Property Ownerships Role in Establishing Rights

[ZombieRothbard]

A major concern I have with the lefts view on property, is that other rights such as free speech are actually extensions of property rights. For example, in a society where everybody had a rightful claim to all of the resources and land, the tools necessary for dissent and free speech would be owned by everybody, including the people you are criticizing.

If you do not own the typewriter that you exercise your speech with, how can you even exercize your free speech? Wouldn't dissenting against society be impossible, since society controls the means necessary to freely speak?

[jake williams]

The practical problems you're getting at is why everyone who supports generalized access to speech should be an anti-capitalist. Capitalism concentrates ownership of the "big" means of speech production - the airwaves, the television networks, the printing presses, and so on. For now, the internet does provide a relatively free method of democratic communication - something the big telecoms have no interest in maintaining, and if their property rights are protected, our (the majority of the population's) rights to speech will again be very much curtailed.

The idea of a socialist society without private property rights being one where no one has access to anything is totally absurd. Socialism is precisely the ownership of everyone over the material means of production, including speech production - it's the only mechanism of giving everyone access to speech.

[La Comédie Noire]

What can and can't be said will always be vigorously debated in any society. Private property just allows certain minorities to express their opinions freely, while leaving others voiceless.


Wouldn't dissenting against society be impossible, since society controls the means necessary to freely speak?

Well no, the internet isn't exactly owned by anyone, but it's still home to thousands of opinions, even the ones you'd find really disgusting. In fact the lack of ownership makes it very hard to crush any dissent, homophobic and fascistic material is not allowed on this site for instance, but if someone was really determined they could make hundreds of sock puppets in one day all saying the same thing "The jews did 9/11!!" "gays are not human!" ect.

Sometimes it downright tires the mods out. :lol:

[ZombieRothbard]

The practical problems you're getting at is why everyone who supports generalized access to speech should be an anti-capitalist. Capitalism concentrates ownership of the "big" means of speech production - the airwaves, the television networks, the printing presses, and so on. For now, the internet does provide a relatively free method of democratic communication - something the big telecoms have no interest in maintaining, and if their property rights are protected, our (the majority of the population's) rights to speech will again be very much curtailed.

The idea of a socialist society without private property rights being one where no one has access to anything is totally absurd. Socialism is precisely the ownership of everyone over the material means of production, including speech production - it's the only mechanism of giving everyone access to speech.

I thought the government was the entity that curtails free speech? I didn't know businesses did that?

[ZombieRothbard]

What can and can't be said will always be vigorously debated in any society. Private property just allows certain minorities to express their opinions freely, while leaving others voiceless.



Well no, the internet isn't exactly owned by anyone, but it's still home to thousands of opinions, even the ones you'd find really disgusting. In fact the lack of ownership makes it very hard to crush any dissent, homophobic and fascistic material is not allowed on this site for instance, but if someone was really determined they could make hundreds of sock puppets in one day all saying the same thing "The jews did 9/11!!" "gays are not human!" ect.

Sometimes it downright tires the mods out. :lol:

Why should minorities not be able to voice their dissent? In fact, aren't they the ones that utilize free speech the most? What would be the point of having the majority exercise free speech, when they are already the majority?

And the computer you use to access the internet would not be your property. So if the government or society you live within dislikes the way you use that property, couldn't they take it from you?

[#FF0000]

And the computer you use to access the internet would not be your property. So if the government or society you live within dislikes the way you use that property, couldn't they take it from you?

Er, no. That is not how it would work. Communists don't want massive bureaucratic state to run things. We want the working class to run it. If there's some ruling class of bureaucrats who make these kinds of decisions that the workers are not in control of, then you're not looking at a socialist/communist society.

And, either way, we don't have a problem with personal property. We oppose private ownership of capital. There's nothing wrong with owning ipods and computers and typewriters.

[La Comédie Noire]

Why should minorities not be able to voice their dissent?You misread me.


Private property just allows certain minorities to express their opinions freely, while leaving others voiceless. If you are a corporate oligarch, you're a okay, but if you happen to be one of the few Native Americans left, you are shit out of luck.


And the computer you use to access the internet would not be your property. So if the government or society you live within dislikes the way you use that property, couldn't they take it from you? You may appreciate this as a self described anarchist. In a libertarian-communist society there would be no means of coercion concentrated in a few hands, so there would be no one to take away your computer.

But it does bring up an even more interesting question. Even if you take away the state and classes, aren't there all sorts of informal methods of coercion at peoples' disposal?

Even in your stateless, market society people could just elect to vote with their wallets and not purchase your book or go to your website. Eventually you'd lose revenue and be unable to keep up with payments and lose your ability exercise your right to free speech.

The "tyranny of the majority" is just a thought exercise to trick you into supporting the minority rule of capitalists.

[#FF0000]

I thought the government was the entity that curtails free speech? I didn't know businesses did that?

The concentration of wealth in a few hands makes it so that freedom of speech is kind of inconsequential. I mean, people can say whatever they want, but the opinion of the average person on the street is going to get drowned out by the opinion of the wealthy person who can pay to have theirs broadcast on television and radio.

