think there is something to be said for the benefits of individual liberty. I can not say anything in certainty, but I truely believe that there is a form of capitalism out there that is beneficial to the human race. People are much more likely to appreciate a system in which they can get ahead of the game as opposed to a system where everyone has a similar standard of living.

I recommend Frederic Bastiat's The Law: http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html
It is not so much about capitalism itself, but about government's role in the economy.

We often hear people say that once conditions get so bad for workers, that they'll have no other option but to revolt. There is a flip side to this not too many people are privy to. They say, for example, that the morebenefits afforded to workers, the more complacent they become. This is true, only if workers are uneducated as to the significance of their place in history. A mass of class-conscious workers, given any number ofreforms, will always want more. Until the only thing left to give to them is the means of production themselves.This is the contradiction between capital and labor. No matter how my views might change, I will always side with labor.

I don't necessarily think that worker's conditions would have to be absolutely terrible in order for them to unionize. However I really don't know how to encourage more union activity, as I pointed out in my other thread that I linked to.

¿Que?

21st March 2010, 23:50

Since you wrote a lot, I selected what I thought was most relevant (OK actually half way through responding I started doing this). In any case, if I omitted anything you think might be relevant, feel free to re-quote it.

There's a difference between 'unequal' and 'unfair'. I see nothing wrong with a situation in which one person owns property and another doesn't, as long as a) the property owner aquired their property legitimately and b) the non-property owner could potentially aquire property elsewhere.
Unequal does not mean unfair. That's a good point. OTOH that sentiment is based on moral ideals which are at worst subjective and at best expressions of the interests of the dominant class. In other words, if the proletariat were the dominant class, our sense of morality would be completely different, and we would probably value equality for its own sake, without considerations of fairness which are ultimately based on moral systems which express the interests of the ruling class (as I said) or a codified set of laws which express said morality.

I wouldn't say it requires power to aquire property because I wouldn't look at any old homeowner and say that they are a powerful person. It requires effort, yes, but effort does not equal power. Is it still considered power when it is just individual property that is not used to control others?
To answer your question, yes. The little old homeowner relies on the power of the government and the state to enforce his/her property rights. Without the government, anyone could run them out of their house. Property relies almost exclusively on power to exist. Without power, you can have no property.

I'm not sure exactly what your ideas about property as a whole are. Do you think that nobody should be able to own property--not even individuals? Or do you just think the bourgeoisie abuses their property rights?
My ideas on property are somewhat underdeveloped, so there's no point in me laying them out here, since they are liable to change any minute.

The most fundamental basis for the ideal form of capitalism is that everyone truely does get out of it what they put in. Not everyone has equal property or power, but everyone has the oppertunity. Whether they use that oppertunity to their advantage or not is not society's concern. The greatest thing about capitalism is that it is a system built upon mutual agreements and voluntary action. Of course you still have to work to stay afloat--you have to work in any system. But no matter who you are, your labor is valuable to the bourgeoisie and they need you just like you need them.
The phrases in bold is what I disagree with most profoundly. There is nothing voluntary about the equation work or starve. There is no mutual agreement in working for minimum wage. It is a one sided equation where the capitalists call all the shots. Now in the system you describe, with strong unions and (correct me if I'm wrong) strong government regulations, this might not be as bad, yet work is still compulsory.

As for the second statement, it is just incorrect. The the proletariat does not need bourgeoisie. Only in a capitalist system. Communism is by definition a system which rids itself of this class.

I can certainly sympathize with the idea that as long as we have restrictions on our economy, we are not truely free. However, I separate myself from the ancap and lasseiz-faire groups. I do not completely disregard the concept of the Greater Good. I do not think that all government interference is detrimental--I think that is an oversimplification of a more complicated situation. However, I still think there is something to be said for the benefits of individual liberty. I can not say anything in certainty, but I truely believe that there is a form of capitalism out there that is beneficial to the human race. People are much more likely to appreciate a system in which they can get ahead of the game as opposed to a system where everyone has a similar standard of living.
Spoken like a person who is already ahead of the game. What about the people who lag behind. Do you suppose they will appreciate this system as well?

I don't necessarily think that worker's conditions would have to be absolutely terrible in order for them to unionize. However I really don't know how to encourage more union activity, as I pointed out in my other thread that I linked to.
Unions are systematically suppressed by our government and many others around the world. In some countries, trying to start a union could get you killed. It's not by some shortcoming of workers that unions are not more prevalent in the U.S. and elsewhere. It's generally laws that restrict unionizing (the state) and strongarm tactics by companies. The way to encourage unions is to stand up firmly and unequivocally on the side of labor against capital (we can preclude all talk of future utopias, capitalist or otherwise ;))

mollymae

22nd March 2010, 05:30

The phrases in bold is what I disagree with most profoundly. There is nothing voluntary about the equation work or starve. There is no mutual agreement in working for minimum wage. It is a one sided equation where the capitalists call all the shots. Now in the system you describe, with strong unions and (correct me if I'm wrong) strong government regulations, this might not be as bad, yet work is still compulsory.

So you don't think work should be compulsory? I have even seen other leftists on this site supporting the notion that under communism, if they were not contributing to society as much as they could, their neighbors would have the right to cease supporting them until they improved and contributed again.

If you think those who do not contribute should continue to recieve support--you don't see the potential for abuse in that at all?
For the record, when I say "those who do not contribute" I am excluding the mentally and physically disabled who are unable to contribute by no choice of their own.

