Right Wing Libertarianism?

[Disciple]

Hey guys,

I just joined this site. I consider myself a left wing.. and a Libertarian in the original sense of the term and not how North Americans use it. This is gonna be a long essay, but bear with me here.

As the title suggests, I'm doing some research on Right-wing Libertarianism, probably something similar to what Ron Paul advocates, more specifically Austrian Economics. I'm new to the whole theory and don't know enough about it yet, but I'm still learning.

From what I do understand of it, I disagree with. The idea of a completely unregulated free market correcting all social ills sounds naive to me, however there are some decent arguments one can make in favour of it.

The reason I'm trying to learn about it, and the reason why I reach out to fellow left wingers is because I have a few friends that are right wing libertarians, and we debate the issues that we disagree with quite frequently.

In essence I know I have more solid arguments than any they've put forth but what I'm looking for are hard facts that suggest how a complete deregulation could turn catastrophic. I'm no history or poli-sci major so I have limited knowledge of these fields, so it would be best if any of you can think of any historical examples on things like taxation, healthcare, regulation of a lot of industries.

For example, the Anti-trust laws in the US is one of the arguments I've brought up before. There was a demand for government intervention in the early 20th century due to large private companies (oil industry, banking industry, shipping industry, etc.) creating a monopoly on the market in the 1800's. The public and the government felt the pressure and put restrictions on all companies to prevent monopolies... An argument that I brought up to oppose the idea of a complete market.

Are there more such real life examples where there was demand for such things like food and drugs, guns (was there any time where possession of any weapon was legal and there was a demand to change that?), etc.?

I'm not looking for anyone to bash any theory, just good sound logical arguments backed with facts. If there are any interesting articles that you feel like I should check out, then by all means post it.

Some things they believe in:
- Legalization of all drugs - heroine crack, cocaine, whatever
- Complete deregulation of the healthcare system
- No firearm restrictions ie no gun laws
- No labour laws - It's true. No labour laws they say.
- Complete privatize healthcare and that will drive prices down
- Privatization of education altogether
And many more that I can't think of currently.

The best arguments would be the ones where there was absolutely no government intervention in an industry / sector but there was public demand for it because private corporations were taking advantage of them with predatory pricing or anything.

[Distruzio]

I'm a right lib of the Austrian flavor. So is ZombieRothbard. Feel free to ask either of us any questions you might have.

[The Idler]

You have to go pre-industrial revolution to see what capitalism would look like without a modern state apparatus. It's with good reason that the medieval period and the dark ages are used as bywords with negative connotations for primitive society by comparison to today. Society would be nasty and brutish and life would be short. I'm not sure of the economic history, although there are writings about this if you dig around, but it was pretty bleak.

[Agnapostate]

Pseudo-libertarians don't support a "free market" in the meaningful sense; they support market relations based on the authoritarianism of the capitalist labor market, which is unfree. Market socialists are likely the only people that can be said to support a "free market."

Regarding the integral role of statism in the sustainment of capitalism, this is a summary I've posted before:

State intervention has been a critical facet of the capitalist economy in every area, from social welfare maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management in macroeconomic stabilization, to the existence of a protective network of tariffs and quotas permitting the development of infant industries that eventually became internationally competitive industries in the economic powerhouses of the world. Historical evidence corroborates this. For example, there is Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder (http://http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm):


"Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the "official historians" of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today's rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

The infant industries argument is crucial precisely because it illustrates the fact that state influence maximizes dynamic comparative advantage. Consider Yu‘s A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=847649&show=abstract): "This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organize, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies."

This section is particularly illustrative.


"[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organization, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

However, it is a scalar issue. At the highest levels of government involvement in the social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia, economic efficiency is also at its highest, with the positive association holding as the two factors simultaneously decline in the Rhine capitalism of other parts of Europe to the liberal democratic capitalism of Britain to the liberal democratic capitalism of the U.S. to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism prevalent under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, which rejected Keynesian dominance in macroeconomics to accept the prescriptions of neoclassicals, with Thatcher in particular being the right-winger and an enthusiastic Hayek fan.

Consider Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of 'The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism' (http://http://www.jstor.org/pss/27522452%3Cbr%20/%3E): "A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of 'best cases' of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were 'best cases' - best economic performers - in what Esping-Andersen (1990) calls 'the three worlds of welfare capitalism.' The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their 'type', and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state. The three panel studies are the American Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) and the Dutch Socio-Economic Panel (SEP). They all have samples of over 15,000 and are the only national panels to have run for ten consecutive years or more, so making it possible to assess the longer term performance of welfare-capitalist states."

This state interventionism is in fact inimical to socialism because prosperity supports the stability of the dominant economic paradigm, capitalism.

[Judicator]

Pseudo-libertarians don't support a "free market" in the meaningful sense; they support market relations based on the authoritarianism of the capitalist labor market, which is unfree. Market socialists are likely the only people that can be said to support a "free market."


This kind of equivocation seems rampant, between two kind of freedom: "free" meaning having legal protection basic "negative rights" like free speech and so on, and "free" in the sense you are using.



State intervention has been a critical facet of the capitalist economy in every area, from social welfare maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management in macroeconomic stabilization, to the existence of a protective network of tariffs and quotas permitting the development of infant industries that eventually became internationally competitive industries in the economic powerhouses of the world. Historical evidence corroborates this.


State intervention has occurred in the past because firms influence government do to things that favor them, but this doesn't make it a necessary condition.



The infant industries argument is crucial precisely because it illustrates the fact that state influence maximizes dynamic comparative advantage.


The infant industry argument is not widely accepted. Countries that industrialized with high tariff barriers have done so in spite of the protections, not because of them.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm a right lib of the Austrian flavor. So is ZombieRothbard. Feel free to ask either of us any questions you might have.

1. How would anarcho-capitalism be implemented without creating mass panic?
2. How do you know that it wouldn't be profitable to create a mercenary army?
3. What about people who cannot support themselves and who have no government provided safety net to fall back on?

[RGacky3]

4. Why would'nt functional monopolies not happen (not total monopolies)
5. With efficiency of industry, why would'nt there be large unemployment, if you can do more with less why not hire less and make them work more?
6. With large unemployment, you'll have wages dropping.
7. With all that above, don't you have a terrible dystopian plutocracy?

[Tim Cornelis]

A complete free market, if possible--which it is not--, would lead to the 'return' of sweatshops, the 15 hour work day and a meager pay.

The free market experiment in Chile (1973-1984) (minus the free banking) lead to an increase of unemployment of 17% in the 1970s and 30% around 1983 (I believe) compared to the 3% under 'socialist' Allende. Wages dropped, the rich became richer. Economy shrunk until Pinochet overturned the policy and reversed many free market policies around 1984.

And indeed, private security militias would form cartels and become a monopoly on violence (without the occasional popular influence as we have today), why? Profit maximization.

[Distruzio]

1. How would anarcho-capitalism be implemented without creating mass panic?

Secession. Consecutive secessions. First culturally (people doubting the legitimacy of the federal gov't in DC), then economic (Utah declaring and other states favoring competing currencies), and finally politically (declaring federal laws of a particular flavor wielding no authority within a state, a county, or a city). Secession is the answer and completely voluntary.


2. How do you know that it wouldn't be profitable to create a mercenary army?

The question is: what’s likely? Private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, “I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!” But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, “I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence.” Private protection agencies cannot externalize costs like gov'ts can.


3. What about people who cannot support themselves and who have no government provided safety net to fall back on?

Aside from appropriate future planning and family, the average person could, as they once did, rely on "fraternalism." Charities are based upon the model that fraternal societies created. Essentially, these mutual-aide societies were financed by membership dues and donations from benefactors. Before the rise of welfarism in the United States, fraternalism provided for people completely voluntarily. Not financed by taxation, these institutions (according to David Beito, author of From mutual aid to the welfare state: fraternal societies and social services, 1890-1967) provided more than the majority of health insurance to those in need. Membership included 1 in 3 of all men by the 1920s. Members would receive life insurance, unemployment insurance, child care, etc etc. For $2 a year (a days wage), members could have access to medical care that was, for some fraternal societies, top tier (mortality rate of 6.66 per thousand). Quite the accomplishment, no?

These mutual aide societies existed for women, blacks, immigrants, and white men as well. They held members to specific behavioral standards and were completely voluntary. They founded hospitals, orphanages, elderly homes, and day cares, a vast majority without gov't subsidy.

Many of these societies still exist today and are under great suspicion. The Masons and Shriners are fraternal societies. Others escaped destruction at the hands of the State by transitioning into insurance companies (Prudential comes to mind).

[Thirsty Crow]

This kind of equivocation seems rampant, between two kind of freedom: "free" meaning having legal protection basic "negative rights" like free speech and so on, and "free" in the sense you are using.And what is this sense agnapostate is using?




State intervention has occurred in the past because firms influence government do to things that favor them, but this doesn't make it a necessary condition.Not only did state intervention occur in the past, but it was a vital, definitely necessary element in the creation of global capitalist market (both in 19th and 20th centuries).



The infant industry argument is not widely accepted. Countries that industrialized with high tariff barriers have done so in spite of the protections, not because of them.
Two things are lacking here: an explication of the argument (laconic "in spite of x, and not because of x hardly works in any serious debate) and evidence.

[Distruzio]

4. Why would'nt functional monopolies not happen (not total monopolies)

Monopolies earn a profit, no? Entrepreneurs seek profit, no? A profitable monopoly is a tantalizing target. The monopoly might exist for a short time. But Apple was once king of the personal computer industry only to be outpaced and marginalized by the smaller more nimble Microsoft... and now the shoe is on the other foot once more.


5. With efficiency of industry, why would'nt there be large unemployment, if you can do more with less why not hire less and make them work more?

Profit. You can only "do more with less" if you increase the productivity of the fewer people. You can do this most effectively by investing in better equipment and better training, etc etc. Those workers no longer employed are now free to pursue other interests. The wonderful thing about a market economy is that the unemployed labor is a competitive market. Wages are increased in order to attract labor. More employees available means more possible productivity and newer more vibrant markets!

Consider the horse and buggy market. How many hundreds of thousands of employees were displaced by the introduction of the automobile? How many millions were employed in the manufacturing of automobile factories, plants, the automobiles themselves? How many lives were made more pleasant by the higher wages earned in a factory than on a farm?


6. With large unemployment, you'll have wages dropping.

Then obviously, the wages were too high. Perhaps artificially inflated (unionism which, tellingly, contributes to unemployment).


7. With all that above, don't you have a terrible dystopian plutocracy?

Don't we have one now? Didn't the Soviets have one?

[Tim Cornelis]

The question is: what’s likely? Private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, “I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!” But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, “I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence.” Private protection agencies cannot externalize costs like gov'ts can.


Nobody said anything about waging war, your 'argument' is actually the crticisim of 'autarchism'. Like you said agencies are unlikely to wage war. Instead: Say there are ten private security companies, five small, two medium, three large. The three largest are likely to form a cartel to maximize their profits. They will buy out the two medium companies and now have the power to do away with the five smallest and prevent new agencies from entering the market. Tada, a monopoly on violence.

[Tim Cornelis]

Question to mister "anarcho-Monarchist":

1) Is capitalism a system of profit maximisation?
2) Do big corporations get higher profits as a result of government intervention?
3) Isn't government intervention on behalf of corporation as exists today a logical outgrow of the market?

[Distruzio]

Question to mister "anarcho-Monarchist":

1) Is capitalism a system of profit maximisation?

Not necessarily. It is a system of voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.


2) Do big corporations get higher profits as a result of government intervention?

Yes.


3) Isn't government intervention on behalf of corporation as exists today a logical outgrow of the market?

No. It is a logical outgrowth of the State. The "capitalism" you consider when you level such criticisms at myself and other AnCaps is not capitalism as we see it. Note that we consider ourselves Anarcho-Capitalists. Anarcho- meaning free of the State, and Capitalists- meaning voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.

We hold our ideal of Voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges without the State as paramount. This is anarcho-capitalism. This is not "capitalism." You describe a statist quo. You criticize the merger of corporation and state as though it were laissez-faire capitalism. It isn't and such a fact is plain for even the most dense to see.

[Distruzio]

Nobody said anything about waging war, your 'argument' is actually the crticisim of 'autarchism'. Like you said agencies are unlikely to wage war. Instead: Say there are ten private security companies, five small, two medium, three large. The three largest are likely to form a cartel to maximize their profits. They will buy out the two medium companies and now have the power to do away with the five smallest and prevent new agencies from entering the market. Tada, a monopoly on violence.