[jake williams]

I thought the government was the entity that curtails free speech? I didn't know businesses did that?
Then you're mistaken. Or perhaps you have a meaningless and useless conception of rights, or free speech.


Why should minorities not be able to voice their dissent? In fact, aren't they the ones that utilize free speech the most? What would be the point of having the majority exercise free speech, when they are already the majority?
I'm not sure where to start with this. Even if we have a narrow sense in which anyone should be allowed to express any idea or thought, it won't be that meaningful in any society.

On either side: first, consequences for speech will exist in any society. We treat people differently based on ideas that they express. If someone comes to my house and says they're going to kill my family, and I believe them, I might kill them. If someone credibly advocates the intent to commit genocide, people might forcibly prevent it. Thus such speech isn't "free": speech that is significant is speech with social consequences, and such social consequences can be negative. The specific regulation of specific speech is a pretty narrow part of this.

Secondly, it's not actually the case that some abstract and formless "majority" determines the direction - material, political, cultural, ideological - of society. This is done by the ruling class, because the ruling class controls the social-material mechanisms through which such aspects of society are determined: the schools, the publishing companies, the theatres and meeting halls, the universities and intellectuals, the politicians, and so on and so on and so forth. This is not a simple or absolutely deterministic process, but it's quite clear that this is what goes on in society.

Some person in the world simply stating something on a website, or in a public square, is not especially significant. Most people on their own are capable of conceiving most interesting ideas: what's important is the long processes of debate and attention and the reinforcement of ideas that can only be carried out on the broad terrain of class struggle. The micropolitics of micro speech is a very small part of this process.


And the computer you use to access the internet would not be your property. So if the government or society you live within dislikes the way you use that property, couldn't they take it from you?
Personal belongings (like books, computers, phones, beds, houses, etc.) might well be personally owned, in some sense, in a socialist society - there's no reason for this not to be the case, and people want it. But it's true in any society that no one has a right to do anything they would like with their own property (although capitalists get close to having such a right in capitalist societies - to the detriment of everyone else).

[RGacky3]

A major concern I have with the lefts view on property, is that other rights such as free speech are actually extensions of property rights. For example, in a society where everybody had a rightful claim to all of the resources and land, the tools necessary for dissent and free speech would be owned by everybody, including the people you are criticizing.

If you do not own the typewriter that you exercise your speech with, how can you even exercize your free speech? Wouldn't dissenting against society be impossible, since society controls the means necessary to freely speak?


A typewriter does not require capitalist property rights (for hte most part), property rights have nothing to do with free speach.

In fact what your talking about happens right now, WITH property rights, the buisiness class owns the TV stations, the biggest printers and so on, so they are the ones stopping actual free speach.


And the computer you use to access the internet would not be your property. So if the government or society you live within dislikes the way you use that property, couldn't they take it from you?

No, I mean technically they can do it now if they want, but they don't. Socialism cna have constitutions as well.

Also who is more likely to stifle free speach, a community, or a buisiness with a profit motive? Its obvious to me its the latter.


And the computer you use to access the internet would not be your property. So if the government or society you live within dislikes the way you use that property, couldn't they take it from you?

You know aobut the net neutrality fight? Thats not about governments stopping free speach, its corporations.

[Demogorgon]

A major concern I have with the lefts view on property, is that other rights such as free speech are actually extensions of property rights. For example, in a society where everybody had a rightful claim to all of the resources and land, the tools necessary for dissent and free speech would be owned by everybody, including the people you are criticizing.

If you do not own the typewriter that you exercise your speech with, how can you even exercize your free speech? Wouldn't dissenting against society be impossible, since society controls the means necessary to freely speak?
You hint at the answer to your own question, in a society where rights like free speech are tied to property, only those who have property can meaningfully exercise those rights. Somebody in desperate poverty has no means to exercise free speech whereas a society where people are more equal presents the opportunity to all. Robert Dahl has demonstrated this pretty conclusively, his work "On Political Equality" is particularly good.

Incidentally it is totally wrong to say Governments and not businesses restrict free speech. Both do. Some businesses relentlessly harass and shut down those who attempt to bring wrongdoing on their part to light. Usually Government legislation is the only way to stop them from doing this.

[RED DAVE]

I thought the government was the entity that curtails free speech? I didn't know businesses did that?Have you been living in a cave for 100 years or so? When was the last time you saw a truly dissenting opinion expressed on mainstream media? The government does not have to do it.

Have you ever worked for a corporation? Did you have free speech on the job?

RED DAVE

[Thirsty Crow]

Have you been living in a cave for 100 years or so? When was the last time you saw a truly dissenting opinion expressed on mainstream media? The government does not have to do it.

Have you ever worked for a corporation? Did you have free speech on the job?

RED DAVE
Of course, this is right. The high end professionals and managerial strata of enterprises which produce information realize well that their interests are intertwined with the interests of the owners of the company in which they do their work (bourgeoisie) and with the interests of the political elite. They are complicit with the general hegemonic function of bourgeois ideology.