Spoken like a person who is already ahead of the game. What about the people who lag behind. Do you suppose they will appreciate this system as well?

I grant that I have not faced some of the challenges that the lower class has faced, but I point above to where I was speaking of equal oppertunity in the idealist fashion that you asked for.

¿Que?

22nd March 2010, 06:14

So you don't think work should be compulsory? I have even seen other leftists on this site supporting the notion that under communism, if they were not contributing to society as much as they could, their neighbors would have the right to cease supporting them until they improved and contributed again.

If you think those who do not contribute should continue to recieve support--you don't see the potential for abuse in that at all?
For the record, when I say "those who do not contribute" I am excluding the mentally and physically disabled who are unable to contribute by no choice of their own.

I'm veering way outside of orthodoxy, I realize that. No I don't believe work should be compulsory. I believe there should be something of a guaranteed citizens income but global (of course under communism, this would not be necessary, hopefully you will understand why).

It simply does not make sense that people will not contribute to society if they are not coerced, either directly or by material constraints. Human nature for Marx is largely a function of labor, such that to not work would be to go against your own nature as a human being.

At some point everyone will pitch in and contribute to society based on their own volition not out of compulsion. Those leftists need to reread their books and understand what a communist society is.

It is nothing short of complete revolutionizing of social relations. It is not just a restructuring of the economic system. Our theory tells us that such a restructuring will ultimately have profound effects on all social relations. Society will be, essentially, "qualitatively" different.

I don't know if that sounds inconsistent. I'm still learning myself and ironing out the kinks as I go.

In any case none of this really matters, because it's all speculative anyway. We can pretend to understand what a better society will look like, but no one can really know. I'm not saying such efforts are useless, just that they should take a backseat to more practical concerns.

The following is something I thought was important, but that you chose not to respond to (or even acknowledge). I thought it was the most poignant part of my response, and yet you didn't think it was important :(

Unions are systematically suppressed by our government and many others around the world. In some countries, trying to start a union could get you killed. It's not by some shortcoming of workers that unions are not more prevalent in the U.S. and elsewhere. It's generally laws that restrict unionizing (the state) and strongarm tactics by companies. The way to encourage unions is to stand up firmly and unequivocally on the side of labor against capital (we can preclude all talk of future utopias, capitalist or otherwise ;))

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 07:02

In a world where everything is private property the only true place one will be free is on his own property correct? What a wonderful world that would be. Especially for the exploited class who cannot afford their own property. This is the propertyless class which will have NO CHOICE but to sell their labor to a boss, rent a home from a landLORD or take on interest bearing loans from a bank in order to survive. Private property is the coercive mechanism which FORCES a large portion of the population into wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. Private property also cannot be enforced and legitimized without a state which is why Rothbard advocated a private state not only to legitimize and enforce property but to subjugate organized labor under the capitalist [property] class' control. You will also confuse the difference between property and possession I'm sure. Property is exclusion- it is the process of using the means of production to exploit. Possession is using your own means of production either individually or collectively to provide sustenance while letting all workers keep the full value of their labor without a boss/owner leeching off of them. Why do you think Proudhon said property is theft?

Everyone has property insofar as they own themselves. All property rights derive from the fact that you are the only person who can ultimately control what you do. According to you, none of the "exploited class" would have their own property, and yet in America at least, they seem to mostly have houses or apartments that they own. IS America the best example of capitalism? No, there is a lot of state intervention and a lot of corrupt deals; however, the positive effects of capitalism can be seen in almost every facet of life.

And you wouldn't even have to own property (in the case of the Landlord, or factory owner) to conceivably find someone that is likeminded. There are landlords who smoke and dont' care if others smoke, there are also those who don't care about pets, and some don't even really care about illegal activities. If there is a demand for something in the marketplace you'll almost certainly find a supply of it.

Since you are your own property, does that mean you are excluding others? Yes and no. You are excluding others from controlling you, but you are also, by participating in society and the division of labor, necessarily benefiting others. So, in socialism, are YOU now a possession, or are you your own property?

Okay, lets look at possession. Everyone possesses the means of production, or at leas tthe workers of the factory do. So, how much does the overseer get paid? Obviously you can't award workers the full value of their labor unless you carefully watch how much they produce, and this would require the constant vigilance of an overseer. What is his pay? What if workers are working in a more capital intensive factory (where more is produced for less labor/shorter time) are their wages higher just by the merit of them working at a new/more capital intensive factory? What about the doctor or the dentist? How much do you pay them and how do you distinguish the exceptional dentist/doctor from the ordinary or mediocre? Do you just not award the exceptional? What about the waiter of the restaurant? How much do they produce? And what about the laborers who work to produce the means of production? Since they are communally owned (which means there is no exchange) how do you determine the value of the means of production? Do these workers just not get paid or do they get to keep the full value of their labor (which would be the means of production they produce)? IF they do won't this lead to the laborers who make the means of production owner of all means of production?