I preempted the obvious extension of the line of reasoning. :)

1: What prevents one of the 3 from using his insider knowledge from outmaneuvering his largest competitors with the assumption that it would be relatively easy for him to outpace the smaller competitors compared to the other larger firms. Truly, if profit maximization is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense for the larger firms to target one another?

2: What prevents the 2 medium firms from doing the same to the 5 smallest and then organizing to counter the 3 largest?

3: What prevents the 5 from doing precisely the same thing to counter the 3 largest and the 2 mediums?

4: What prevents any other organization of this highly unlikely scenario? In short, if market participants, so reviled on this website, are really consumed by the thought of profit maximization. Why wouldn't they hop at every opportunity to strike at their most dangerous market opponent? Moreover, should a monopoly successfully arise, what prevents smaller firms from nipping at the gargantuan oafs heels?

5: What prevents entrance to the market without a State?

[Distruzio]

A complete free market, if possible--which it is not--, would lead to the 'return' of sweatshops, the 15 hour work day and a meager pay.

The first world economies are too far advanced from this pathetic stage of market evolution to merit concern, Goti. You chase demons that do not exist.


The free market experiment in Chile (1973-1984) (minus the free banking) lead to an increase of unemployment of 17% in the 1970s and 30% around 1983 (I believe) compared to the 3% under 'socialist' Allende. Wages dropped, the rich became richer. Economy shrunk until Pinochet overturned the policy and reversed many free market policies around 1984.

This doesn't suggest a failure of the market. It suggests that the State had disemployed up to 17% of employees with its market interventions. The State told people that a particular industry or series of industries was more profitable than it was. When the market reforms came about, the deception was revealed.

The same is very much what happened in America in 2008 with the Housing markets.


And indeed, private security militias would form cartels and become a monopoly on violence (without the occasional popular influence as we have today), why? Profit maximization.

No, they wouldn't.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not necessarily. It is a system of voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.



Yes.



No. It is a logical outgrowth of the State. The "capitalism" you consider when you level such criticisms at myself and other AnCaps is not capitalism as we see it. Note that we consider ourselves Anarcho-Capitalists. Anarcho- meaning free of the State, and Capitalists- meaning voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.

We hold our ideal of Voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges without the State as paramount. This is anarcho-capitalism. This is not "capitalism." You describe a statist quo. You criticize the merger of corporation and state as though it were laissez-faire capitalism. It isn't and such a fact is plain for even the most dense to see.

You do not consider capitalism a system of profit maximisation...? Arguing is useless.

"you describe a status quo", nor sure if you know what status quo means. Capitalism is "a system based on private property of the means of production", this is precisely the system we have today.

"You criticize the merger of corporation and state as though it were laissez-faire capitalism. "

Not at all, I'm sick and tired of this right-wing libertarian nonsensical rhetoric. Laissez-faire capitalism LEADS to corporatism as government intervention is a means by which capitalists can maximise their profits. And yes, capitalism is a system of profit maximisation.

Seeing how you deny reality (capitalism is not necessarily a system of profit maximisation!) let's do another set of questions.

About property:

1) Do you believe in (private) property rights?
2) If so, does this means I am not allowed on your private property unless you give me permission to do so?
3) Would it be justified for me to buy all the property around your house and deny you access to my property as to let you starve?

About the right to life:

Imagine a dessert village with three water sources. These water sources are private property. The owners deny the villagers access and they die of thirst.

Q: Do property rights and the right to life conflict in this example?

About freedom?

1) Do you agree that freedom is 'when one directly controls every aspect of his own life'?
2) Do you agree that authority (rather social hierarchy) means precisely the opposite and therefore are by their very definition mutually exclusive?
3) Do you agree that a boss, defined as "one who makes decisions or exercises authority" in the dictionary has authority?
4) Do you agree that wage labour, the social relation in which an employee sells his labour to an employer, creates a social relation based on the domination of the employer over the employee as the employer holds a certain amount of authority over his employee?
5) Do you agree then that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that capitalism, being based on wage labour which inherently creates social hierarchy, limits the freedom of employees?

(That they are free to not take the job or quit is not a valid argument, voluntarily giving up your freedom does not equal freedom).

[Tim Cornelis]

The first world economies are too far advanced from this pathetic stage of market evolution to merit concern, Goti. You chase demons that do not exist.



This doesn't suggest a failure of the market. It suggests that the State had disemployed up to 17% of employees with its market interventions. The State told people that a particular industry or series of industries was more profitable than it was. When the market reforms came about, the deception was revealed.

The same is very much what happened in America in 2008 with the Housing markets.


The second recession in Chile (1983) was ten years after the government deception was revealed. Are you telling me that the 10% unemployment increase (30% total unemployment) was a result of something that happened over a decade ago? That's like saying the Internet bubble was exposed in 2000 but finally burst yesterday as a result!

[Distruzio]

The second recession in Chile (1983) was ten years after the government deception was revealed. Are you telling me that the 10% unemployment increase (30% total unemployment) was a result of something that happened over a decade ago? That's like saying the Internet bubble was exposed in 2000 but finally burst yesterday as a result!

I'd need the data before me to tell you specifically what happened. I merely made an observation of suggestions. Evidently, based upon the little information you offered up, the market in Chile was so distorted that 17% or more of the population was employed in the incorrect sectors of the economy. The consumers tend to desire specific goods that State does not. Since the State is the monopolist in the economy, it compels market action. Consumers suffer and the State prospers.

*edit:


To avoid any misunderstanding from the outset: the thesis presented here is that any given society’s overall wealth will be relatively increased, i.e., will grow more than it otherwise would, if the overall degree of socialism is decreased and vice versa. The United States, for instance, would improve their standards of living by adoptingmore capitalism (above the level that would be attained otherwise), and so would Germany, etc. It is a somewhat different task, though, to explain the relative position (as regards overall wealth) of different societies at any given time because then, of course, the “ceteris” are no longer necessarily “paribus,” while, of course, other things, in addition to an existing degree of socialism, undoubtedly affect a society’s overall wealth. A given society’s history, for instance, has a tremendous effect on its present wealth. Every society is rich or poor not only because of present but also past conditions; because of capital having been accumulated or destroyed in the past by our fathers and forefathers. So it can easily happen that a society which is presently more capitalist can still be significantly poorer than a more socialist one. And the same, only seemingly paradoxical result can emerge because societies can (and do) differ with respect to other formerly or presently operating factors affecting the production of wealth. There can and do exist, for instance, differences in the work ethic and/or in prevalent world-views and habits among societies and these can and do account for divergencies (or similarities) in the production of wealth of societies alike or different with respect to their present degree of socialism. Thus, the most straightforward and best way to illustrate the validity of the thesis that the degree of socialism is inversely related to a society’s wealth in any comparative social analysis, would be to compare societies which, except for differences in their degree of socialism, are paribus with respect to their history and the present socio- psychological characteristics of their people, or are at least very similar, like, for instance, West and East Germany: and here the predicted effect indeed shows in the most dramatic way, as will be dealt with in the following. Hans Herman Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Introduction.

[Distruzio]

You do not consider capitalism a system of profit maximisation...? Arguing is useless.

"you describe a status quo", nor sure if you know what status quo means. Capitalism is "a system based on private property of the means of production", this is precisely the system we have today.

Actually, I specifically said statist quo. Suggesting that the markets in existence today in reality are Statist creations not to be conflated with ideological purity. ;)


Not at all, I'm sick and tired of this right-wing libertarian nonsensical rhetoric. Laissez-faire capitalism LEADS to corporatism as government intervention is a means by which capitalists can maximise their profits.

How?


And yes, capitalism is a system of profit maximisation.

Not necessarily. Of course businessmen seek to increase profitability. But many times, businessmen are interested not merely in profit maximization, but revenue flow and r&d, neither of which are profit maximizers. Moreover, one of the recurring critiques of a laissez-faire approach to the market is that one big firm will undercut smaller firms b/c it has the money to maintain losses and thus seize control of the market. Would this not suggest that, were monopolization to be as prevalent in a free market as you all insist, businessmen are willing to set aside profit maximization for long term interests?


1) Do you believe in (private) property rights?
2) If so, does this means I am not allowed on your private property unless you give me permission to do so?

Yes.


3) Would it be justified for me to buy all the property around your house and deny you access to my property as to let you starve?

Assuming you were driven by the desire to maximize your profit (see what I did there?:D) why wouldn't you buy up the property around my property and then negotiate a fee for me to exit my property?



Imagine a dessert village with three water sources. These water sources are private property. The owners deny the villagers access and they die of thirst.

Q: Do property rights and the right to life conflict in this example?

Of course. But why wouldn't the villagers seek water elsewhere. Why would they continue to court the asshats that see them suffer and laugh? In other words, why do your questions always assume people are such monumental buffoons that they need an otherwise more intelligent leftist of sorts to show them the way out of the constant problems their buffoonery leads them into?


1) Do you agree that freedom is 'when one directly controls every aspect of his own life'?
2) Do you agree that authority (rather social hierarchy) means precisely the opposite and therefore are by their very definition mutually exclusive?
3) Do you agree that a boss, defined as "one who makes decisions or exercises authority" in the dictionary has authority?

Yes


4) Do you agree that wage labour, the social relation in which an employee sells his labour to an employer, creates a social relation based on the domination of the employer over the employee as the employer holds a certain amount of authority over his employee?

The labor theory of value has been debunked thoroughly. No one "sells" his labor. He charges interest (his wage) on the value of the product of his labor. The entrepreneur earns a profit as an incentive bare the risk of selling possibly unmarketable products on the market that the employee has created. The entrepreneur paid the employee in advance of earning a profit and is thus entitled to a perk of baring that risk - profit. Wages, are not paid retroactively should the product of those wages prove profitable. Wages, are paid, in advance of profit.


5) Do you agree then that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that capitalism, being based on wage labour which inherently creates social hierarchy, limits the freedom of employees?

No. I thought you said capitalism was based on profit maximization? Which is it? Labor theory or Profit theory?


(That they are free to not take the job or quit is not a valid argument, voluntarily giving up your freedom does not equal freedom).

Indeed.

[Tim Cornelis]

I said:

"Not at all, I'm sick and tired of this right-wing libertarian nonsensical rhetoric. Laissez-faire capitalism LEADS to corporatism as government intervention is a means by which capitalists can maximise their profits."

You asked "How?" even though you already answered this yourself partially.

Capitalists can reap greater profits when the government intervenes on their behalf. The market moves towards greater profits (profit maximisation), thus the market will move towards government intervention--as it has done many times in history.

" Moreover, one of the recurring critiques of a laissez-faire approach to the market is that one big firm will undercut smaller firms b/c it has the money to maintain losses and thus seize control of the market. Would this not suggest that, were monopolization to be as prevalent in a free market as you all insist, businessmen are willing to set aside profit maximization for long term interests?"

And what precisely are these "long term interests"? Greater profits of course.

"3) Would it be justified for me to buy all the property around your house and deny you access to my property as to let you starve?

Assuming you were driven by the desire to maximize your profit (see what I did there?) why wouldn't you buy up the property around my property and then negotiate a fee for me to exit my property?"

Indeed, I see what you did there. You fail to realize that my analogies are simplified examples which, if pushed to its logical ends, would show the errors of your theories.

Of course, why would anyone buy the property around someone's house and deny him access? But to make the example more realistic, what if the private roads are to expensive for one particular person (or more)? These persons would starve, not even because they do not have enough money to buy food but because they cannot afford to access private roads. In any case, it doesn't answer my question: would it be justified to deny anyone access (for whatever reason) and let him starve? What is more important? Property rights or life?

I said: "Do property rights and the right to life conflict in this example?"

Your reply:

"Of course. But why wouldn't the villagers seek water elsewhere. Why would they continue to court the asshats that see them suffer and laugh? In other words, why do your questions always assume people are such monumental buffoons that they need an otherwise more intelligent leftist of sorts to show them the way out of the constant problems their buffoonery leads them into?"

This again fails to realize that it is merely a simplified analogy. The bottom line is that property rights can conflict with the right to life. It is now to show that property rights not only can (i.e. in theory) conflict with the right to life but also do (i.e. in practice). That was the aim of my analogy. If we look at real life examples people are denied life over property all the time, yet right-wing libertarians simultaneously proclaim both rights despite them being incompatible--they inherently conflict.

To my question "4) Do you agree that wage labour, the social relation in which an employee sells his labour to an employer, creates a social relation based on the domination of the employer over the employee as the employer holds a certain amount of authority over his employee?"