Though, I'd like to note that in some countries where such practices are not so ingrained something vaguely "scandalous" like a minister walking into the office of an newspaper's general editor and demanding a specific article may happen. It may very well be due to naivete or lack of insight (the fact that it was necessary for a high political functionary to do that) on behalf of the editor, but dissent is hardly a reason for such an "event". Most of the time, though, the general editor does not need specific instructions.

[ZombieRothbard]

A typewriter does not require capitalist property rights (for hte most part), property rights have nothing to do with free speach.

In fact what your talking about happens right now, WITH property rights, the buisiness class owns the TV stations, the biggest printers and so on, so they are the ones stopping actual free speach.

The corporations and the government as basically so intertwined that it is hard to tell them apart. I am not in favor of either. I am in favor of small business, which does not have the guns of the state behind it.


No, I mean technically they can do it now if they want, but they don't. Socialism cna have constitutions as well.

Also who is more likely to stifle free speach, a community, or a buisiness with a profit motive? Its obvious to me its the latter.

Neither really has a motive to stifle free speech. Id say that individuals might, if they are being criticized publically. The government also has an interest in preventing free speech.


You know aobut the net neutrality fight? Thats not about governments stopping free speach, its corporations.

I am not fully informed on that issue.

[ZombieRothbard]

Have you been living in a cave for 100 years or so? When was the last time you saw a truly dissenting opinion expressed on mainstream media? The government does not have to do it.

Have you ever worked for a corporation? Did you have free speech on the job?

RED DAVE

The government controls what the corporations can show on television. That is why they created the FCC, so they can censor what we see on television and hear on radio.

[ZombieRothbard]

Some businesses relentlessly harass and shut down those who attempt to bring wrongdoing on their part to light. Usually Government legislation is the only way to stop them from doing this.

No no, on the contrary, businesses shut down competition with the HELP of government. A corporation or business alone cannot prevent competition in the market, and stifle free speech. Corporations and businesses don't have the guns necessary to do that. That is why they appeal to the government to do it for them.

[ZombieRothbard]

On either side: first, consequences for speech will exist in any society. We treat people differently based on ideas that they express. If someone comes to my house and says they're going to kill my family, and I believe them, I might kill them. If someone credibly advocates the intent to commit genocide, people might forcibly prevent it. Thus such speech isn't "free": speech that is significant is speech with social consequences, and such social consequences can be negative. The specific regulation of specific speech is a pretty narrow part of this.

You are saying that negative social consequence is the criteria for judging illegitimate use of free speech? What if my comments cause your girlfriend to leave you, did I misuse my free speech? Do I really have a legal obligation to you, not to move my mouth in a specific way, and utter specific phrases? Do you have the legal right to others perceptions of you (or to your reputation?)?


Secondly, it's not actually the case that some abstract and formless "majority" determines the direction - material, political, cultural, ideological - of society. This is done by the ruling class, because the ruling class controls the social-material mechanisms through which such aspects of society are determined: the schools, the publishing companies, the theatres and meeting halls, the universities and intellectuals, the politicians, and so on and so on and so forth. This is not a simple or absolutely deterministic process, but it's quite clear that this is what goes on in society.

I agree with this statement. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't want some abstract, formless majority controlling my life either. Hence why I reject the concept of democracy.


Some person in the world simply stating something on a website, or in a public square, is not especially significant. Most people on their own are capable of conceiving most interesting ideas: what's important is the long processes of debate and attention and the reinforcement of ideas that can only be carried out on the broad terrain of class struggle. The micropolitics of micro speech is a very small part of this process.

I am not aware of the "theory" behind class struggle. To me, a man preaching on a street corner has the capability to become a powerful thing. Hell, a man lighting himself on fire in Tunisia sparked all of this unrest in the Middle East.

[jake williams]

You are saying that negative social consequence is the criteria for judging illegitimate use of free speech? What if my comments cause your girlfriend to leave you, did I misuse my free speech? Do I really have a legal obligation to you, not to move my mouth in a specific way, and utter specific phrases? Do you have the legal right to others perceptions of you (or to your reputation?)?
No, you misunderstood me. The point is that all societies will regulate speech, whether legally or not, because important speech has consequences. I personally believe that it's important to protect open political debate, as much as possible, but that's very different from saying that, at the end of the day, people won't allow all speech to have no negative consequences.

You shouldn't (and probably won't ever) have a legal obligation not to interfere in my love life, but you still shouldn't do it unnecessarily, and people will think you're a douchebag if you do. Again, speech has consequences, legal or not.


I agree with this statement. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't want some abstract, formless majority controlling my life either. Hence why I reject the concept of democracy.
You want your life controlled by a specific, sadistic minority?


I am not aware of the "theory" behind class struggle. To me, a man preaching on a street corner has the capability to become a powerful thing. Hell, a man lighting himself on fire in Tunisia sparked all of this unrest in the Middle East.
The incident in Tunisia is a perfect example. The world is full of millions of preachers on street corners, and has been for a long time. There's an exceptionally short list of those who have any real effect on the world. In Tunisia, one particular extreme act responded to a very specific conditions faced by the Tunisian working class. It acted as a very tiny spark in a very dry prairie, and the working class, not one dead man, overthrew a dictatorship.