At no time in human history has a society based on property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury existed without a state to enforce and legitimize property which in turn existentially forces the propertyless class into wage slavery, rent, interest and ususry. The American dream was the vision to escape the new system of property which replaced feudalism in Europe. The early settlers, in reality, were christian socialists running from the embryonic stages of capitalism. The dream was to leave the involuntary wage slavery, rent, interest and usury behind to come to the New World in order to homestead without working for a boss, landlord or bank. The white Europeans chose to not subject themselves to wage slavery, rent and interest because there was no government to enforce property in the new world. During that brief time pre 1776 wage slavery, rent, interest and usury became voluntary and the vast majority of white Europeans in America chose to homestead. The result was the businessmen could not profit because there was next to no labor force. Those who did choose to be exploited could demand high pay since there was no pool of available workers to lower wages. This environment was unacceptable for business so the result of wage slavery being voluntary was the enslavement of 8 million chattel slaves and the birth of industrial capitalism.<br><br>

Yes yes, and I'm sure you've heard about the communist Plymouth colony and that was a resounding success. Nobody starved or had to resort to cannibalism there, right? They were, in a way, escaping from wage labor; all the land in England was owned and it was becoming more and more dense so America provided a nice outlet. But there is a limited amount of space on earth and 6 billion+ people. Some people are going to have to live on other people's land. As for slavery; you're right for the most part. People would not stay long to work someone else's fields when so much was available out there, so slaves provided a nice source of reliable labor. But slavery was a violation of the right of free association, among others. Slaves were actually more expensive, according to Thomas Jefferson, than regular laborers, but regular laborers were unreliable. I don't like your connection to capitalism and slavery though; they are completely opposed from a libertarian standpoint.

RGacky3

22nd March 2010, 12:10

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 12:42

Theres a difference between someones house and a workplace, I don't have to visit someones house to survive, I have to work.

As far as your canteen solution, I'll use it for the state, you don't like the democratic rules, move to another country.

There also a difference between a workplace and government.

The difference is that the government is taking what we do have, they are initiating force. The employer doesn't necessarily want anything to to do with the starving man, the government wants you to do thing whatever they say you do.

The employer demands nothing for nothing, and demands something for something. The government demands something for nothing.

RGacky3

22nd March 2010, 13:54

There also a difference between a workplace and government.

The difference is that the government is taking what we do have, they are initiating force. The employer doesn't necessarily want anything to to do with the starving man, the government wants you to do thing whatever they say you do.

The employer demands nothing for nothing, and demands something for something. The government demands something for nothing.

The employer DOES want something from his workers, and the landowner DOES want something from his tennants, the government does'nt neccesarily want anything from its citizens, if they don't like it they can leave.

Also if someone claims ownership of a apple tree, and I pick and apple, and then I'm arrested, they are innitiating force, unless I agreed to his claim of ownership of the apple tree before hand, why do I have to accept it? (the same argument can be applied to the state).

Keep in mind a government demands something for something, that something is votes, if the government was a decent democracy, WE would be in control of the government.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 16:48

The employer DOES want something from his workers, and the landowner DOES want something from his tennants, the government does'nt neccesarily want anything from its citizens, if they don't like it they can leave.

Also if someone claims ownership of a apple tree, and I pick and apple, and then I'm arrested, they are innitiating force, unless I agreed to his claim of ownership of the apple tree before hand, why do I have to accept it? (the same argument can be applied to the state).

Keep in mind a government demands something for something, that something is votes, if the government was a decent democracy, WE would be in control of the government.

Yes, he wants something for something, but the government wants something for nothing. The government wants you to obey its laws (even if they're dumb and don't benefit you/harm you), pay taxes for things you don't support, and if you don't like it (in some cases) you can't leave because... OOPS government gets in the way.

So by your logic, which I assume would be applied to your ideal of communism, anyone can come into your house, sleep in your bed, eat your food, and use your toothbrush because they might not recognize your claim to ownership? Claims of ownership exists, and its part of the states job (in our present system) to enforce them for good reason. If there were no property rights the entire earth would just be one big tragedy of the commons.

Government doesn't always demand votes, and you cannot make general statements like because they aren't true. You seem to be unable to accept the fact that majorities can be wrong, can be tyrannical, and need to have checks.

mollymae

22nd March 2010, 18:42

Unions are systematically suppressed by our government and many others around the world. In some countries, trying to start a union could get you killed. It's not by some shortcoming of workers that unions are not more prevalent in the U.S. and elsewhere. It's generally laws that restrict unionizing (the state) and strongarm tactics by companies. The way to encourage unions is to stand up firmly and unequivocally on the side of labor against capital (we can preclude all talk of future utopias, capitalist or otherwise ;))

The only reason I didn't say anything is because I agree with you as far as unions being restricted by the government. There are some terrible policies here in the US that suppress unions. Hell, they even manage to brainwash much of the working class into being anti-union. It's completely backwards.

RGacky3

23rd March 2010, 11:38

So by your logic, which I assume would be applied to your ideal of communism, anyone can come into your house, sleep in your bed, eat your food, and use your toothbrush because they might not recognize your claim to ownership?

Thats a rediculous argument, there is no law preventing me from trying yelling into the ear of the person next to me on the buss, but not one does it, you know why? Because its douchy and serves no purpous. The same thing with your rediculous presumptions about what would happen without property laws.

Government doesn't always demand votes, and you cannot make general statements like because they aren't true. You seem to be unable to accept the fact that majorities can be wrong, can be tyrannical, and need to have checks.

By demand I mean ask for. Majorities can be wrong, but they are less likely to be than minorities.

The government wants you to obey its laws (even if they're dumb and don't benefit you/harm you), pay taxes for things you don't support

Well my rent I pay pays for things I don't support, like my landlords need for a bigger TV, my value I make at work goes for things I don't support, and I have to obay all the laws whether or not they are dumb.

you hav'nt shown a distinction between capitalists and the state from the workers standpoint.