You answer:
"The labor theory of value has been debunked thoroughly. No one "sells" his labor. He charges interest (his wage) on the value of the product of his labor. The entrepreneur earns a profit as an incentive bare the risk of selling possibly unmarketable products on the market that the employee has created. The entrepreneur paid the employee in advance of earning a profit and is thus entitled to a perk of baring that risk - profit. Wages, are not paid retroactively should the product of those wages prove profitable. Wages, are paid, in advance of profit."

My question was not "what do you think about the LTV". So far you have failed to answer any of my concluding questions and instead resorted to another subject.

I don't know where this whole "the labour theory of value" thing comes from as wage labour has nothing to do with the LTV. I am not even an adherent of the LTV.

My question simply was wage labour is hierarchical, private property implies wage labour. Thus, capitalism limits freedom, does it not?

"No one "sells" his labor. He charges interest (his wage) on the value of the product of his labor."

So? If I accept this as true, would it change the hierarchical social relations as a result of wage labour? No, you change the subject instead of answering.

") Do you agree then that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that capitalism, being based on wage labour which inherently creates social hierarchy, limits the freedom of employees?"

"No. I thought you said capitalism was based on profit maximization? Which is it? Labor theory or Profit theory?"

Excuse me, what the fuck are you talking about. Asking whether capitalism limits freedom has nothing to with either profits or labour! I mean, I don't know how to explain this. So I guess i'll ask the same question:

Do you agree then that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that capitalism, being based on wage labour which inherently creates social hierarchy, limits the freedom of employees?

this question does not mention or implicitly implies anything about profits.

Follow these simple steps:

You agreed hierarchy limits freedom.
Capitalism is based on wage labour.
Wage labour is the act of the worker charging interest on the value of his labour (i.e. SELLING YOUR LABOUR) to an employer.
When the employee sells his labour by charging interest on the value of his labour the employer (the boss) holds a certain authority over his employee.

You agreed bosses have authority, you agreed this limits freedom. The only logical conclusion: capitalism limits freedom!

[Revolution starts with U]

Not necessarily. It is a system of voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.
Definitions have to be useful. "I capitalismed my '08 Cobalt for Sean's '07 Stratus" does not seem like a very useful definition.
Don't you think it is quite convenient to define capitalism as "voluntary exchange" rather than "a system of private property based on the commodification of labor," as it is?

[RGacky3]

Profit. You can only "do more with less" if you increase the productivity of the fewer people. You can do this most effectively by investing in better equipment and better training, etc etc. Those workers no longer employed are now free to pursue other interests. The wonderful thing about a market economy is that the unemployed labor is a competitive market. Wages are increased in order to attract labor. More employees available means more possible productivity and newer more vibrant markets!

Consider the horse and buggy market. How many hundreds of thousands of employees were displaced by the introduction of the automobile? How many millions were employed in the manufacturing of automobile factories, plants, the automobiles themselves? How many lives were made more pleasant by the higher wages earned in a factory than on a farm?


Its not a competative market when you have major unemployment, if they get laid off, and are free to pursue other things, maybe the market does'nt need them? In fact thats the most likely outcome, because who hire more when you don't need to?


Then obviously, the wages were too high. Perhaps artificially inflated (unionism which, tellingly, contributes to unemployment).


TOo high according to who?


Monopolies earn a profit, no? Entrepreneurs seek profit, no? A profitable monopoly is a tantalizing target. The monopoly might exist for a short time. But Apple was once king of the personal computer industry only to be outpaced and marginalized by the smaller more nimble Microsoft... and now the shoe is on the other foot once more.


ANd you have a duopoly, Industries CAN put up barriers to entry pretty easily, when Microsoft came around the computer industry was quite new and the market had lots and lots of room to grow so thats a bad example.


The question is: what’s likely? Private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, “I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!” But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, “I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence.” Private protection agencies cannot externalize costs like gov'ts can.


Acually YES IT CAN, btw, this sort of thing HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, in countries that allow it or do not provite proper state protection.

Plus the profits you can get muscling out competition, putting down workers revolts, "taking care of" land disputes and so on, would probably WAY, outdo the monthly cost, which for a major corporation probably would'nt be that big anyway.

Also unlike a government military, you don't have to worry about that pesky public opinion.


No. It is a logical outgrowth of the State. The "capitalism" you consider when you level such criticisms at myself and other AnCaps is not capitalism as we see it. Note that we consider ourselves Anarcho-Capitalists. Anarcho- meaning free of the State, and Capitalists- meaning voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges.

We hold our ideal of Voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges without the State as paramount. This is anarcho-capitalism. This is not "capitalism." You describe a statist quo. You criticize the merger of corporation and state as though it were laissez-faire capitalism. It isn't and such a fact is plain for even the most dense to see

Ok, so are one of your fights now getting rid of corporate personhood?


The first world economies are too far advanced from this pathetic stage of market evolution to merit concern, Goti. You chase demons that do not exist.


No they are not, those things were LEGISLATED AGAINST, the market never took care of them.


But many times, businessmen are interested not merely in profit maximization, but revenue flow and r&d, neither of which are profit maximizers.

In what planet are those not profit maximizers? Are you high?


Of course. But why wouldn't the villagers seek water elsewhere. Why would they continue to court the asshats that see them suffer and laugh?

Because they have the water ....

Heres another thing.

Since there IS NO STATE, who enforces private property laws?

[Agnapostate]

This kind of equivocation seems rampant, between two kind of freedom: "free" meaning having legal protection basic "negative rights" like free speech and so on, and "free" in the sense you are using.

Socialist markets are free because they provide freedom from the authoritarianism of the capitalist labor market and the Hobson's choice that compels entry into that hierarchy. There's no alternate form of "free market" that can exist outside of the socialist economy, so there is no equivocation.


State intervention has occurred in the past because firms influence government do to things that favor them, but this doesn't make it a necessary condition.

Intervention is not a necessary criterion of economic activity, hence anarchism. It is a necessary criterion of capitalist economic activity, however, in order to combat market failure. While I've provided several examples, another would be the effects of imperfect information on causing underpayment, as evidenced in Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1992.tb01978.x/abstract): "This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. We use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent."

The consequence is that minimum wages increase employment and productivity (by providing an efficiency wage effect), as evidenced by Do minimum wages raise employment? Evidence from the U.S. retail-trade sector (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537109000025): "This paper examines the impact of minimum wages on earnings and employment in selected branches of the retail-trade sector, 1990–2005, using county-level data on employment and a panel regression framework that allows for county-specific trends in sectoral outcomes. We focus on specific subsectors within retail trade that are identified as particularly low-wage. We find little evidence of disemployment effects once we allow for geographic-specific trends. Indeed, in many sectors the evidence points to modest (but robust) positive employment effects."


The infant industry argument is not widely accepted.

It is increasingly accepted by economists, who generally have liberal tendencies to begin with, along the lines of Krugman and Stiglitz.

It may not be accepted by pseudo-libertarian "Internet economists" who reject empirical research, but that is both a cause and consequence of their marginality.


Countries that industrialized with high tariff barriers have done so in spite of the protections, not because of them.

The majority of first-world countries have done so historically. It's curious that they should all be able to do so "in spite of" such developmental policy.

[ZombieRothbard]

Well, your anti-trust example I would disagree with. For one, the definition of monopoly at the time was absurd and does not meet the Austrian definition of "monopoly", in the sense that the only thing that matters is if they are charging a monopoly price. The mere fact that somebody has a monopoly on something isn't useful at all to determining whether they actually are wielding any monopoly power whatsoever.

If you are like me and agree with Rothbard's theory on monopoly, then you would realize that even if a business was able to "monopolize" a market (they are the only ones selling a specific good or service), they still face a downward sloping demand curve. As they raise the price, the amount of consumers willing to spend the money shrinks. In this way, the idea of there being monopoly power is a myth. Even if there is only one maker of steel for example, he cannot charge ever increasing prices, because as prices raise people would begin to ration steal, find more efficient uses for it, find alternatives to steel, or simply go without it.

In the 1800's I don't recall there ever being even a mainstream definition "monopoly" in existence. The state said that there was too few competitors, and thus there needed to be increased regulation in the form of anti-trust. But what they failed to realize, is that when determining whether there is a monopoly price or not, the amount of competitors is meaningless. What matters is if the prices are being raised by use of monopoly power, and because of this the monopoly profit being made off the use of the monopoly power is not going to satisfy the other wants or demands of society (this is what Mises thought, before Rothbard corrected him).

So basically, what anti-trust did is actually create regulations preventing the natural consolodation of business in some sectors of the economy, basically making them less efficient in satisfying consumer needs, and basically fueling the start to an era of corporatism, where the government begins helping out private industry.

[ZombieRothbard]

1. How would anarcho-capitalism be implemented without creating mass panic?

Gradually. Personally I am not so much interested in the process of achieving anarcho-capitalism, I think we are too far away from that right now and it won't happen in my lifetime. I am more interested in ways to keep the idea's alive into the future. The only immediate chance for anarcho-capitalism is Galt's Gulch style retreatism, which I personally don't think I would want to take part in, because there aren't many chicks into anarcho-capitalism and I don't want to live in a sausage fest.


2. How do you know that it wouldn't be profitable to create a mercenary army?

Well I think anybody would be lying if they said they absolutely didn't know it wouldn't be profitable. Even if it is profitable, it would be better than a world literally full of state run military machines fueled by fiat currency slaughtering each other day in and day out. Even if a mercenary army was erected and the creator was somehow able to overcome the MANY obstacles required for such an armies creation, the subsequent skirmishes that would result would not likely outmatch the millions and millions of dead over the past centuries at the hands of the state.



3. What about people who cannot support themselves and who have no government provided safety net to fall back on?

There are many economic answers to this question, wherein a society with less regulation would actually create more employment opportunities and a higher overall standard of living. But I don't want to go into those, because that is about 10 more topics worth of material. Instead I would just say that given the fact that millions are donated to political campaigns each year (and wasted on getting politicians elected), people would simply directly donate that money to the causes they care about. So instead of your 5 dollar donation to the campaign going to pay for some fucking streamers, they would go to buy a can of soup for a hungry guy in the streets.

[DinodudeEpic]

Which definition of capitalism do you ('right' libs, although you all are pretty much free-market far lefties under my definitions of left and right.) are you talking about?

.An economy that is controlled by private bosses
.An economy that involves voluntary exchanges

If you mean the latter, then I'm a capitalist under that definition (You call it a market economy though.). If you mean the former, I'm not a capitalist and your system will only produce semi-states that oppress just as much as the previous system.

Why associate yourselves with the right-wing? (pseudo-libertarians, conservatives, fascists, and other such ideologies) You have all the characteristics of a leftist (wants social progress, etc.) We shouldn't associate left and right with economics, but with political values. So, we disagree on one issue. (how the economy should be run.) But, we agree in so many others. We agree on fighting against the status quo and moving society on, we dislike religious policies being enacted, we dislike racism, we want extended civil liberties, and so on. I mean, we can all learn great ideas from each other and decide for ourselves which idea is the best. 'Right' libertarians can learn about how the workers can own the means of production via economic democracy and they can chose. Socialists like me can learn about voluntary exchanges via market mechanisms and maybe adopt them into our systems depending whether we like them or not. (I am a market socialist though.)

So, you all may say 'we are not leftists' or 'they are not leftists' But, where does left and right come from? They came from the French Revolution when the Revolutionaries were placed to the left and the counter-revolutionaries were placed to the right. The practice has continued throughout the 19th century. Where the socialists and communists sat, the radicals and classical liberals sat too. Maybe they argued, maybe they fought, maybe the radicals and classical liberals have to modernize, but I would like some extra diversity in the left. But, we would have to unite, especially when forces against our rights arise. For theses reasons, I consider SOME 'right'-libertarians (the kind who are not tea partiers.) to be leftists in their own right.

[RGacky3]

Well I think anybody would be lying if they said they absolutely didn't know it wouldn't be profitable. Even if it is profitable, it would be better than a world literally full of state run military machines fueled by fiat currency slaughtering each other day in and day out. Even if a mercenary army was erected and the creator was somehow able to overcome the MANY obstacles required for such an armies creation, the subsequent skirmishes that would result would not likely outmatch the millions and millions of dead over the past centuries at the hands of the state.


We have examples of this RIGHT NOW, and they are not pretty, and they do act much worse than armies of democratically accountalbe states.

I have another question, DO anarcho Capitalists Know the difference between, authoritarian states, corporatist states, democratically accountable states and so on? I.e. do they know that all states are NOT created equal and how does this effect their ideology?

[ZombieRothbard]

Which definition of capitalism do you ('right' libs, although you all are pretty much free-market far lefties under my definitions of left and right.) are you talking about?