[agnixie]

A major concern I have with the lefts view on property, is that other rights such as free speech are actually extensions of property rights. For example, in a society where everybody had a rightful claim to all of the resources and land, the tools necessary for dissent and free speech would be owned by everybody, including the people you are criticizing.

If you do not own the typewriter that you exercise your speech with, how can you even exercize your free speech? Wouldn't dissenting against society be impossible, since society controls the means necessary to freely speak?

Actually they're not. There is no natural right to property, something which even the enlightenment liberals understood.

You also confuse private and personal property. A typewriter is personal property, not private property. It's especially not comparable to land property, which is monopolizing a natural resource.

You are similarly confusing the right to free speech and the right to a platform.

[RED DAVE]

The government controls what the corporations can show on television. That is why they created the FCC, so they can censor what we see on television and hear on radio.Oh please!

(1) "The government" is the product of capitalism. It was created to protect the corporations, regulate them and make sure no one fucks with them.


(2) The only "control' the government exerts has to do with secrets and pornography. Otherwise, the corporations have free rein.

(3) The corporation-controlled media will never on any systematic basis, produce criticisms of themselves or the government.

(4) As a parting shot, why would you name yourself after an advocate of child abuse?

RED DAVE

[eric922]

I always love hearing people talk about the dangers of oppressive government and how bad it is, and yet these same people are all for giving corporations as much power as possible. First off, corporations have successfully bought our government, secondly you better believe that a corporation can and will crush your rights as fast or faster than any government. No instition is more totalitarian than corporation.

[ZombieRothbard]

No, you misunderstood me. The point is that all societies will regulate speech, whether legally or not, because important speech has consequences. I personally believe that it's important to protect open political debate, as much as possible, but that's very different from saying that, at the end of the day, people won't allow all speech to have no negative consequences.

You shouldn't (and probably won't ever) have a legal obligation not to interfere in my love life, but you still shouldn't do it unnecessarily, and people will think you're a douchebag if you do. Again, speech has consequences, legal or not.

I don't believe there is any speech which should be considered negative, by some sort of public common law standards. If a man is on your property, and threatens your life, you can ask him to leave your property. This is where property rights are intertwined with other rights. Based on that, I don't think that things like libel or slander should actually be illegal. You shouldn't have a claim of ownership on somebody elses thoughts about you. You don't own your reputation, because your reputation is in the mind of others.


You want your life controlled by a specific, sadistic minority?
I want my life to be controlled by me.


The incident in Tunisia is a perfect example. The world is full of millions of preachers on street corners, and has been for a long time. There's an exceptionally short list of those who have any real effect on the world. In Tunisia, one particular extreme act responded to a very specific conditions faced by the Tunisian working class. It acted as a very tiny spark in a very dry prairie, and the working class, not one dead man, overthrew a dictatorship.

But that one man inspired the "working class" didn't he?

[ZombieRothbard]

Oh please!

(1) "The government" is the product of capitalism. It was created to protect the corporations, regulate them and make sure no one fucks with them.

Corporations are the result of government, not the other way around. If you look at the history of intellectual property for example, you will find that it has its roots in monarchs granting monopoly priveleges to favored nobles. Historically, the role of the government has been to enable the monopolistic corporations, not the other way around. In fact, corporations by definition are products of the state privelege.


(2) The only "control' the government exerts has to do with secrets and pornography. Otherwise, the corporations have free rein.
Aren't they trying to ban conservative talk radio right now or something? Is that free speech?


(3) The corporation-controlled media will never on any systematic basis, produce criticisms of themselves or the government.

Which is why the corporation controlled media should be smashed.


(4) As a parting shot, why would you name yourself after an advocate of child abuse?

:confused:

[ZombieRothbard]

I always love hearing people talk about the dangers of oppressive government and how bad it is, and yet these same people are all for giving corporations as much power as possible. First off, corporations have successfully bought our government, secondly you better believe that a corporation can and will crush your rights as fast or faster than any government. No instition is more totalitarian than corporation.

Anarcho-capitalists actually support the abolition of the corporation, so I am unsure where you got this criticism from?

[Revolution starts with U]

I've not heard any talk of banning right wing talk radio. Not by anyone credible, anyway.

Many ancaps believe the corporation could be held up on a "free" market.

[#FF0000]

People are using "corporation" as a catch-all term for "big business" or whatever.

Stop that.

[ZombieRothbard]

I've not heard any talk of banning right wing talk radio. Not by anyone credible, anyway.

Many ancaps believe the corporation could be held up on a "free" market.

The extent to which corporations would exist is disputed. They could hypothetically exist under private law. I personally believe that limited liability legal status is an unjustified intervention in the market. There are anarcho-capitalists that defend intellectual property also. I am representing my own brand of anarcho-capitalism, that I believe to be the most consistent with libertarian economic views.

[Dunk]

The suggestion that the privilege of the few brings freedom to the disadvantaged masses can only be cooked up by the worshipers of capital.