LeftSideDown

24th March 2010, 00:04

Thats a rediculous argument, there is no law preventing me from trying yelling into the ear of the person next to me on the buss, but not one does it, you know why? Because its douchy and serves no purpous. The same thing with your rediculous presumptions about what would happen without property laws.

Did I say it would happen, or that it could? I'm almost certain I said someone could come and could do those things, not that they would or should. And someone could yell in your ear on the bus, and that action is likely not socially acceptable, however, in our present system, you would be justified in taking action against that individual because he frightened you, or you felt threatened. You could not do this in a your society because there is no recourse for violation of property rights.

By demand I mean ask for. Majorities can be wrong, but they are less likely to be than minorities.

Really? Does a monarchy ask for votes? Or a theocracy? You said governments in general when you meant democratic governments, I think. The majority of people in America supported or did not reject slavery, and they did this for over 150 years. If change on something as fundamentally immoral as slavery takes more than a century in a democracy I find it hard to believe you when you say majorities are right OR that government is responsive to voters.

Well my rent I pay pays for things I don't support, like my landlords need for a bigger TV, my value I make at work goes for things I don't support, and I have to obay all the laws whether or not they are dumb.

you hav'nt shown a distinction between capitalists and the state from the workers standpoint.

You know whats great? If you don't support those, you can stop paying rent, get kicked out, and live on the streets. IF the benefit of having an apartment outweighs the cost of knowing you're subsidizing someone else's lifestyle than you will live in the apartment. If it the benefit does not outweigh the cost you can stop paying rent, get kicked out and then nothing. You don't go to jail. The landlord isn't FORCING you to pay, hes asking you to pay for a service. The government doesn't ask, it demands, and it doesn't give you any particular service, especially not for the amount of money you pay (in general).

RGacky3

25th March 2010, 18:13

Did I say it would happen, or that it could? I'm almost certain I said someone could come and could do those things, not that they would or should. And someone could yell in your ear on the bus, and that action is likely not socially acceptable, however, in our present system, you would be justified in taking action against that individual because he frightened you, or you felt threatened. You could not do this in a your society because there is no recourse for violation of property rights.

I'm pretty sure it would be socially unacceptable to use my tooth brush or lay on my bed in my system too, you don't need property laws for that, the same way you don't need a law to stop people yelling in peoples ears on a buss.

Really? Does a monarchy ask for votes? Or a theocracy? You said governments in general when you meant democratic governments, I think. The majority of people in America supported or did not reject slavery, and they did this for over 150 years. If change on something as fundamentally immoral as slavery takes more than a century in a democracy I find it hard to believe you when you say majorities are right OR that government is responsive to voters.

I ment democratic governments.
The majority of AMericans did'nt have a say over slavery, did they.

You know whats great? If you don't support those, you can stop paying rent, get kicked out, and live on the streets.

Yeah, if you don't like socialization you can leave the country, you can live in a mountain and have all the property you want. If you don't like public healthcare, when you hit 60, don't take any medicare checks.

IF the benefit of having an apartment outweighs the cost of knowing you're subsidizing someone else's lifestyle than you will live in the apartment. If it the benefit does not outweigh the cost you can stop paying rent, get kicked out and then nothing. You don't go to jail. The landlord isn't FORCING you to pay, hes asking you to pay for a service.

No thats what revolution is for. The landlord himself is'nt forcing me to pay, the market system is, because I don't have the means to get my own property I'm at the mercy of those who do. But you know what, your "tough love" approach is hypocritical unless you also apply it from those who take from the rich for the common good.

If you don't like paying for other peoples welfare, leave the country.

The government doesn't ask, it demands, and it doesn't give you any particular service, especially not for the amount of money you pay (in general).

Stamps at the post office vrs Fedex. Case closed.

Bob George

25th March 2010, 19:04

At my work I'm allowed to smoke whenever I want. Which sucks because I wanted to cut back. Now I have to actually practice some self control. I'm not too good at that.

In my apartment I'm allowed to smoke on the balcony, but not inside. That's fair. I respect that rule. Because it's not my apartment. I'm staying there, but it belongs to someone else.

It's like in my car. I smoke in my car and I let other people smoke in my car. But if I didn't like smoking I'd expect passengers to not smoke in my car. Just like if it was someone else's car, and they didn't want me smoking, I'd respect that.

My thoughts on the owners of private property being allowed to make their own rules in regards to the behaviours and activities that are permitted on that property, comes from my respect for other people's stuff.

The government should have an equal amount of respect for people's private property. Why is it any of their business whether smoking is allowed on their premises? That's why smoking bans in pubs and restaurants are absurd.

The owner of the pub or restaurants decides if smoking is to be permitted on the premises. And the market will help decide if they made a good decision. If they allow smoking and their competitor doesn't, and their competitor attracts more customers because of it, then they might want to reassess their policy on smoking.

Respect for people's private property is pretty much the basis for moral behaviour in society or at least non-agressive behaviour. Especially if you are to include your body and mind as your property. Then what is and what is not moral or non-agressive behaviour becomes very black and white.

Any use of force against a person's property is immoral. That's why government invasion of a person's property is totally immoral. That includes dictating to a private property owner that they aren't allowed to permit smoking on their property.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 00:08

I'm pretty sure it would be socially unacceptable to use my tooth brush or lay on my bed in my system too, you don't need property laws for that, the same way you don't need a law to stop people yelling in peoples ears on a buss.