.An economy that is controlled by private bosses
.An economy that involves voluntary exchanges

Well, both of those actually. We believe in voluntary association as well, and if you voluntarily wish to work for a capitalist there should not be any problem with that (if by private bosses, you mean capitalists).


If you mean the latter, then I'm a capitalist under that definition (You call it a market economy though.). If you mean the former, I'm not a capitalist and your system will only produce semi-states that oppress just as much as the previous system.

I personally call it a market economy to avoid the implications of calling it capitalist, since capitalist has now taken on a different meaning implying state corporatism.


Why associate yourselves with the right-wing? (pseudo-libertarians, conservatives, fascists, and other such ideologies) You have all the characteristics of a leftist (wants social progress, etc.) We shouldn't associate left and right with economics, but with political values. So, we disagree on one issue. (how the economy should be run.) But, we agree in so many others. We agree on fighting against the status quo and moving society on, we dislike religious policies being enacted, we dislike racism, we want extended civil liberties, and so on. I mean, we can all learn great ideas from each other and decide for ourselves which idea is the best. 'Right' libertarians can learn about how the workers can own the means of production via economic democracy and they can chose. Socialists like me can learn about voluntary exchanges via market mechanisms and maybe adopt them into our systems depending whether we like them or not. (I am a market socialist though.)

Well I think what you are looking for is mutualism, which basically does exactly what you are suggesting. Kevin Carson often cites key figures in the "right-libertarian" movement, but interprets them differently and basically puts a "market socialist" spin on it. I personally reject mutualism, but I have far more respect for mutualists than I do for other leftists in terms of economics. At least the mutualists give an effort to support the economic side of the socialist argument, without invoking ethics and pure criticism of what you would call capitalism and I would call fascism.


So, you all may say 'we are not leftists' or 'they are not leftists' But, where does left and right come from? They came from the French Revolution when the Revolutionaries were placed to the left and the counter-revolutionaries were placed to the right. The practice has continued throughout the 19th century. Where the socialists and communists sat, the radicals and classical liberals sat too. Maybe they argued, maybe they fought, maybe the radicals and classical liberals have to modernize, but I would like some extra diversity in the left. But, we would have to unite, especially when forces against our rights arise. For theses reasons, I consider SOME 'right'-libertarians (the kind who are not tea partiers.) to be leftists in their own right.

A lot of "right-libertarians" agree with you. I personally don't like the label left OR right. I just prefer to call myself a classical liberal or sometimes a "true liberal" if I am provoking American liberals who think they are "uber liberal". I think the left and right dichotomy is a load of bull, and I personally don't want to be associated with either, seeing as how both have their monsters and their horrible histories of tyranny.

[ZombieRothbard]

We have examples of this RIGHT NOW, and they are not pretty, and they do act much worse than armies of democratically accountalbe states.

Well I think it is worth mentioning that most "mercenary armies" in existence today that I am aware of receive large funding from states, which basically does not make them truly private. By mentioning this I am not trying to argue that truly private "mercenary armies" (which no ancap would advocate for the existence of, since most ancaps advocate insurance based defense contractors) would be more professional or respect human rights more, but rather that they would likely not even exist in the first place.


I have another question, DO anarcho Capitalists Know the difference between, authoritarian states, corporatist states, democratically accountable states and so on? I.e. do they know that all states are NOT created equal and how does this effect their ideology?

I can't speak for all ancaps on this or anything else I say, but personally I think that all of them are gangs of bandits and thieves sucking the wealth out of the productive sector and re-allocating it to people who didn't earn it like cronies and willfully unemployed loafers (etc.)

State democracy to me is basically like an authoritarian regime that has managed to make its citizens complacent by making conditions more tolerable and making people believe they have a choice in things they really don't. In management class there is even a tactic they teach us called Consultative Democracy, where you ask your employees for suggestions, and no matter what they say you do what you wanted to do in the first place, but you make them feel like they had a choice in the matter. Basically, without invoking my ethical concerns over democracy, I believe it is pretty much just a bunch of highly adapted bandits that have discovered that making things somewhat favorable and giving people a say in the matters will keep them complacent enough for long term looting.

[Revolution starts with U]

At least the mutualists give an effort to support the economic side of the socialist argument, without invoking ethics and pure criticism of what you would call capitalism and I would call fascism.

Ya, what kind of asshole invokes ethics when dealing with human interactions?! jerks



Well I think it is worth mentioning that most "mercenary armies" in existence today that I am aware of receive large funding from states, which basically does not make them truly private. By mentioning this I am not trying to argue that truly private "mercenary armies" (which no ancap would advocate for the existence of, since most ancaps advocate insurance based defense contractors) would be more professional or respect human rights more, but rather that they would likely not even exist in the first place.

If you call it something different, it will be different! :D

[danyboy27]

Capitalism need rules and regulation to ''work'', otherwise it would spin out of control and destroy itself.

The state and the capitalists didnt agree on the 8 hour week out of pure kindness, they did it beccause there was so much riot, protest sabotage and strike, the whole system was collapsing on their head, so they passed laws and regulations.

Personally i think right libertarian are not verry good capitalist beccause they believe in vodoo economics, aka capitalist are geniuses and the market will fix everything.

Kenyesian and ''left'' kenyesian on the other hand tend to be more rational, and even if they got it all wrong on a communistic point of views, at least they know what they are talking about.

[ZombieRothbard]

Capitalism need rules and regulation to ''work'', otherwise it would spin out of control and destroy itself.

The state and the capitalists didnt agree on the 8 hour week out of pure kindness, they did it beccause there was so much riot, protest sabotage and strike, the whole system was collapsing on their head, so they passed laws and regulations.

Personally i think right libertarian are not verry good capitalist beccause they believe in vodoo economics, aka capitalist are geniuses and the market will fix everything.

Kenyesian and ''left'' kenyesian on the other hand tend to be more rational, and even if they got it all wrong on a communistic point of views, at least they know what they are talking about.

The Austrian School doesn't say capitalists are geniuses, that would imply some sort of central control shit like the Keynesianism you so adore. If you don't think capitalists are geniuses, than why the hell do you think the government magically are? The Austrian School professes that THE PEOPLE drive the economy, that the economy is organic and as a result needs to be left alone. It actually views the capitalist as a slave to the consumer, the capitalist must fill a market demand or else they won't have any business. The capitalist is the servant of the consumers in a free market economy.

I know you will likely reply with "yeah, but I saw pictures of kids in a coal mine in public school one time". Well public institutions have been infiltrated with marxist thought, and they have basically managed to wipe the historical record clean. Now you hear about all the destruction Carnegie caused by selling large quantities of steel at cheap prices. Then the state is incinerating babies a few years after his death with firebombs on Dresden, somehow I am supposed to come to the conclusion that business is some sort of evil shit that kills people, and the state is going to fix it for us.

[Distruzio]

Definitions have to be useful. "I capitalismed my '08 Cobalt for Sean's '07 Stratus" does not seem like a very useful definition.
Don't you think it is quite convenient to define capitalism as "voluntary exchange" rather than "a system of private property based on the commodification of labor," as it is?


Capitalism doesn't rely on a labor theory of value, does it? :) Therefore, labor can hardly be considered a commodity in capitalist thought. Moreover, you would "capitalism" your 08 Cobalt for some money which would then be "capitalismed" for Sean's 07 Stratus. After all, a double inequality of wants is rare. Money serves to facilitate the voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

[Distruzio]

Capitalists can reap greater profits when the government intervenes on their behalf. The market moves towards greater profits (profit maximisation), thus the market will move towards government intervention--as it has done many times in history.

Which is why AnCaps, laissez-faire(ists), and and other pro-market schools of thought advocate the abolition of gov't intervention. Capitalism is not necessarily pro-State.


And what precisely are these "long term interests"? Greater profits of course.

Which is my point. If the businessman forsakes current profits for long term profits by undercutting his competition to drive them out of the market b/c he has the money to sustain himself, then he won't ever be able to raise prices again. The moment he begins to earn a profit again, other greedy capitalists will seek entrance into the market. Without the gov't to legislate them out of the market, he will be unable to stop them. He will have to once more forsake profits for the sake of driving out competition, thus negating your whole hypothesis.


what if the private roads are to expensive for one particular person (or more)? These persons would starve, not even because they do not have enough money to buy food but because they cannot afford to access private roads. In any case, it doesn't answer my question: would it be justified to deny anyone access (for whatever reason) and let him starve? What is more important? Property rights or life?

Why would a private road owner own private roads that were too expensive for people to use? What is the point of owning anything that you cannot use to better your own standard of living? Why are the people who are so poor that they cannot afford to drive on a road, wealthy enough to own a car or purchase food? Why wouldn't they grow their own food?

In any case, you aren't asking a question of any merit. You're being silly. Human action isn't simple. It isn't automatic. Human beings are not stupid.


This again fails to realize that it is merely a simplified analogy. The bottom line is that property rights can conflict with the right to life. It is now to show that property rights not only can (i.e. in theory) conflict with the right to life but also do (i.e. in practice). That was the aim of my analogy. If we look at real life examples people are denied life over property all the time, yet right-wing libertarians simultaneously proclaim both rights despite them being incompatible--they inherently conflict.

No, they don't. The right to life is a property right.


My question was not "what do you think about the LTV". So far you have failed to answer any of my concluding questions and instead resorted to another subject.

No I haven't. You assumed that labor is something of a commodity. Something that the capitalist system values in the same way you - the non-capitalist - value. You asserted an implied LTV. Capitalism does not abide this definition of labor value.


I don't know where this whole "the labour theory of value" thing comes from as wage labour has nothing to do with the LTV. I am not even an adherent of the LTV.

Then stick to consistent definitions of your terms.


My question simply was wage labour is hierarchical, private property implies wage labour. Thus, capitalism limits freedom, does it not?

No it doesn't. What is hierarchy and how is that bad?


So? If I accept this as true, would it change the hierarchical social relations as a result of wage labour? No, you change the subject instead of answering.

Only if you asked another question who only subject was the demonizing of the subject itself. I'll answer questions directly if you actually ask questions, not cast accusations. I've got no problem being a minority on this site. I've got no problem responding to accusations. I do take issue with being condemned b/c I won't take accusations of evil deeds lying down. You are casting stones that I reveal as wildly thrown, and respond with tantrums.

Ask a question. I'll answer.


Do you agree then that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that capitalism, being based on wage labour which inherently creates social hierarchy, limits the freedom of employees?

No. I thought you said capitalism was based on profit maximization? Which is it? Labor theory or Profit theory? Capitalism is not based on wage labor. Capitalism does not create social hierarchy (it's an economic system, not a political or social system). Capitalism does not limit the freedom of employees.

In order to understand where you are coming from, I'll need to know what you mean when you say "wage labor," "hierarchy," and "freedom."


You agreed hierarchy limits freedom.

Where?


Capitalism is based on wage labour.

How?


Wage labour is the act of the worker charging interest on the value of his labour (i.e. SELLING YOUR LABOUR) to an employer.
When the employee sells his labour by charging interest on the value of his labour the employer (the boss) holds a certain authority over his employee.

And? Does the laborer know how to market the product of his labor the way the "boss" does? Does the laborer know how to organize the production process the way the "boss" does? Is the laborer as knowledgeable about the product of his labor and its possible uses as the "boss" is? Has the laborer not voluntarily humbled himself by acknowledging the superiority of the "boss" in these examples by deferring to the "bosses" expertise? Is that hierarchy? Is that bad?


You agreed bosses have authority, you agreed this limits freedom. The only logical conclusion: capitalism limits freedom!

Where did I say that?:cool:

[cogar66]

EDIT: Fuck it, I'm not bothering with this right now.

[Distruzio]

Its not a competative market when you have major unemployment, if they get laid off, and are free to pursue other things, maybe the market does'nt need them? In fact thats the most likely outcome, because who hire more when you don't need to?

Maybe that particular market does not need them. Indeed. The folks that were once employed as farmers pre-industrial revolution were free to enter the burgeoning factories. The folks who were once employed as factory workers pre-post-industrialism were free to enter the service sector.

More importantly, these shifts in working trends are not absolute, do not occur overnight, and are not universal. Your criticizing very specific labor markets as though they were a general labor market affecting all markets. Also, there is not a single "market."


TOo high according to who?

The workers accepting lower wages.


ANd you have a duopoly, Industries CAN put up barriers to entry pretty easily, when Microsoft came around the computer industry was quite new and the market had lots and lots of room to grow so thats a bad example.

How do industries prevent market participants from arising without a gov't? The computer industry was well established by the time Microsoft came around. Analog computers had been around since before the second world war. Digital computers since the 70s. Microsoft entered a market generations old.