This argument is of the same narrative every argument anarcho-capitalists make. The attempt to differentiate the interest of capital or individual capitalists from that of the state, and laying every injustice at the feet of the corrupting state, rather than the collective master of that state, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is the state. Their property is protected by it, their people populate the highest offices of government, it's armies open markets and police the masses.

When challenged to describe how the "hidden hand" of the market could exist without the blatantly overt fist of the market, they describe privately contracted security firms which would protect property and enforce contracts.

Somehow, this is different from a state.

Somehow, the complete surrender of our world to the interest of capital is preferable to the interests of human beings. Somehow, full employment and freedom is possible in a system which relies on the exploitation of human beings and uses us as a means to end - if only the armed guard outside the barbed wire fence were paid by someone else.

Anarcho-capitalists disgust me.

[ZombieRothbard]

The suggestion that the privilege of the few brings freedom to the disadvantaged masses can only be cooked up by the worshipers of capital.

This argument is of the same narrative every argument anarcho-capitalists make. The attempt to differentiate the interest of capital or individual capitalists from that of the state, and laying every injustice at the feet of the corrupting state, rather than the collective master of that state, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is the state. Their property is protected by it, their people populate the highest offices of government, it's armies open markets and police the masses.

When challenged to describe how the "hidden hand" of the market could exist without the blatantly overt fist of the market, they describe privately contracted security firms which would protect property and enforce contracts. Somehow, this is different from a state.

Somehow, the complete surrender of our world to the interest of capital is somehow preferable to the interests of human beings. Somehow, full employment and freedom is possible in a system which relies on the exploitation of human beings and uses us as a means to end - if only the armed guard outside the barbed wire fence were paid by someone else.

Anarcho-capitalists disgust me.

Awwwww :(

[#FF0000]

There's some points in there you could respond to, btw

[ZombieRothbard]

There's some points in there you could respond to, btw

It was mostly an ethical argument, that made references to the bourgeosie, in what I am assuming to be the "dictatorship" role in society. Debating ethics is almost useless, as it is totally relative. And the dictatorship of the bourgeosie and the class warfare analysis that marxists commonly bring up is a mystery to me. I cannot properly respond to that which I do not understand.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's because you hear "class" and think "caste."

[La Comédie Noire]

I am not aware of the "theory" behind class struggle. To me, a man preaching on a street corner has the capability to become a powerful thing. Hell, a man lighting himself on fire in Tunisia sparked all of this unrest in the Middle East.

No, high grain prices and outrage at incompetent and oppressive governments sparked the unrest in the middle east. If some preacher had lit himself on fire in Florida, no one would have cared.


No no, on the contrary, businesses shut down competition with the HELP of government. A corporation or business alone cannot prevent competition in the market, and stifle free speech. Corporations and businesses don't have the guns necessary to do that. That is why they appeal to the government to do it for them.

This isn't true at all, many corporations resort to security contractors and mercenaries all the time. In fact if you look at the history of American Capitalism circa 1900, you can see plenty of examples of acts of sabotage committed by hired thugs.

The role of the government in society is to not only mediate conflicts between classes, but conflicts between factions of the ruling class as well. It has the benefit of being a "neutral force" when concerned with the ruling class. But that's not to say it can't utilized in favor of one group of capitalists for a time. It also has the added benefit of deflecting blame from the current ruling class and making it appear as though people democratically elected their repression. Bakunin was found of calling it "The Peoples' stick."

In fact what is probably confusing you is the norm in past class societies was for the ruling class to be part of the state.


I want my life to be controlled by me.

In a Market, only part of your life is controlled by you, the bulk of it will go to selling yourself dearly in order to sustain yourself long enough to enjoy some leisure time, if that. Only very recently has the working class of first world countries been able to accumulate property and leisure time to a substantial degree. And no, it wasn't because the bounties of the free market flowed forth, it was won by struggle.

[jake williams]

I don't believe there is any speech which should be considered negative, by some sort of public common law standards. If a man is on your property, and threatens your life, you can ask him to leave your property. This is where property rights are intertwined with other rights. Based on that, I don't think that things like libel or slander should actually be illegal. You shouldn't have a claim of ownership on somebody elses thoughts about you. You don't own your reputation, because your reputation is in the mind of others.
Aside from the intricacies of the legal theory, I agree with a lot of this. I still think you're totally missing my point.


I want my life to be controlled by me.
Unless you're too rich to spend your time on an internet forum, this can't and won't ever be the case in a capitalist society. At any rate, we're not magicians and we live in a physically and socially restricted world. No one gets to have infinite freedom.


But that one man inspired the "working class" didn't he?
You have an organized community of people with a long history of struggle, and you have a bed where a number of acts can provide significant inspiration. The point is that it's the organizing and struggle that happens in the first place which is more important than the particular spark, which can be almost anything.

[RGacky3]

The corporations and the government as basically so intertwined that it is hard to tell them apart. I am not in favor of either. I am in favor of small business, which does not have the guns of the state behind it.


Thats a cop out, you can't be favor of small buisiness, if your in favor of Capitalism your infavor of whatever Capitalism produces, and it always tends towards oligarchy, people with a lot of money can make more money.


Neither really has a motive to stifle free speech. Id say that individuals might, if they are being criticized publically. The government also has an interest in preventing free speech.