No, but think of the basis for these things that are socially unacceptable and you will always find, at their core, property rights.

[QUOTE=Outinleftfield;1702911]I ment democratic governments.
The majority of AMericans did'nt have a say over slavery, did they.

Democracy is democracy, whose to say your socialist/communist system won't limit who can and can't vote?

Yeah, if you don't like socialization you can leave the country, you can live in a mountain and have all the property you want. If you don't like public healthcare, when you hit 60, don't take any medicare checks.

The difference, as I said, was that I'd be fleeing to get away from force (which all governments perpetrate) not to get away from contractual obligations.

No thats what revolution is for. The landlord himself is'nt forcing me to pay, the market system is, because I don't have the means to get my own property I'm at the mercy of those who do. But you know what, your "tough love" approach is hypocritical unless you also apply it from those who take from the rich for the common good.

There is a scarcity of land, and theres a lot of people. You're not being forced by the market, you're being forced by scarcity. Everyone has scarcity. Sorry in your world you ignore this fact.

If you don't like paying for other peoples welfare, leave the country.

Fleeing force = different from fleeing contracts

Stamps at the post office vrs Fedex. Case closed.

What does this even mean?

anticap

26th March 2010, 00:31

think of the basis for these things that are socially unacceptable and you will always find, at their core, property rights.

Nonsense. I restrain myself from stealing candy from babies not because I respect their property rights, but because I empathize with my fellow human beings. This holds true when they grow up and become my neighbors: I return their lawnmower not because I've internalized the doctrines of the vicious private property regime, but because I know that it cost them several hours of wage-slavery to get it. And so on. It's a matter of basic human empathy, not respect for the unrespectable.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 03:29

Nonsense. I restrain myself from stealing candy from babies not because I respect their property rights, but because I empathize with my fellow human beings. This holds true when they grow up and become my neighbors: I return their lawnmower not because I've internalized the doctrines of the vicious private property regime, but because I know that it cost them several hours of wage-slavery to get it. And so on. It's a matter of basic human empathy, not respect for the unrespectable.

And that empathy comes from the fact that you wouldn't want your property stolen. If you didn't think it would be upsetting for stuff to be stolen from you, you wouldn't be able to empathize when people feel bad about having stuff stolen from them.

anticap

26th March 2010, 03:43

And that empathy comes from the fact that you wouldn't want your property stolen. If you didn't think it would be upsetting for stuff to be stolen from you, you wouldn't be able to empathize when people feel bad about having stuff stolen from them.

Nonsense. My empathy comes from our (meaning me and them, not me and you) common humanity. I don't want others to suffer, because I know how suffering feels. It's not about "having stuff stolen from them" (property may be the only nexus between people in your fantasies, but not in my reality), it's about, in the first example (which is really of no help to you anyway, since a baby with a lolly is hardly an example of a de jure property owner), not wanting baby to cry (in case you're unable to detect human emotion: crying is an indication of suffering); and in the second, not wanting my neighbor to have suffered the indignity of wage-slavery for nothing. But now I'm repeating myself.

According to your delusional worldview, human empathy mustn't have emerged until the advent of property; and of course we know where you must side in the debate over empathy among other species.

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 16:15

Respect for people's private property is pretty much the basis for moral behaviour in society or at least non-agressive behaviour. Especially if you are to include your body and mind as your property. Then what is and what is not moral or non-agressive behaviour becomes very black and white.

Your mind and body are not your property, you ARE your mind and body.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 17:09

Nonsense. My empathy comes from our (meaning me and them, not me and you) common humanity. I don't want others to suffer, because I know how suffering feels. It's not about "having stuff stolen from them" (property may be the only nexus between people in your fantasies, but not in my reality), it's about, in the first example (which is really of no help to you anyway, since a baby with a lolly is hardly an example of a de jure property owner), not wanting baby to cry (in case you're unable to detect human emotion: crying is an indication of suffering); and in the second, not wanting my neighbor to have suffered the indignity of wage-slavery for nothing. But now I'm repeating myself.

According to your delusional worldview, human empathy mustn't have emerged until the advent of property; and of course we know where you must side in the debate over empathy among other species.

But if you felt no attachment to property whatsoever how could you empathize with suffering? You'd be like "What are they getting all upset about, its just a lollipop". Even a baby recognizes property to some extent... how strange.

Property has been around as long as humans have because the idea stems from self-ownership.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 17:10

Your mind and body are not your property, you ARE your mind and body.

Wrong. http://mises.org/daily/4157

Left-Reasoning

26th March 2010, 18:28

Left-Reasoning

26th March 2010, 18:33

Your mind and body are not your property, you ARE your mind and body.

I would contend that you are indeed your mind, but the claim that you are your body is a different thing entirely.

Skooma Addict

26th March 2010, 18:35

I would contend that you are indeed your mind, but the claim that you are your body is a different thing entirely.

Are you proposing some kind of mind/body dichotomy?

Left-Reasoning

26th March 2010, 18:36

How is the government a 'union of capitalists'?

Marx defined the state as the organ of class rule. And what composes the ruling class? The capitalists.

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 18:52

I would contend that you are indeed your mind, but the claim that you are your body is a different thing entirely.

Are you proposing some kind of mind/body dichotomy?

Wrong. http://mises.org/daily/4157 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/daily/4157)

For goodness sake, thats not the point. You don't need property rights over your body. Most people would agree that the right to not be raped is not a property right.