Acually YES IT CAN, btw, this sort of thing HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, in countries that allow it or do not provite proper state protection.

Examples?


Plus the profits you can get muscling out competition, putting down workers revolts, "taking care of" land disputes and so on, would probably WAY, outdo the monthly cost, which for a major corporation probably would'nt be that big anyway.

Erm.. maybe you misinterpreted who will be paying that monthly cost. The customer will be paying. Not the service provider.


Also unlike a government military, you don't have to worry about that pesky public opinion.

Unlike the private market, gov'ts don't have to worry about that pesky customer satisfaction problem.


Ok, so are one of your fights now getting rid of corporate personhood?

Always has been.


No they are not, those things were LEGISLATED AGAINST, the market never took care of them.

It did.



In what planet are those not profit maximizers? Are you high?

The business world. I wish.



Because they have the water ....

The only producers of water in the entire world, so greedy in their pursuit of profit, would refuse to sell that water? Nonsense.



Since there IS NO STATE, who enforces private property laws?

Contracts, insurance, and arbitration.

[Distruzio]

.An economy that involves voluntary exchanges

That's the one!


If you mean the latter, then I'm a capitalist under that definition (You call it a market economy though.). If you mean the former, I'm not a capitalist and your system will only produce semi-states that oppress just as much as the previous system.

AnCap =/= capitalism as defined by the leftists (we call it corporatism)


Why associate yourselves with the right-wing? (pseudo-libertarians, conservatives, fascists, and other such ideologies)

We don't associate ourselves with them. Leftists associate us with them.


You have all the characteristics of a leftist (wants social progress, etc.) We shouldn't associate left and right with economics, but with political values. So, we disagree on one issue. (how the economy should be run.) But, we agree in so many others.

Note our presence on RevLeft?


We agree on fighting against the statist quo and moving society on, we dislike religious policies being enacted,

Dislike religious policies being enacted universally.


we dislike racism,

Here we differ with the leftist. The leftist seeks to abolish that which he "dislikes." We right-libs seek to secede from that which we dislike. The racist should be free to enjoy his bigotry all he likes.


we want extended civil liberties, and so on. I mean, we can all learn great ideas from each other and decide for ourselves which idea is the best. 'Right' libertarians can learn about how the workers can own the means of production via economic democracy and they can chose. Socialists like me can learn about voluntary exchanges via market mechanisms and maybe adopt them into our systems depending whether we like them or not. (I am a market socialist though.)

That's why we're here, :brofist:


So, you all may say 'we are not leftists' or 'they are not leftists' But, where does left and right come from? They came from the French Revolution when the Revolutionaries were placed to the left and the counter-revolutionaries were placed to the right.

Ew.


The practice has continued throughout the 19th century. Where the socialists and communists sat, the radicals and classical liberals sat too. Maybe they argued, maybe they fought, maybe the radicals and classical liberals have to modernize, but I would like some extra diversity in the left. But, we would have to unite, especially when forces against our rights arise. For theses reasons, I consider SOME 'right'-libertarians (the kind who are not tea partiers.) to be leftists in their own right.

;)

[Agnapostate]

That's the one!

If capitalism is simply an economy dominated by voluntary exchange, then socialism must also be logically defined as a form of capitalism, which reduces the term to incoherence. This definition is inaccurate regardless; capitalism is an economic structure dominated by private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of allocation, and wage labor.


AnCap =/= capitalism as defined by the leftists (we call it corporatism)

Ludwig von Mises refers to capitalism by its name in his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.


"[C]apitalism is still very vigorous in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist production has made very remarkable progress even in these last years. Methods of production were greatly improved. Consumers have been supplied with better and cheaper goods and with many new articles unheard of a short time ago. Many countries have expanded the size and improved the quality of their manufacturing. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better, and cheaper goods.

It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians, and labor union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserved credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.

Lew Rockwell concurs with Mises's analysis, and argues the same theme in his article Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism (http://mises.org/daily/2982).


You are surrounded by the blessings of capitalism. The buffet table, which you and your lunch partners only had to walk in a building to find, has a greater variety of food at a cheaper price than that which was available to any living person — king, lord, duke, plutocrat, or pope — in almost all of the history of the world. Not even fifty years ago would this have been imaginable.

All of history has been defined by the struggle for food. And yet that struggle has been abolished, not just for the rich but for everyone living in developed economies. The ancients, peering into this scene, might have assumed it to be Elysium. Medieval man conjured up such scenes only in visions of Utopia. Even in the late 19th century, the most gilded palace of the richest industrialist required a vast staff and immense trouble to come anywhere near approximating it.

We owe this scene to capitalism. To put it differently, we owe this scene to centuries of capital accumulation at the hands of free people who have put capital to work on behalf of economic innovations, at once competing with others for profit and cooperating with millions upon millions of people in an ever-expanding global network of the division of labor. The savings, investments, risks, and work of hundreds of years and uncountable numbers of free people have gone into making this scene possible, thanks to the ever-remarkable capacity for a society developing under conditions of liberty to achieve the highest aspirations of the society's members.

Rockwell's idea of the historical development is absurd, and refuted by an extensive literature that has developed from Marx's writings on primitive accumulation to Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand (http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html).

Moving on, in contrast to Mises and Rockwell, Congressman Ron Paul declares to the U.S. House of Representatives that capitalism cannot be blamed for economic hardships:


Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names — Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

Broadly, pseudo-libertarians shifting rhetoric likely corresponds to business cycle fluctuations, with them referring to "capitalism" during boom periods and "corporatism" during bust periods.


We don't associate ourselves with them. Leftists associate us with them.

The founder of pseudo-anarchism, Murray Rothbard, associated himself with various reactionaries during the last years of his life, indeed, the last months of his life. An example is his article Right-Wing Populism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html), which discusses strategies for drawing support from the constituency that voted for white supremacist David Duke.


A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short:

l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.

2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.

7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let's solve our problems at home.

8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.

Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that "establishment of religion" means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.

So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position.

While Rothbard aligned with leftists during the 1960s for strategic purposes, he never deviated far from the views that caused him to support Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy in 1948. Surely the founder of pseudo-anarchism and a major pseudo-libertarian theorist is of relevance in analyzing the affinities between that ideology and other rightist ideologies.


Here we differ with the leftist. The leftist seeks to abolish that which he "dislikes." We right-libs seek to secede from that which we dislike. The racist should be free to enjoy his bigotry all he likes.

Rothbard believed that genetically determined differences between "racial" groups would result in natural stratification similar to that which currently exists, as he wrote in his article Race: That Murray Book! (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html): "If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and discriminatory' and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors."

Two facts jump to mind. The first is that stratification in ethnic groups' socioeconomic status in the United States exists commensurate to the residual distributive injustice from their historic oppression rather than genetic determinism's predictions of where it should be, namely, Native Americans rather than African-Americans are the poorest ethnic group in the country, despite the fact that the latter are considered inferior by genetic determinists. The second is that Rothbard's use of the phrase, "if and when...property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more," indicates that he believes that they have been triumphant at some point in the past.

Pseudo-libertarianism is ultimately based, as James Arnt Aune writes in Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness, on "tapping into deep class and racial resentments and coded as 'antigovernment' resistance."

[Skooma Addict]

If capitalism is simply an economy dominated by voluntary exchange, then socialism must also be logically defined as a form of capitalism, which reduces the term to incoherence. This definition is inaccurate regardless; capitalism is an economic structure dominated by private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of allocation, and wage labor.

This is the only definition of capitalism that actually makes sense. Defining it as a "system of voluntary exchange" makes absolutely no sense. Capitalism and private property based on the homesteading principle is only "voluntary" for those who agree with it. It is not voluntary for people who disagree with it. Besides, the number of people who would voluntarily pay taxes is greater than the number of people who would voluntarily choose to adopt anarcho-capitalism or any form of anarchism for that matter.

[RGacky3]

Well I think it is worth mentioning that most "mercenary armies" in existence today that I am aware of receive large funding from states, which basically does not make them truly private. By mentioning this I am not trying to argue that truly private "mercenary armies" (which no ancap would advocate for the existence of, since most ancaps advocate insurance based defense contractors) would be more professional or respect human rights more, but rather that they would likely not even exist in the first place.


You mean like they do in South Africa for example? Or the ones that work for diamond mining companies or whatever in Africa?


I can't speak for all ancaps on this or anything else I say, but personally I think that all of them are gangs of bandits and thieves sucking the wealth out of the productive sector and re-allocating it to people who didn't earn it like cronies and willfully unemployed loafers (etc.)


In other words no, you don't have any concept of that. BTW the "productive sector" of Capitalism is a state product (property laws).


State democracy to me is basically like an authoritarian regime that has managed to make its citizens complacent by making conditions more tolerable and making people believe they have a choice in things they really don't. In management class there is even a tactic they teach us called Consultative Democracy, where you ask your employees for suggestions, and no matter what they say you do what you wanted to do in the first place, but you make them feel like they had a choice in the matter. Basically, without invoking my ethical concerns over democracy, I believe it is pretty much just a bunch of highly adapted bandits that have discovered that making things somewhat favorable and giving people a say in the matters will keep them complacent enough for long term looting.

Let me ask you, the Pullman situation, where the town/company was almost all private property of Mr. Pullman, that would be preferable to you than a democratic state right?

What I get from your post is that you don't know the difference nor do you care, ANYTHING, that is not market driven your against (whether that alternative is democracy or a monarchy is the same to you), the fact that you don't get the difference is a bit sad.


Maybe that particular market does not need them. Indeed. The folks that were once employed as farmers pre-industrial revolution were free to enter the burgeoning factories. The folks who were once employed as factory workers pre-post-industrialism were free to enter the service sector.


No they were not, ONLY if they could get a job, which for many people is unlikely at 16% unemployment for example. If they were lucky enough to get a job, they had a lifetime of brutal exploitation to look forward to anyway.


More importantly, these shifts in working trends are not absolute, do not occur overnight, and are not universal. Your criticizing very specific labor markets as though they were a general labor market affecting all markets. Also, there is not a single "market."


I'm speaking overall, and this is something any sane person understands, people will be left out, and as the economy becomes more efficient MORE people will be left out (which sucks for them, but it also kills demand).

You never addressed my issue at all.


The workers accepting lower wages.


you mean the umemployed people just desperate for any job right?


How do industries prevent market participants from arising without a gov't? The computer industry was well established by the time Microsoft came around. Analog computers had been around since before the second world war. Digital computers since the 70s. Microsoft entered a market generations old.


Almost ALL computer technology was developed by the government, and then handed to the private sector, so thats a pretty bad example for your case.


Examples?


War lords, Mafias, Priave security companies in south Africa or other countries, mercinaries and so on.


Erm.. maybe you misinterpreted who will be paying that monthly cost. The customer will be paying. Not the service provider.


Not necessarily, you only need an elementary knowlege of buisiness to know the different options on this, and I hope I don't actually have to explain it to you.


Unlike the private market, gov'ts don't have to worry about that pesky customer satisfaction problem.


Costumer satisfaction i.e. RICH PEOPLE, i.e. the highest bidder.

Not ONLY do libertarians not get the difference between different types of governments, they don't understand the difference between wealthy and poor customers.


It did.


No it did'nt, There are LAWS ON THE BOOKS that had to be enforced, are you gonna make me bring up sources? I'll do it, but only if you say sorry after.


The business world. I wish.


Revenue FLOW IS THE DEFINITION OF PROFITS (minus expenses), R&D if effective gives you a better product or a more efficient process with means MORE PROFITS, (never mind most R&D is done by the state anyway).

Eitherway if your gonna argue as the Capitalist, for gods sake know something about capitalism and buisiness.

Its sad when the Socialist knows more about buisiness than the capitalist.


The only producers of water in the entire world, so greedy in their pursuit of profit, would refuse to sell that water? Nonsense.


Why so why don't this idiots in the desert just leave the desert?? Duh, they can't go ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD right?


Contracts, insurance, and arbitration.

That does'nt answer the question, WHO ENFORCES PROPERTY LAWS?

[Distruzio]

No they were not, ONLY if they could get a job, which for many people is unlikely at 16% unemployment for example. If they were lucky enough to get a job, they had a lifetime of brutal exploitation to look forward to anyway.

The unemployed could lower their wage expectation.


I'm speaking overall, and this is something any sane person understands, people will be left out, and as the economy becomes more efficient MORE people will be left out (which sucks for them, but it also kills demand).

Those left out are usually left out temporarily and usually, even without the coercion of the State, have access to fraternal institutions that provide for them in dire circumstances.


you mean the umemployed people just desperate for any job right?

If it puts food on the table...