The government, if its democratic, has no interest in preventing free speech. Governments are not one type of entity, a libertarian fully democratic government is 100% different from a monarchy.

Buisiness has the the motive of, it allows them to lie, it allows them to keep workers from making demands, and so on.


I am not fully informed on that issue.

Look it up, its telecom companies wanting to make some content on the internet faster and some slower, it might allow them to actually block content, so lets say they don't like a political group calling for the internet to be public area, they can just block them, net neutratlity is calling for regulations to prevent that.

[ZombieRothbard]

No, high grain prices and outrage at incompetent and oppressive governments sparked the unrest in the middle east. If some preacher had lit himself on fire in Florida, no one would have cared.

This may or may not be true. I think it is irrelevent to the discussion now though.


This isn't true at all, many corporations resort to security contractors and mercenaries all the time. In fact if you look at the history of American Capitalism circa 1900, you can see plenty of examples of acts of sabotage committed by hired thugs.

I would need to look at the specific acts of sabotage to respond to this.


The role of the government in society is to not only mediate conflicts between classes, but conflicts between factions of the ruling class as well. It has the benefit of being a "neutral force" when concerned with the ruling class. But that's not to say it can't utilized in favor of one group of capitalists for a time. It also has the added benefit of deflecting blame from the current ruling class and making it appear as though people democratically elected their repression. Bakunin was found of calling it "The Peoples' stick."

You may be surprised to learn that I read "God and the State" a long time ago. I would say the government is never neutral. It is bought and sold by the corporations, which really as just an extension of government. In fact, the government itself is a corporation. It has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.


In fact what is probably confusing you is the norm in past class societies was for the ruling class to be part of the state.

I think it is still that way today.


In a Market, only part of your life is controlled by you, the bulk of it will go to selling yourself dearly in order to sustain yourself long enough to enjoy some leisure time, if that. Only very recently has the working class of first world countries been able to accumulate property and leisure time to a substantial degree. And no, it wasn't because the bounties of the free market flowed forth, it was won by struggle.

I would hope that competitive forces in the market, combined with the new era of management theory (which stresses the idea that happy employs are productive employs) would allow employs more leisure time.

[ZombieRothbard]

Thats a cop out, you can't be favor of small buisiness, if your in favor of Capitalism your infavor of whatever Capitalism produces, and it always tends towards oligarchy, people with a lot of money can make more money.

I am not in favor of whatever capitalism produces. If the Austrian School is horribly wrong in their analysis of market forces, and capitalism produces something other than a highly competitive and ethical market, I would not support it at all.


The government, if its democratic, has no interest in preventing free speech. Governments are not one type of entity, a libertarian fully democratic government is 100% different from a monarchy.

I would agree with this.


Buisiness has the the motive of, it allows them to lie, it allows them to keep workers from making demands, and so on.

Businesses actually have incentives to be honest. Customers are more apt to buy your food when you make it right in front of them (like a lot of resturaunts do now). Honesty is an integral part of many successful businesses business models.


Look it up, its telecom companies wanting to make some content on the internet faster and some slower, it might allow them to actually block content, so lets say they don't like a political group calling for the internet to be public area, they can just block them, net neutratlity is calling for regulations to prevent that.

That is a tricky issue. You are likely right that it is corporations attempting to censor content for profit. Id argue that a competitor could always emerge to break the cartelization of the internet.

[Thug Lessons]

It was mostly an ethical argument, that made references to the bourgeosie, in what I am assuming to be the "dictatorship" role in society. Debating ethics is almost useless, as it is totally relative. And the dictatorship of the bourgeosie and the class warfare analysis that marxists commonly bring up is a mystery to me. I cannot properly respond to that which I do not understand.

Don't you think you have some responsibility to engage with a theory and comprehend it on some level before you go about devising clever ethical objections to it?

[ZombieRothbard]

Don't you think you have some responsibility to engage with a theory and comprehend it on some level before you go about devising clever ethical objections to it?

I don't recall making an ethical objection anywhere thus far?

[Queercommie Girl]

I am in favor of small business, which does not have the guns of the state behind it.


Small businesses naturally develop into large corporations.

And how exactly do you plan to force everyone to compete in a non-violent way, without using any violence? If someone simply chooses to be violent, how can you stop that?

[RedSunRising]

Er, no. That is not how it would work. Communists don't want massive bureaucratic state to run things. We want the working class to run it. If there's some ruling class of bureaucrats who make these kinds of decisions that the workers are not in control of, then you're not looking at a socialist/communist society.


Even the post-1965 state capitalist USSR had less bureacracy than modern capitalist states and corporation's have.

[Thug Lessons]

I don't recall making an ethical objection anywhere thus far?

You're arguing about the relative ability of different economic systems to provide individual rights, which is an inherently ethical issue. There's a whole school of normative ethics that deals with this, namely social contract theory. Given that you admittedly don't understand the Marxist criticism of social rights under capitalism, isn't it your responsibility to educate yourself before you start telling us where you think we're in error?

[RED DAVE]

One of the interesting things about libertarians is that not only are they incapable of applying logic, i.e. they can't think, but they also don't read much, not even their own material.