Marx defined the state as the organ of class rule. And what composes the ruling class? The capitalists.

Yes.

Free Markets and "anarcho"-capitalism are nothing alike.

If free markets are based on property laws, then yes they are.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 18:58

For goodness sake, thats not the point. You don't need property rights over your body. Most people would agree that the right to not be raped is not a property right.

I don't care if they recognize it, its a fact. People recognizing gravity does not change that gravity is real and the reason we're stuck to earth for the most part.

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 18:59

I don't care if they recognize it, its a fact. People recognizing gravity does not change that gravity is real and the reason we're stuck to earth for the most part.

But what is considered property and what is considered self is subjective, gravity is natural law.

mollymae

26th March 2010, 19:04

For goodness sake, thats not the point. You don't need property rights over your body. Most people would agree that the right to not be raped is not a property right.

If not for property rights, then why is it wrong to rape someone? Just "because"?

Bob George

26th March 2010, 19:07

Your mind and body are not your property, you ARE your mind and body.

And herein lies the core problem with radical left-wingism. If you don't even have ownership of your body and mind, then what is your worth? You are practically worthless. Your worth is only that which you contribute to the society. But as far as society regards you, you are just another hungry mouth to feed, another empty to mind to fill with facts and figures (as opposed to real education) and another slowly dying body in need of universal health care. In other words you are a nuisance to society, not an asset. You are someone who needs looking after rather than someone who can look after themselves. You are just another statistic. It's a really sad and miserable way of regarding human life, human worth.

Skooma Addict

26th March 2010, 19:17

And herein lies the core problem with radical left-wingism. If you don't even have ownership of your body and mind, then what is your worth?

Your mind and your body are one in the same, and people have no inherent worth. Also, what do you mean when you say that "I" own my mind and my body?

Bright Banana Beard

26th March 2010, 19:24

In English language, we do refer our body as property (my tongue, etc.), but in Spanish and Japanese, we does not ("The" tongue) It is absolutely wrong to use reflexive pronoun before the body part. The priori may lay with the English, in other language does not.

If we use the English logic, by all means, my mother/my world is my property.

Bob George

26th March 2010, 19:45

people have no inherent worth
People often say the main difference between the right and the left is private property. But no this, this is the real difference. People do have inherent worth, even before they are born. This is the basis of the pro-life ideal. And the pro-life ideal expands to far more than just abortion. It's an attitude that really sets the right apart from the left. It is an attitude of regarding one's life the standard of morality and regarding whatever is required to sustain one's life, whatever tools one may require to survive, as morally just and good.

¿Que?

26th March 2010, 21:24

Skooma Addict

26th March 2010, 22:15

People often say the main difference between the right and the left is private property. But no this, this is the real difference. People do have inherent worth, even before they are born. This is the basis of the pro-life ideal. And the pro-life ideal expands to far more than just abortion. It's an attitude that really sets the right apart from the left. It is an attitude of regarding one's life the standard of morality and regarding whatever is required to sustain one's life, whatever tools one may require to survive, as morally just and good.

Even though you may want to think otherwise, nothing has inherent worth. Value is just a disposition agents have towards an object. An objectcs worth is completely agent dependent.

But I am just wondering, since you think humans have inherent worth, what exactly is their worth?

Why are you using Olaf to represent the left. Have another look. I think he's one of yours...

What do you mean by that? I assume you are saying that I am a member of the "right?" A term so vague and overused that it is meaningless?

¿Que?

26th March 2010, 23:18

What do you mean by that? I assume you are saying that I am a member of the "right?" A term so vague and overused that it is meaningless?
I think I meant as in "not the left". I don't really know your political views. I am basing my assumption on your sig.

Skooma Addict

27th March 2010, 01:18

I think I meant as in "not the left". I don't really know your political views. I am basing my assumption on your sig.

Ah, I see. Well you are correct.

anticap

27th March 2010, 02:44

But if you felt no attachment to property whatsoever how could you empathize with suffering? You'd be like "What are they getting all upset about, its just a lollipop". Even a baby recognizes property to some extent... how strange.

Property has been around as long as humans have because the idea stems from self-ownership.

You're out of your mind. I could posit a scenario where two people spend their entire lives floating naked in a void, and you'd still claim that any empathy one might feel toward the other must stem from the private-property regime. This is your religion.

And so-called "self-ownership" [sic] is blithering idiocy.

Wrong. http://mises.org/daily/4157

If that constitutes an argument, then do I win if I post two links arguing against the opposite?

No, let's not play that game.

I don't care if they recognize it, its a fact.

Nuh-uh. QED

But, by all means, enjoy your delusion. Work it. Own it.

RGacky3

28th March 2010, 08:52

And herein lies the core problem with radical left-wingism. If you don't even have ownership of your body and mind, then what is your worth? You are practically worthless. Your worth is only that which you contribute to the society. But as far as society regards you, you are just another hungry mouth to feed, another empty to mind to fill with facts and figures (as opposed to real education) and another slowly dying body in need of universal health care. In other words you are a nuisance to society, not an asset. You are someone who needs looking after rather than someone who can look after themselves. You are just another statistic. It's a really sad and miserable way of regarding human life, human worth.

YOU ARE YOUR MIND AND BODY YOU IDIOT, its not a matter of owning, you ARE yourself, if you look at everything in human life in property terms you come up with a very bleak outlook.