Almost ALL computer technology was developed by the government, and then handed to the private sector, so thats a pretty bad example for your case.

Actually, I'm quite aware of the gov't involvement in the computer industry. Which is why it is the perfect expression of private versus public innovation. The gov't at best managed analog computers and digital computers that struggled with basic mathematics that cost billions of dollars. The private sector improved a thousand million fold what the public sector could not. Microsoft took hold in a market where the average computer was the size of a room and cost several thousand dollars. Now, barely a generation later, anyone - literally anyone - can own a computer. From a cell phone to a home desktop. Microsoft made all that possible. :)


War lords, Mafias, Priave security companies in south Africa or other countries, mercinaries and so on.

Examples of these entities externalizing costs?


Not ONLY do libertarians not get the difference between different types of governments, they don't understand the difference between wealthy and poor customers.

Of course we understand the difference between the wealthy and the less wealthy. We just aren't so arrogant as to presume that our innate classism will somehow save the planet (yes, I am saying the egalitarian, in fighting for equal opportunities to attain wealth via class theory is himself, a classist discriminator)


No it did'nt, There are LAWS ON THE BOOKS that had to be enforced, are you gonna make me bring up sources? I'll do it, but only if you say sorry after.

I won't. B/c the laws came after the market had already begun to make such action feasible. The laws merely coercively expanded the action and foisted it upon all market participants whether they were ready for it or not.


Revenue FLOW IS THE DEFINITION OF PROFITS (minus expenses), R&D if effective gives you a better product or a more efficient process with means MORE PROFITS, (never mind most R&D is done by the state anyway).

:laugh: This is too much. Seriously? Profit is the money left after costs are deducted. Revenue is the income before costs are deducted. In what universe are those two things, the same?

In 2009 GM announced revenue of $26,352,000,000 for the period of July 10 through Sept. 30. In that time period they lost $1,151,000,000. Tell me, how is revenue the same as profit?

Moreover, most R&D is done by the private sector. Not the State.


Eitherway if your gonna argue as the Capitalist, for gods sake know something about capitalism and buisiness.

I don't argue as a Capitalist. I argue as an anarcho-capitalist.


Why so why don't this idiots in the desert just leave the desert?? Duh, they can't go ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD right?

Random capslock won't make your point any less silly. Those "idiots" in the desert obviously find sources of water without seeking out the 3 sources in our counterfactual hypothesis.


That does'nt answer the question, WHO ENFORCES PROPERTY LAWS?

Contract, insurance, and arbitration. Those who adhere to contract, those who hold and provide insurance, and those who hold and provide arbitration. ;)

[Distruzio]

If capitalism is simply an economy dominated by voluntary exchange, then socialism must also be logically defined as a form of capitalism, which reduces the term to incoherence. This definition is inaccurate regardless; capitalism is an economic structure dominated by private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of allocation, and wage labor.

Hmm... Maybe I was less accurate than I could have been. How about: Socialism is the institutionalized expropriation of property to facilitate voluntary exchange. Capitalism is the institutionalized recognition of property to facilitate voluntary exchange.


Ludwig von Mises refers to capitalism by its name in his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.

;)Mises wasn't an ancap. He was a minarchist.


Lew Rockwell concurs with Mises's analysis, and argues the same theme in his article Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism (http://mises.org/daily/2982).

;)True enough, and in our circles, we ancaps refer to capitalism as we concieve of it. Since Rev Starts With U and other leftists on this site insisted that capitalism is what we term corporatism, I chose to adhere to the definition you all prefer. Hence, on RevLeft, AnCap =/= Capitalism.


The founder of pseudo-anarchism, Murray Rothbard, associated himself with various reactionaries during the last years of his life, indeed, the last months of his life.... While Rothbard aligned with leftists during the 1960s for strategic purposes, he never deviated far from the views that caused him to support Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy in 1948. Surely the founder of pseudo-anarchism and a major pseudo-libertarian theorist is of relevance in analyzing the affinities between that ideology and other rightist ideologies.

It is.


Rothbard's use of the phrase, "if and when...property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more," indicates that he believes that they have been triumphant at some point in the past.

And? I'm waiting on a point.

I love the way you write, I really do. Do not stop, please. Only... so many are prone to wax eloquent and cite much that amounts to little more than I know something about what you are talking about. Obviously I do not consider AnCaps "psuedo" anything, so I do not need to respond to your last citation... I can't help but notice that you cited quite a bit from Austrians in order to disprove anarcho-capitalism (even though Mises was not ancap) and also provide a veil of objectivity to your critique only to conclude with an obviously biased representation of your original hypothesis.

[cogar66]

[QUOTE=Distruzio] How about: Socialism is the institutionalized expropriation of property to facilitate voluntary exchange.[\QUOTE ]
http://www.nataliedee.com/102605/i-said-what.jpg

[RGacky3]

The unemployed could lower their wage expectation.


If there are not jobs there are no jobs ...


Those left out are usually left out temporarily and usually, even without the coercion of the State, have access to fraternal institutions that provide for them in dire circumstances.


So basically "Beg"


If it puts food on the table...


Sure, but the more Capitalism the more and more are in that situation.

Keep in mind that you did not counter the argument (fact) that Capitalism leads to higher and higher unemployment, which in turn leads to a demand crash, which in turn leads to a crash in capitalism, that is unless you have purpetual growth which is impossible unless you make bubbles which will pop and lead to a crash.

Not only does it inevitable lead to its collapse (the more market based the faster and worse the collapse), but its morally indefensable, it leads to plutocracy and mass extreme poverty.


Actually, I'm quite aware of the gov't involvement in the computer industry. Which is why it is the perfect expression of private versus public innovation. The gov't at best managed analog computers and digital computers that struggled with basic mathematics that cost billions of dollars. The private sector improved a thousand million fold what the public sector could not. Microsoft took hold in a market where the average computer was the size of a room and cost several thousand dollars. Now, barely a generation later, anyone - literally anyone - can own a computer. From a cell phone to a home desktop. Microsoft made all that possible. :)


Thats because the military was'nt making Personal Computers, and the only reason microsoft could happen was because of the states knowledge.


Examples of these entities externalizing costs?


They don't, but so what, they still are profitable, thats the point.


I won't. B/c the laws came after the market had already begun to make such action feasible. The laws merely coercively expanded the action and foisted it upon all market participants whether they were ready for it or not.


I'm sorry your wrong about that, those laws had to be enforced.


In 2009 GM announced revenue of $26,352,000,000 for the period of July 10 through Sept. 30. In that time period they lost $1,151,000,000. Tell me, how is revenue the same as profit?


REVENUE IS A PART OF PROFIT DUMBASS, revenue is the money you take it, you deduct the costs and you have profits.


Moreover, most R&D is done by the private sector. Not the State.


Most of it is done by state run universities, or non profits.


I don't argue as a Capitalist. I argue as an anarcho-capitalist.


splitting hairs.


Random capslock won't make your point any less silly. Those "idiots" in the desert obviously find sources of water without seeking out the 3 sources in our counterfactual hypothesis.


The point is that those people in the desert need water NOW, and if water is privatized then if htey don't have the money ... THEY DIE.


Contract, insurance, and arbitration. Those who adhere to contract, those who hold and provide insurance, and those who hold and provide arbitration. ;)

That does'nt answer the question, I "own" a plot of land in california, how is my ownership enforced?

[Distruzio]

If there are not jobs there are no jobs ...

There are always jobs available. Always. Not always in the same sector, the same city, the same economy, the same price range, the same time, etc etc. But there are always jobs.


So basically "Beg"

As opposed to starvation? Tell me, what do the unemployed do in the statist quo we enjoy right now?


Keep in mind that you did not counter the argument (fact) that Capitalism leads to higher and higher unemployment, which in turn leads to a demand crash, which in turn leads to a crash in capitalism, that is unless you have purpetual growth which is impossible unless you make bubbles which will pop and lead to a crash.

Of course, how could I have missed that part of my history book that explained that, before the progressive era in America, the economy was the nearest the country came to unbridled capitalism. In such an economy, the average worker was perpetually unemployed. There was mass starvation. Capitalism collapsed and died a horrible platypus filled death. And then the State intervened and life was lollipops and rainbows. The end. ;)

In short, capitalism (the libertarian definition to which ancap is more precisely) does not lead to long term unemployment. It will lead to short term unemployed as the disemployed, sustained as they were by gov't intervention, will be displaced. It isn't capitalism that creates market distortions and bubbles but gov't interventions.


Thats because the military was'nt making Personal Computers, and the only reason microsoft could happen was because of the states knowledge.

You do know this is a forum for anarchists right? The State has no knowledge. It merely expropriates from the productive classes.


They don't, but so what, they still are profitable, thats the point.

That might be your point. But my point in the original post was that only gov'ts can externalize costs. Therefore, a private defense firm will be unable to ignore the wishes of its customers. It will have to account for the fact that the majority of people do not enjoy aggression against others. It will have to account for the fact that aggression against others is expensive business and that, even if there was a population of viking customers somewhere in the world aching for a fight, they would be less willing to send their firm into war against someone else when they realized that they would have to foot the bill.

The State can and does spread this bill across a larger territory than a private firm could possibly hold, and it does so under threat of coercion. That is my point. Mercenary armies are unlikely to occur. Even when financed by the ultra wealthy.


I'm sorry your wrong about that, those laws had to be enforced.

Name one.


REVENUE IS A PART OF PROFIT DUMBASS, revenue is the money you take it, you deduct the costs and you have profits.

The class. You has it! Revenue may be a part of profit, but profit is not revenue. You know, with business savvy like this, you could go places were you to work in GM... or the gov't.


The point is that those people in the desert need water NOW, and if water is privatized then if htey don't have the money ... THEY DIE.

:rolleyes:No. They. Don't. They negotiate. They seek alternatives. They survive. Otherwise, they would not live in the desert. No one discovers a hardship that might lead to the end of their life and thinks, it's too bad there is no one to steal the property of that wealthy a-hole next door for me. I'd be willing to pay them to do so. Paying him for his water is just too hard though. Might as well throw in the towel and die now. I wonder whats on American Idol to- *death.

No one does that.


That does'nt answer the question, I "own" a plot of land in california, how is my ownership enforced?

Under an institution of anarcho-capitalism, or pure capitalism, you sign a contract with those living around you, thus establishing your title to that plot of land and their recognition of that title. You take out insurance on that property, just in case something terrible befalls it. And, should someone violate your property in some way, you turn to an arbitrator to negotiate reparations of damages incurred. How are property rights enforced? I have answered you 3 times now. Contract. Insurance. Arbitration. :cool:

[RGacky3]

There are always jobs available. Always. Not always in the same sector, the same city, the same economy, the same price range, the same time, etc etc. But there are always jobs.

Well right now in the US there are 5 applicants for every job, so no there are not.


As opposed to starvation? Tell me, what do the unemployed do in the statist quo we enjoy right now?


Unemployment benefits .... In a socialist system he'd have a job.

But I'm glad thats your viewpoint, and thats the capitalists viewpoint ... Beg.


In short, capitalism (the libertarian definition to which ancap is more precisely) does not lead to long term unemployment. It will lead to short term unemployed as the disemployed, sustained as they were by gov't intervention, will be displaced. It isn't capitalism that creates market distortions and bubbles but gov't interventions.


You have to make an argument, not just baseless statements, bubbles and distortions ARE market creations, they come from the market.

In short I make an argument, now make an actual argument, show that you know the slightest thing about economics.

I'll repeat it

"that Capitalism leads to higher and higher unemployment, which in turn leads to a demand crash, which in turn leads to a crash in capitalism, that is unless you have purpetual growth which is impossible unless you make bubbles which will pop and lead to a crash."

it leads to higher unemployment because as industries become more efficient they need less people, as the market settles then they'll lay off people, the more unemployed people the more leverage employers have to lower wages and raise hours, leading to MORE unemployment, because employers need to maximise profits they'll lower cost, labor is the most flexible cost so they'll cut it as much, (meaning unemployment), and the more unemployment there is the more they can exploit their workers, and so on.


You do know this is a forum for anarchists right? The State has no knowledge. It merely expropriates from the productive classes.


There we go, NON ARGUMENTS, you hav'nt addressed the point, your just repeating tag lines.


Therefore, a private defense firm will be unable to ignore the wishes of its customers. It will have to account for the fact that the majority of people do not enjoy aggression against others.

The majority of people ARE NOT THE ONES PAYING THE PRIVATE FIRMS are they, it the rich.

So they could'nt give a shit about the majority, if one dude pays them to shoot 100 strikers, and that one dude is the highest bidder, guess what they'll do?