Murray Rothbard on his bizarre concept of parent-child relationships:


Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)(emph added; FN #s delete)

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

RED DAVE

[RGacky3]

I am not in favor of whatever capitalism produces. If the Austrian School is horribly wrong in their analysis of market forces, and capitalism produces something other than a highly competitive and ethical market, I would not support it at all.


ANd I submit that it does not, just look at what happens when social-democracies liberalize their markets, you have Argentina, you have Iceland and so on.


Businesses actually have incentives to be honest. Customers are more apt to buy your food when you make it right in front of them (like a lot of resturaunts do now). Honesty is an integral part of many successful businesses business models.


But so is dishonesty ... and thats where the danger comes in.


Id argue that a competitor could always emerge to break the cartelization of the internet.

And I would argue that if they could they would, the law of capitalism, the way it works, is that the more money you have the easier it is to make more money.

THe market is something that can be controlled with enough money.

[RGacky3]

the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

WHich is the way it is now, except if you do that you get your kid taken away.

[Obs]

I'm surprised this hasn't been said yet -

Private property is not the same as personal property. When socialists talk of abolishing private property, they mean private ownership of the means of production - corporations, stores, factories, offices, all structures (physical or otherwise) that are, in capitalism, used to create value in the form of commodities. In socialism, these are either used to produce goods on a utilitarian basis, that is to say, for the good of all rather than to generate profit, or simply abolished. For instance, there are no telemarketing jobs in socialism, since these serve no useful function for anyone but the corporations running them.
Personal property, on the other hand, has none of these functions. It does not produce commodities, and therefore there's no real reason for it to be expropriated and redistributed. This is a trite example, but your toothbrush, for instance, will still be yours. So will your bike and your desk and your furniture - and so will your typewriter and your computer.

Now, if you're an astute motherfucker like me, you'll notice that these things are, in fact, used to create some type of ware. You'll also realise, however, that pretty much all wares that you can create with a computer (or a typewriter, but let's go with computers) fall within the creative sphere rather than that of actually useful, tangible things like food or buildings or, well, computers. Therefore, there is no reason to arbitrarily confiscate them or whatever. Also, with the abolition of copyright, and with the fact that there are such things as computers and the Internet, all types of media created can potentially be distributed infinitely, which by extension means that art and free speech are not limited at all.

Hope this clears some things up and that you stop listening to antisocial psychos like Rothbard.

[ZombieRothbard]

You're arguing about the relative ability of different economic systems to provide individual rights, which is an inherently ethical issue. There's a whole school of normative ethics that deals with this, namely social contract theory. Given that you admittedly don't understand the Marxist criticism of social rights under capitalism, isn't it your responsibility to educate yourself before you start telling us where you think we're in error?

I was making the assumption that everybody here agrees that free speech is a legitimate right. If you reject that assertion, then that is ok. But that is the only ethical statement I made here, and the point of the statement was to flesh out the problems with the socialist system in providing that right.

[ZombieRothbard]

One of the interesting things about libertarians is that not only are they incapable of applying logic, i.e. they can't think, but they also don't read much, not even their own material.

Murray Rothbard on his bizarre concept of parent-child relationships:

(emph added; FN #s delete)

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

RED DAVE

I find it hard to believe that I can't think, considering I apparently have the ability to read and form somewhat coherent sentences :scared:

I have read that particular section of the Ethics of Liberty, and agree with Rothbard's assessment of the parent/child relationship. However I don't feel comfortable getting into a debate over that issue with the present company. So im going to have to punt on this one.

[ZombieRothbard]

I'm surprised this hasn't been said yet -

Private property is not the same as personal property. When socialists talk of abolishing private property, they mean private ownership of the means of production - corporations, stores, factories, offices, all structures (physical or otherwise) that are, in capitalism, used to create value in the form of commodities. In socialism, these are either used to produce goods on a utilitarian basis, that is to say, for the good of all rather than to generate profit, or simply abolished. For instance, there are no telemarketing jobs in socialism, since these serve no useful function for anyone but the corporations running them.
Personal property, on the other hand, has none of these functions. It does not produce commodities, and therefore there's no real reason for it to be expropriated and redistributed. This is a trite example, but your toothbrush, for instance, will still be yours. So will your bike and your desk and your furniture - and so will your typewriter and your computer.

Now, if you're an astute motherfucker like me, you'll notice that these things are, in fact, used to create some type of ware. You'll also realise, however, that pretty much all wares that you can create with a computer (or a typewriter, but let's go with computers) fall within the creative sphere rather than that of actually useful, tangible things like food or buildings or, well, computers. Therefore, there is no reason to arbitrarily confiscate them or whatever. Also, with the abolition of copyright, and with the fact that there are such things as computers and the Internet, all types of media created can potentially be distributed infinitely, which by extension means that art and free speech are not limited at all.

Hope this clears some things up and that you stop listening to antisocial psychos like Rothbard.

Who decides what personal property a person can own?

[#FF0000]

Who decides what personal property a person can own?

Personal property. Consumer goods. Private property = Means of Production. Capital. Real property. Factories, farms, and workshops.