Your worth is your own work, because ... you are you, and you value yourself for waht you do.

Left wing ideology Has absolutely NOTHING to do with society putting value on you, thats a strawman that right wingers put up, that no leftist believes. No leftist believes that a persons value is waht society puts on them, or that people don't have free will or should'nt have taht, infact its the opposite, we want total individual freedom for everyone.

You fears about society viewing people as a burden and then dropping them happens everyday under Capitalism, with people having their coverage dropped, being fired, being evicted, and so on.

all the right wing fears about socialism happen right now under capitalism.

Che a chara

28th March 2010, 19:30

who owns the air you breathe ? can air be bought as private property ?

LeftSideDown

31st March 2010, 23:11

who owns the air you breathe ? can air be bought as private property ?

If it became scarce enough of course it could be. See the movie "Spaceballs" ;)

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 00:25

YOU ARE YOUR MIND AND BODY YOU IDIOT, its not a matter of owning, you ARE yourself, if you look at everything in human life in property terms you come up with a very bleak outlook.

So if the conclusion of something is bleak its wrong? (I know I'm extrapolating but that point seems kind of unimportant; it doesn't matter how bleak the answer to a problem is if thats the answer.) Are you your pinky? Your toe? Your nose? Leg, arm, etc etc etc? I'd hardly think you'd call yourself your pinky or any of these other things, rather you exercise ownership or the right to dispose of these things in any manner you see fit for the ends that will better satisfy you.

Your worth is your own work, because ... you are you, and you value yourself for waht you do.

So if I value myself at 56 trillion dollars I'm worth that? Or if I value my work at 1000 dollars an hour its worth that? I don't think you'll say I'm right in either of these circumstances, so I would put to you that the market is the arbiter of valuations.

Left wing ideology Has absolutely NOTHING to do with society putting value on you, thats a strawman that right wingers put up, that no leftist believes. No leftist believes that a persons value is waht society puts on them, or that people don't have free will or should'nt have taht, infact its the opposite, we want total individual freedom for everyone.

You fears about society viewing people as a burden and then dropping them happens everyday under Capitalism, with people having their coverage dropped, being fired, being evicted, and so on.

all the right wing fears about socialism happen right now under capitalism.

Seems to me total individual freedom is incompatible with central planning and Socialism in general. There also seems to be the little matter of "economic freedom" you're leaving out here (i.e. I am not free to sell my labor for less than minimum wage except in very specific situations). Hardly seems to be "freedom to me"

Would you have any problem with a business that was no longer meeting consumer demand being "dropped" by the capitalist system? Or should we have subsidized the horse-and-buggy industry when automobiles became more popular? Ultimately, capitalism doesn't drop you, it just tells you to change so that you can start meeting consumer demand again, and if you refuse to do this you risk losing your income.

The fear isn't that it will happen, but it will happen because of people's decisions. The market, in general, is much more fair and just than individuals. Individuals have biases, prejudices, alliances, opinions, ideas, goals, and ambitions. If, by selecting someone (lets say an old person) to not receive a life-saving treatment because there is another someone (lets say a young person) who also needs the treatment and there is only one treatment available I further my own goals I will of course choose to help the younger patient (all other things listed not pertaining to this situation). The market doesn't "choose" anyone. There is no decision-making. There is only what happens. You saying that "capitalism" drops people (in which you infer decision) is akin to saying that hurricanes choose where to go. It (both capitalism and hurricanes) is governed by laws, not by human arbitration.

anticap

1st April 2010, 01:16

who owns the air you breathe ? can air be bought as private property ?

It should be! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3272) ;)

RGacky3

2nd April 2010, 16:26

So if the conclusion of something is bleak its wrong? (I know I'm extrapolating but that point seems kind of unimportant; it doesn't matter how bleak the answer to a problem is if thats the answer.) Are you your pinky? Your toe? Your nose? Leg, arm, etc etc etc? I'd hardly think you'd call yourself your pinky or any of these other things, rather you exercise ownership or the right to dispose of these things in any manner you see fit for the ends that will better satisfy you.

IF something makes no sense its wrong. Are you your pinky? Your pinky is part of you, the same way a roof is part of a house, that does'nt mean it IS the house, it does'nt mean the house owns the roof.

You don't need property rights on youself, because YOU are not property, the only reason you guys try and make that rediculous notion is because you want to justify wage slavery, by making the notion that humans are property, which is rediculous.

So if I value myself at 56 trillion dollars I'm worth that? Or if I value my work at 1000 dollars an hour its worth that? I don't think you'll say I'm right in either of these circumstances, so I would put to you that the market is the arbiter of valuations.

First of all dollar value is not the only form of value, I value my family a lot more than you value my family, you can't put a dollar amount on it, this is EXACTLY why anarcho-capitalists cannot ever understand social interaction.

THe value of MY work is what ever I decide, if its worthwhile doing I'll do it, the reason people choose to mow their lawn instead do something else is because THEY see value in what they are doing. People who fix up their cars, do it because they see value in it, theres not dollar amount involved.

Seems to me total individual freedom is incompatible with central planning and Socialism in general. There also seems to be the little matter of "economic freedom" you're leaving out here (i.e. I am not free to sell my labor for less than minimum wage except in very specific situations). Hardly seems to be "freedom to me"

First of all, all economies are a planned economies, the question is who plans it, the rich (capitalism) Or the people (socialism).