That is my point. Mercenary armies are unlikely to occur. Even when financed by the ultra wealthy.


The problem is your wrong, because they DO occur, evne though there are tons and tons of regulation against them.


Name one.

The 8 hour day, (although it us Unions first), Child labor, (btw, the "market solution" to child labor was the great depression), but you honestly don't think capitalists without the law would'nt get kids to do work for cheaper? or work people more than 8 hours? (they do anyway).


Revenue may be a part of profit, but profit is not revenue. You know, with business savvy like this, you could go places were you to work in GM... or the gov't.


You said revenue is not a profit maximizer .... so getting more money in does not maximise profits? Thats what you said, and it was the dumbest thing probably ever posted here, but your still sticking to the argument.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-wing-libertarianismi-t157713/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gifNo. They. Don't. They negotiate. They seek alternatives.

What they do is kill the owner and take the water.

BTW, this is not a hypothetical this sort of thing happens in Capitalism all the time. Its not that they give up, its that they cannot afford the water so they die.


Otherwise, they would not live in the desert. No one discovers a hardship that might lead to the end of their life and thinks, it's too bad there is no one to steal the property of that wealthy a-hole next door for me. I'd be willing to pay them to do so. Paying him for his water is just too hard though. Might as well throw in the towel and die now. I wonder whats on American Idol to- *death.


Ever see a private healthcare system? It does happen.


Under an institution of anarcho-capitalism, or pure capitalism, you sign a contract with those living around you, thus establishing your title to that plot of land and their recognition of that title. You take out insurance on that property, just in case something terrible befalls it. And, should someone violate your property in some way, you turn to an arbitrator to negotiate reparations of damages incurred. How are property rights enforced? I have answered you 3 times now. Contract. Insurance. Arbitration. http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-wing-libertarianismi-t157713/revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif

So your property is up to the democratic decision of your neighbors? Thats communism budy.

BTW, your take out insurance, what if you can't afford it? What if you don't want insurance, what if people don't want to sell insurance?

As for an arbitrator? why would'nt the arbitrator not juts side with the highest bidder? (OF COARSE HE WOULD), also who enforces the arbitrators decision? why is anyone obligated to obay the arbitrator? ... Unless there is a state to enforce it.

[danyboy27]

The Austrian School doesn't say capitalists are geniuses, that would imply some sort of central control shit like the Keynesianism you so adore.


but they would be nowhere near enough to properly regulate a ''free market''.



If you don't think capitalists are geniuses, than why the hell do you think the government magically are? The Austrian School professes that THE PEOPLE drive the economy, that the economy is organic and as a result needs to be left alone. It actually views the capitalist as a slave to the consumer, the capitalist must fill a market demand or else they won't have any business. The capitalist is the servant of the consumers in a free market economy.


A capitalist is profit driven, he dosnt really care so much about the product or the overall quality, his job is to make money with whatever mean necessary is avaliable. governement official are not driven by this rule, wich mean they put more enphasis on the service itself. acapitalist isnt a slave, its someone with the ultimate goal to generate profit, if he think he can put the m,oney in the stock market and crash the economy with it in order to make good bucks, he will, if he think he can sell contamined food and get away with it he will.

the only reason why you can trust the quality of your food right now is beccause of this ''big governement'' you hate so much.



I know you will likely reply with "yeah, but I saw pictures of kids in a coal mine in public school one time". .
yes publics school have the bad habit to show reality to folks now and then, strange eh?




Well public institutions have been infiltrated with marxist thought, and they have basically managed to wipe the historical record clean. people, and the state is going to fix it for us.

HAHAHAHAHA what the fuck are you talking about?
the school i went in idolized big industrials and big leaders, they talked of the colonisation of both africa and america without mentionning anything about the killing and enslavement of the native, and most of the time, the ''bad guy'' are some governement leader,not industrialist.
you need to read book to get fact these day, school aint worth shit thanks to the defunding to public education.




Now you hear about all the destruction Carnegie caused by selling large quantities of steel at cheap prices. Then the state is incinerating babies a few years after his death with firebombs on Dresden, somehow I am supposed to come to the conclusion that business is some sort of evil shit that kills people, and the state is going to fix it for us.

lol wtf, have you even been to a public school?

[RGacky3]

Yeah, Public schools are bastions of socialist thought, common now.

[danyboy27]

Yeah, Public schools are bastions of socialist thought, common now.

i remember the good old day when they forced us to chant the internationale and kiss the picture of stalin every day and learned us about class warfare, we where reading passage of the little red book and our history teacher was a marx thumping commie with a big white beard.

those where the days.

[Revolution starts with U]

BTW this is not a forum for anarchists, no matter how many of us anarchists are on it. This is a forum for revolutionary leftists, and their opposing ideologies (sans fascism).
And not all anarchists are totally oopposed to the state in all circumstances. They are, however, necessarily opposed to the idea of a need for a state.

[Distruzio]

BTW this is not a forum for anarchists, no matter how many of us anarchists are on it. This is a forum for revolutionary leftists, and their opposing ideologies (sans fascism).
And not all anarchists are totally oopposed to the state in all circumstances. They are, however, necessarily opposed to the idea of a need for a state.

Ah! My mistake, corrected. Thank you!

[Agnapostate]

Hmm... Maybe I was less accurate than I could have been. How about: Socialism is the institutionalized expropriation of property to facilitate voluntary exchange. Capitalism is the institutionalized recognition of property to facilitate voluntary exchange.

Socialism is the collective ownership and management of the means of production. Capitalism, by contrast, relies on the private ownership and management of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of allocation, and wage labor (which is characterized by a mixture of coercion and exchange), and also involves limited property rights.


Mises wasn't an ancap. He was a minarchist.

His stance is typical of pseudo-libertarians in general.


True enough, and in our circles, we ancaps refer to capitalism as we concieve of it.

Pseudo-libertarians conceive of capitalism as existent during boom periods of the business cycle and nonexistent during bust periods.


And? I'm waiting on a point.

Point: Rothbard was reliant on scientific racism to support his stance that actually existing capitalism approximated the same distributive patterns that would exist in the theoretical pseudo-anarchist economy.


I can't help but notice that you cited quite a bit from Austrians in order to disprove anarcho-capitalism (even though Mises was not ancap) and also provide a veil of objectivity to your critique only to conclude with an obviously biased representation of your original hypothesis.

Pseudo-libertarians themselves draw an arbitrary distinction between politics and economics; hence, Rothbard's belief that Mises was economically brilliant but politically flawed. Since capitalism would therefore be designated a purely "economic" system in the pseudo-libertarian dichotomy, Mises's appraisal of capitalism is of relevance when considering pseudo-anarchist ideology, since pseudo-anarchism is a constituent ideology of pseudo-libertarianism, along with pseudo-minarchism.

My conclusion is logically supported by my arguments, the majority of which you did not quote or refute.

[ZombieRothbard]

Agna, your post seems to consist mostly of attacks on prominent libertarian figures. It is important to note that not all libertarians or ancaps agree with everything Rockwell, Rothbard or Mises ever said. For example, I personally dislike Rockwell quite a bit, because he seems to have a smug sort of "conservativeness" about him.

As for Rothbard, the man wrote thousands of articles and tons of books over his lifetime. It is just astounding how the same handful of articles of his circulate around "proving" that Rothbard is a racist. Now I personally would say that I do believe Rothbard held some racial views that I do not agree with, however I agree almost completely with everything else he has to say. For example, in your citing of his essay on racialistic research, he is merely making the point that marxists in academia have chased out that field of scientific inquiry. Unless you are against scientific inquiry, you shouldn't have a problem with it.

When he discusses the need to do this in order to show why certain minority groups would be disadvantaged in a free market, I disagree with him. I don't feel there is any benefit in racialist research personally, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for it to be censored. But to say that he is wrong for this view may not be factually correct. Just assume for the sake of argument there is a genetic difference between the traits of certain races (beyond aesthetics), then Rothbard is correct. Your disagreement with him based on your own observations is your own belief, and your own scientific inquiry. Perhaps you observe no differences between races (as I personally don't, nor am I a racist, and nor do I advocate for racial research) and that is fine, but it is just a matter of opinion. Rothbard at no point advocates for INEQUALITY under the law, meaning he feels EVERYBODY regardless of race or income or anything else, should be equal under the law. Rothbard is basically just saying that the question of whether they are equal genetically is something for scientific inquiry to solve, not social scientists or politicians.

[ZombieRothbard]

but they would be nowhere near enough to properly regulate a ''free market''.

That sentence doesn't make sense in the context, so I have no idea what you were trying to say here.


A capitalist is profit driven, he dosnt really care so much about the product or the overall quality, his job is to make money with whatever mean necessary is avaliable.

What? If the capitalist doesn't care about the product, than why do they constantly improve their products? And your point about quality is absolutely ridiculous. You can go buy high quality products if you are willing to pay for them. Many capitalists build their business models around high quality goods and services.


governement official are not driven by this rule, wich mean they put more enphasis on the service itself.

Government officials are driven by the prospect of being re-elected, that is it. They are insane sociopaths that do not care about what is actually good for the country or the economy. Their services are total garbage (compare the service at your local Brew Pub to the service at the DMV).


acapitalist isnt a slave, its someone with the ultimate goal to generate profit, if he think he can put the m,oney in the stock market and crash the economy with it in order to make good bucks, he will,

How the hell does the capitalist generate profit then? By being a dick? So I will open a store that sells turds with the worst customer service you can imagine, and I will somehow generate profit and build a mercenary army and destroy the world right? It is self evident that the capitalist serves the consumer.


if he think he can sell contamined food and get away with it he will.

Some will, some won't. But it doesn't matter, all I know is that the FDA is bought and paid for by corporate America. There needs to be a private FDA (several competing ones actually) that are subject to public scrutiny.


the only reason why you can trust the quality of your food right now is beccause of this ''big governement'' you hate so much.

Because there is not a single scientist on the planet that would say "Hey, I can make a load of money if I begin testing common food products and releasing the results to the public".


yes publics school have the bad habit to show reality to folks now and then, strange eh?

Because Gulf of Tonkin actually happened right? Yeah, I learned that in global history class. We also learned that "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair was a true story.


HAHAHAHAHA what the fuck are you talking about?
the school i went in idolized big industrials and big leaders, they talked of the colonisation of both africa and america without mentionning anything about the killing and enslavement of the native, and most of the time, the ''bad guy'' are some governement leader,not industrialist.

So you must have slept through the New Deal section, where they foist Keynesian economics and pictures of kids in coal mines on you for weeks, while the talk about how evil the Robber Barons were. Then the next week you learn about "The Bombing of Dresden" and move on without even explaining what happened.


you need to read book to get fact these day, school aint worth shit thanks to the defunding to public education.

I think "school aint worth shit" because it is a bunch of sociopathic pencil neck fuckers trying to brainwash you with a ton of nationalistic bullshit while teaching you to be a little ***** that stands in line and doesn't ask questions.


lol wtf, have you even been to a public school?

Unfortunately.

[Revolution starts with U]

Government officials are driven by the prospect of being re-elected, that is it. They are insane sociopaths that do not care about what is actually good for the country or the economy. Their services are total garbage (compare the service at your local Brew Pub to the service at the DMV).
I don't think scathing generalizations serve either of us. Some capitalists are sociopaths, just like some politicians.
But your analogy is terrible. Pubs and DMVs offer vastly different services. A better analogy would be between the DMV and the Customer Service department at your cable company. I have to say, in my experience, they're both bureaucratic bullshit and hoop jumping..


Because Gulf of Tonkin actually happened right? Yeah, I learned that in global history class. We also learned that "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair was a true story.
No you didn't.


So you must have slept through the New Deal section, where they foist Keynesian economics and pictures of kids in coal mines on you for weeks, while the talk about how evil the Robber Barons were. Then the next week you learn about "The Bombing of Dresden" and move on without even explaining what happened.
:rolleyes:


I think "school aint worth shit" because it is a bunch of sociopathic pencil neck fuckers trying to brainwash you with a ton of nationalistic bullshit while teaching you to be a little ***** that stands in line and doesn't ask questions.
double :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

What? If the capitalist doesn't care about the product, than why do they constantly improve their products? And your point about quality is absolutely ridiculous. You can go buy high quality products if you are willing to pay for them. Many capitalists build their business models around high quality goods and services.


THey don't constantly improve their products, have cars for example become fundementally better over the last 50 years (show me a car post 1990 that lasts over 20 years), because sometimes it is'nt profitable to make higher quality goods.

Some Capitalists do, but point was you said "the capitalist is a slave to the consumer" which is WAY WAY WAY oversimplified, take cars for example, go to a car dealership with $7,000 and see how you get treated and what type of deals you get as opposed to going with $70,000.