[ZombieRothbard]

Personal property. Consumer goods. Private property = Means of Production. Capital. Real property. Factories, farms, and workshops.

It takes a complex division of labor to make a computer. How do you decide who gets it when its finished?

[#FF0000]

It takes a complex division of labor to make a computer. How do you decide who gets it when its finished?

Depends. Some people support a gift economy/participatory economics. Others talk about "labor vouchers", which is basically a currency based on how much work one does.

There's options. I don't see a reason why someone who might want a computer should go without, though.

[Obs]

Who decides what personal property a person can own?
You own all the personal property you have. It's not rocket science. There's no huge bureaucracy recording how many couches are in your home or whatever, and there isn't anyone regulating how many couches you are allowed to own. Hell, if you want to, you can fill up your entire goddamn house with nothing but couches upon couches, see if I care.


It takes a complex division of labor to make a computer. How do you decide who gets it when its finished?
There are actually a number of different solutions to this problem all over the leftist spectrum. Some believe that there wouldn't be sufficient scarcity in socialism to warrant any kind of attention to this issue (I disagree with those), others imagine a kind of personalised, non-transferable 'labour vouchers' would be used, while others yet think that for a while during socialism, currency would remain in circulation. I'm not sure which side I take in the whole labour voucher vs. currency debate, because I think it depends heavily on the actual circumstances at the given time that socialism is being established.

[ZombieRothbard]

You own all the personal property you have. It's not rocket science. There's no huge bureaucracy recording how many couches are in your home or whatever, and there isn't anyone regulating how many couches you are allowed to own. Hell, if you want to, you can fill up your entire goddamn house with nothing but couches upon couches, see if I care.

Wouldn't filling your couch with houses be a waste of scarce labor hours and scarce resources? Wouldn't such behavior have a severely negative impact on the environment?

EDIT: "Filling your couch with houses" :X


There are actually a number of different solutions to this problem all over the leftist spectrum. Some believe that there wouldn't be sufficient scarcity in socialism to warrant any kind of attention to this issue (I disagree with those), others imagine a kind of personalised, non-transferable 'labour vouchers' would be used, while others yet think that for a while during socialism, currency would remain in circulation. I'm not sure which side I take in the whole labour voucher vs. currency debate, because I think it depends heavily on the actual circumstances at the given time that socialism is being established.Who would decide how many labor vouches you get? Or what your labor is worth? And what kind of currency would circulate, fiat currency? Who would print it?

Please note that I understand the left isn't some homogeneous mass, so you could just answer with your own personal opinion on these things if you wanted.

[#FF0000]

Wouldn't filling your couch with houses be a waste of scarce labor hours and scarce resources? Wouldn't such behavior have a severely negative impact on the environment? I think if it gets to the point of hoarding, then people might start to care. Up until then, though, having a hundred ipods doesn't really hurt anyone beyond it being kind of a waste. Regardless, you aren't denying anyone access to an Ipod (or in this case, a couch) as the means to produce a couch are still freely available.

I am really glad you didn't edit out that typo, btw.


Who would decide how many labor vouches you get? Or what your labor is worth? And what kind of currency would circulate, fiat currency? Who would print it?Labor vouchers would be based on the work hours, the intensity of the work, and the difficulty of the work. Someone who spends eight hours pressing buttons to make robots build a car on an assembly line would probably get paid less than a person who mines coal for fewer hours.

How much exactly this is worth is kind of hard to say at this point. It's something that would have to be decided according to the situation at the time.

Currency would be printed by the state/communes/whatever someone wants to call it.

Or it could be electronic.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think this ancap has actually been well polite and reasonable so its probably not a good idea to go scream out random quotes about rothbard was personally a douche, if he was.

Anyway, to the Ancap - I think you aren't going to get a clear answer here becasue a lot of people have a lot of differnet ideas about what socialism or communism looks like. Some will be able to say that you can just go make a talk radio. Others will say that if, the means of production are controlled by the working class, it shouldn't be hard to find a significant section of the working class who supports your views and get them to give you the "capital" required to air them. As a more general point I think asking for detailed plans of how communism will work is a bit of a dead end, few of us are experts in anythign related to what you'd ask would work, and given that I imagine you'd be quite into Hayek and the stuff he said about individuals not really being able to predict stuff well, I imagine even expert predictions made here would be very far off the mark. If you will, its analogus to me asking you for specifics on the banking system in an anarcho capitalist society, which I imagine isn't something you feel you can safely predict. The issue communists are concerned with is whether these things are fesiable as a general principle or not, whether the right incentives or structures would form, not the particular method of distribution (although they might have a few ideas about those as well.)


Both of those views make sense to me, although I imagine you will argue that this won't allow people who can't convince other people to help them out the opportuntity to reach a mass audience, i think this idea is misguided. If you will, it seems that having a lot of money in capitalism society allows you to get people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, personally, looking at this question in isolation, I find it more free to have a society where people are "forced" though laws to be "free" to act as they wish, without regard for money, as opposed to one where they are "forced" to obey the capitalist way of living or be arrested for theft or whatever.