Would you have any problem with a business that was no longer meeting consumer demand being "dropped" by the capitalist system? Or should we have subsidized the horse-and-buggy industry when automobiles became more popular? Ultimately, capitalism doesn't drop you, it just tells you to change so that you can start meeting consumer demand again, and if you refuse to do this you risk losing your income.

Capitalism tells you so that you can start meeting the RICH PEOPLES demand, ultimately, thats what it does.

But who said anything about subsidizing? If a buisiness is no longer meeting public need then it does'nt get public support, thats socialism.

The fear isn't that it will happen, but it will happen because of people's decisions. The market, in general, is much more fair and just than individuals. Individuals have biases, prejudices, alliances, opinions, ideas, goals, and ambitions. If, by selecting someone (lets say an old person) to not receive a life-saving treatment because there is another someone (lets say a young person) who also needs the treatment and there is only one treatment available I further my own goals I will of course choose to help the younger patient (all other things listed not pertaining to this situation). The market doesn't "choose" anyone. There is no decision-making. There is only what happens. You saying that "capitalism" drops people (in which you infer decision) is akin to saying that hurricanes choose where to go. It (both capitalism and hurricanes) is governed by laws, not by human arbitration.

THe market, is not a magical entity, its not some fairy godmother that does stuff, the market is RUN by individuals, i.e. the rich and the capitalists.

Common_Means

2nd April 2010, 16:39

Gack, why are you so grouchy?

What I'm suggesting is that the capitalist slave master has no ulterior motive in prohibiting its employees from smoking on company property.

In fact, he'd be more likely to get heat from his non-smoking employees (you know, your co-slaves) if he did let you smoke. He'd even make more money, I think, actually selling the cigarettes to you in the company break room.

So he's accomodating worker interests with his policy. Capiche?

What are you talking about? By restricting the worker from smoking at the workplace, the capitalist's variable capital becomes more productive, generating a greater s-v.

Not only is this the case in terms of the worker's intensity (less time devoted to something other than watching a machine), but studies have also clearly shown a correlation between smoking and health. A healthier employee is a more productive employee. The capitalist doesn't give a [email protected] about your health so long as you can reproduce yourself day after day to continue your mundane job. If something, such as smoking, begins to compromise this, then he/she will do whatever is in their power to stop this at a minimal cost to him/her,

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 00:32

IF something makes no sense its wrong. Are you your pinky? Your pinky is part of you, the same way a roof is part of a house, that does'nt mean it IS the house, it does'nt mean the house owns the roof.

I didn't say if it doesn't make sense, I said if its bleak its wrong to infirm its wrong. A house cannot exercise property rights, it is inanimate. Your point doesn't make sense.

You don't need property rights on youself, because YOU are not property, the only reason you guys try and make that rediculous notion is because you want to justify wage slavery, by making the notion that humans are property, which is rediculous.

Your body is property of yourself. Humans are not and cannot be property, their bodies, on the other hand, can be and are.

First of all dollar value is not the only form of value, I value my family a lot more than you value my family, you can't put a dollar amount on it, this is EXACTLY why anarcho-capitalists cannot ever understand social interaction.

Things measured in dollar terms are the only things that can be "strictly economical". You're right, things like life/family/natural beauty isn't traded on the market and thus no you can't assign dollar value to such things. How is this hard to understand? Things like labor are traded and can have dollar values, so i don't see why its wrong to place value on them.

THe value of MY work is what ever I decide, if its worthwhile doing I'll do it, the reason people choose to mow their lawn instead do something else is because THEY see value in what they are doing. People who fix up their cars, do it because they see value in it, theres not dollar amount involved.

It isn't whatever you decide, and thats silly. Actually, scratch that, you can value your work however large you want (which is what I said basically) but that doesn't actually mean it is worth that to someone else. You can place whatever value you want on your work, you're right, but I don't think anyone should be legally obligated to recognize how much you value your own labor.

First of all, all economies are a planned economies, the question is who plans it, the rich (capitalism) Or the people (socialism).

If by "the people" you mean the government for socialism, then I agree. But obviously you've read little of your own literature. Constantly and consistently Marx refers to the "anarchy of production". Do I need to look up the definition of anarchy to show you that capitalists don't "plan" they speculate and guess at consumer demand?

Capitalism tells you so that you can start meeting the RICH PEOPLES demand, ultimately, thats what it does.

But who said anything about subsidizing? If a buisiness is no longer meeting public need then it does'nt get public support, thats socialism.

So why isn't everybody that isn't a millionaire dead? And its not because of government interference, because poor people were around before the New Deal (surprising I know) so obviously someone was selling things to them.

How do you show that someone is meeting consumer demand, or at least not sufficiently to justify the cost? The profit/loss system.

THe market, is not a magical entity, its not some fairy godmother that does stuff, the market is RUN by individuals, i.e. the rich and the capitalists.

Did you read what I wrote? That is what I said. You are also part of the market in two ways 1st as a producer (you sell your labor, produce goods) and secondly (and arguably more importantly) as a consumer. Rich people aren't the only ones with a say, although they do have a larger say because they've proven through the market in competition (except in the case of government bailouts and other less legal means) that they are the people most qualified to wield the power of money to meet consumer demand.

The vote of a congress person is worth more than one voter because hes proven to meet consumer demand.
The vote of a rich person is worth more because than one poorer consumer because he has displayed his ability to meet consumer demand.

One person's power is political, the other is economic. (Although the politician does wield power over the economy).