THe Capitalist is a slave to PROFIT, not the consumer, and they get that profit by taking the most OUT of the consumer while giving him the least, and the biggest provider of profit is the rich, so the capitalist (who is also rich) will always cater to the rich (overall).

There is not mystical "consumer" there are rich people and poor people, workers and capitalists ALL of them consume to some degree.


Government officials are driven by the prospect of being re-elected, that is it. They are insane sociopaths that do not care about what is actually good for the country or the economy. Their services are total garbage (compare the service at your local Brew Pub to the service at the DMV).


Thats a idiot comparison, a Brew pub is there to make you have a good time and enjoy a night out, the DMV is there to organize and register cars and driving liscences.

Compare the postal service to Fedex, compare national healthcare of the rest of the world to private healthcare in the US, compare public universities to for profit "universities."

They actually did the sociopath test and found out that a majority of executives actually have sociopathic tendancys (if you don't believe me I"ll get hte studies), if you have a real democracy that is not up for sale (in other words not a market based democracy), you have people that actually represent the voters, meaning they'll care about the people, as oppsesed to just caring about the next bonus payment. state officials have to get elected, CEOs just pick the board who pick the CEO, and pull more and more money out of the economy, and your talking about sociopaths.


How the hell does the capitalist generate profit then? By being a dick? So I will open a store that sells turds with the worst customer service you can imagine, and I will somehow generate profit and build a mercenary army and destroy the world right? It is self evident that the capitalist serves the consumer.


THe capitalist generates profits by GIVING THE LEAST WHILE TAKING THE MOST, there is no "serving" the consumer, they take as much as they can, from their workers, from the buyers, and give as little as they can, thats how they generate profit.

Now its easier to exploit poor people, so thats profitable, but rich people ahve more money (but you can't exploit them) so they are profitable but you have to coddle them more.

ANYONE that knows anything about buisiness will tell you this, its not about serving the consumer.


Some will, some won't. But it doesn't matter, all I know is that the FDA is bought and paid for by corporate America. There needs to be a private FDA (several competing ones actually) that are subject to public scrutiny.


So the FDA is bought and paid for by corporate America, but a Private FDA would'nt just sell to the highest bidder???? up to public scrutiny how? WHat you mean is up to corporate scrutiny because they would be the ones that pay them.

How about take profit out of food production, that would solve it.


Because Gulf of Tonkin actually happened right? Yeah, I learned that in global history class. We also learned that "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair was a true story.


I did'nt learn any of that in public schools, maybe you were to busy wishing you were rich to pay attention.


So you must have slept through the New Deal section, where they foist Keynesian economics and pictures of kids in coal mines on you for weeks, while the talk about how evil the Robber Barons were. Then the next week you learn about "The Bombing of Dresden" and move on without even explaining what happened.


We never learned about how evil the robber barons were, but we did learn about the New Deal and how it took the US out of the depression, because thats just fact, and kids on coal mines, yes that happened too.


I think "school aint worth shit" because it is a bunch of sociopathic pencil neck fuckers trying to brainwash you with a ton of nationalistic bullshit while teaching you to be a little ***** that stands in line and doesn't ask questions.


Its ironic that you say that while you parrot talking points from "Americans for prosperity" and the Cato institute.

[ZombieRothbard]

THey don't constantly improve their products, have cars for example become fundementally better over the last 50 years (show me a car post 1990 that lasts over 20 years), because sometimes it is'nt profitable to make higher quality goods.

You are correct that it isn't always profitable to make higher quality goods, but you are missing the point. If you want to buy a high quality car that lasts over 20 years, you will have a to pay a significant amount of money. The fact is, a lot of people didn't own cars. Now adays, you almost HAVE to own a car if you don't think in an area with public transportation. Cars are cheaper now because they are manufactured for the masses. They are no longer a luxury item for the rich, they are now for the general public.

Combine that with car manufacturers being artificially cartelized and propped up by the U.S. government in the form of tariffs and other trade barriers, as well as safety regulations and unionization in the auto industry, and you will see why our cars are so shit. Japanese cars are far superior, I feel like buying America is like shooting yourself in the head. Japanese cars are the future, and they could be so much cheaper if the government stopped imposing regulations on them PURPOSELY to hurt them (since the government owns the American car companies now) as well as erecting trade barriers for their import.


Some Capitalists do, but point was you said "the capitalist is a slave to the consumer" which is WAY WAY WAY oversimplified, take cars for example, go to a car dealership with $7,000 and see how you get treated and what type of deals you get as opposed to going with $70,000.

So? When I go to Sam's Club to shop, I don't expect ANY customer service. I go because it is cheap, and I don't expect them to suck me off like I would if I went into a higher end department store like Macy's.


THe Capitalist is a slave to PROFIT, not the consumer, and they get that profit by taking the most OUT of the consumer while giving him the least, and the biggest provider of profit is the rich, so the capitalist (who is also rich) will always cater to the rich (overall).

The capitalist cannot profit without the consumer. The consumers ARE the profit, so the capitalist being the slave to profit is the same as the capitalist being a slave to the consumer.


There is not mystical "consumer" there are rich people and poor people, workers and capitalists ALL of them consume to some degree.
I agree that everybody is a consumer, and I don't feel like I ever tried to give them mystical properties.


Thats a idiot comparison, a Brew pub is there to make you have a good time and enjoy a night out, the DMV is there to organize and register cars and driving liscences.

Point taken. Compare the DMV to getting a fishing license at Dick's Sporting Goods.


Compare the postal service to Fedex, compare national healthcare of the rest of the world to private healthcare in the US, compare public universities to for profit "universities."

None of the so called "private" counterparts you offered are actually privatized.


They actually did the sociopath test and found out that a majority of executives actually have sociopathic tendancys (if you don't believe me I"ll get hte studies), if you have a real democracy that is not up for sale (in other words not a market based democracy), you have people that actually represent the voters, meaning they'll care about the people, as oppsesed to just caring about the next bonus payment. state officials have to get elected, CEOs just pick the board who pick the CEO, and pull more and more money out of the economy, and your talking about sociopaths.
I have a hard time picturing a democracy without a market, since the market IS democracy. The kind of democracy you are referring to is a bunch of sociopaths fighting over who gets to trample over every bodies rights.


THe capitalist generates profits by GIVING THE LEAST WHILE TAKING THE MOST, there is no "serving" the consumer, they take as much as they can, from their workers, from the buyers, and give as little as they can, thats how they generate profit.

That is just false. If you believe that then I respectfully suggest you venture into a local store and look around. You will often notice 5 different brands of the same item on the shelves, with 5 different prices. Giving the least and taking the most would be selling the bare minimum of what makes up a good, while pricing an astronomical price. This is easily disproven by just looking at the shelf. Five different prices, and five different "homogeneous" goods with their own functions, branding and features.

And when you go to the store to buy a headset for example, the fact that you can walk in and buy one means they are serving your wants. They are providing the good, the customer service etc.

This is a major difference between us, and is basically an impasse. Until you convince me that somehow capitalists do not serve consumers wants, or you admit that capitalists do in fact serve consumer wants, there could never be a bit of agreement between us.


ANYONE that knows anything about buisiness will tell you this, its not about serving the consumer.

I know about business, I am taking business courses, and all they talk about is making your employees and customers happy.


So the FDA is bought and paid for by corporate America, but a Private FDA would'nt just sell to the highest bidder????

If they did, I wouldn't trust them, just like I don't trust the current FDA.


up to public scrutiny how? WHat you mean is up to corporate scrutiny because they would be the ones that pay them.

Corporations would pay private FDA's to put their stamps of approval on their goods. If one private FDA is bought off by Coke for example, then another private FDA would discover the scam and out their competitor as non-trustworthy, which would result in more business for them since the venal FDA's logo would now no longer be trustworthy.

And btw, what makes you think a single monopolistic FDA under government control that is staffed by former CEO's is somehow more venal than several privatized FDA's would be?


I did'nt learn any of that in public schools, maybe you were to busy wishing you were rich to pay attention.

Actually, I find that leftists are the ones that are obsessed with money, which is why they wish to abolish it.


Its ironic that you say that while you parrot talking points from "Americans for prosperity" and the Cato institute.

I don't know what Americans for prosperity is, and I have never read a Cato Institute article in my life. I did watch two Cato Institute videos on youtube however on two separate occasions.

[Distruzio]

Edit: Agnapostate, I spoke with my roommate, who is a thousand times more intelligent than myself and a sociologist. Now I feel like the below is me being a complete asshole to you. For that I apologize. I'll leave the offending comments to show you my tail between my legs. Essentially, she convinced me that I was lobbing the equivalent of a rock at your head for challenging my assumptions and core values. I apologize for responding in such a way.

I suppose I should, assuming that this conversation can be saved, ask you what it is you feel is so offensive about Rothbard's position that you find it necessary to dismiss and deride his opinions and the opinions of those who may agree with. I assume that one of the gripes is his racism. What else is there?




Socialism is the collective ownership and management of the means of production. Capitalism, by contrast, relies on the private ownership and management of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of allocation, and wage labor (which is characterized by a mixture of coercion and exchange), and also involves limited property rights.

Don't see how this is different (aside from the baseless assertion that capitalism is expropriatory) from what I consistently say. That the statist quo you leftists decry is far from capitalism.


His stance is typical of pseudo-libertarians in general.

Laughable. Baseless. False. Sorry, but Mises, however wonderful he is, opines on matters relevant to Austrian Libertarians. Not libertarians in general.

Btw, what is a pseudo-libertarian vs an actual libertarian?


Pseudo-libertarians conceive of capitalism as existent during boom periods of the business cycle and nonexistent during bust periods.

Laughable. Baseless. False. We Austrians critique, and have critiqued the statist quo during times of boom and bust for more than a century consistently. Show me one article praising a boom time or failing to warn of a coming bust. One.


Point: Rothbard was reliant on scientific racism to support his stance that actually existing capitalism approximated the same distributive patterns that would exist in the theoretical pseudo-anarchist economy.

This proves.... what? That Rothbard was a racist? That racism is bad? That the statist quo can resemble a post-anarchist economy? That observable facts about the statist quo are somehow unscientific and therefore false b/c a "pseudo" something or other made the observations?

Whatever your hard-on for Rothbard is, it doesn't matter. Not even Austrians are prepared to dismiss Marx out of hand b/c we disagree with him on most issues. The man was a certifiable genius and we acknowledge it. His observations can offer us a view into the mind of a collectivist that we could not achieve elsewhere. Have some humility.


Pseudo-libertarians themselves draw an arbitrary distinction between politics and economics; hence, Rothbard's belief that Mises was economically brilliant but politically flawed. Since capitalism would therefore be designated a purely "economic" system in the pseudo-libertarian dichotomy, Mises's appraisal of capitalism is of relevance when considering pseudo-anarchist ideology, since pseudo-anarchism is a constituent ideology of pseudo-libertarianism, along with pseudo-minarchism.

Yeah... about that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DORBriLppMk&feature=related)...


My conclusion is logically supported by my arguments, the majority of which you did not quote or refute.

You made no arguments. You quoted quite specific texts out of context from the articles by the original authors in order to glean some measure of their worldview. Furthermore, you used your own understanding of "pseudo-libertarianism" to paint their observations in a particular biased light with a mere handful of sentences that were actually your own. In short, I'll respond when you say something I should respond to. When you tell me things I already know (as in Rothbard's anti-egalitarian stance or Mises' pro-capitalist stance) I see no reason to comment.

Make a statement worth my time, and I'll respond. ;)

[ZombieRothbard]

Whatever your hard-on for Rothbard is, it doesn't matter. Not even Austrians are prepared to dismiss Marx out of hand b/c we disagree with him on most issues. The man was a certifiable genius and we acknowledge it. His observations can offer us a view into the mind of a collectivist that we could not achieve elsewhere. Have some humility.


Indeed. Although one gripe of mine of contemporary Austrians is that after Mises' "Socialism" I don't think much more was written on the subject (that I know of). "Socialism" was a devastating critique, but I don't know of any Austrian criticism of libertarian socialism.

Walter Block wrote an article on some of Carson's mutualist work, but Carson said he thought Block "hadn't even read it". I read a section of Carson's work on his "Austrianized Labor Theory of Value" and it seemed utterly ridiculous. Once I read more of "Man, Economy and State" I want to go back through it and offer a more sophisticated critique of it than the last time I read it.

[ZombieRothbard]

I don't think scathing generalizations serve either of us. Some capitalists are sociopaths, just like some politicians.


Indeed. My apologies for making sweeping generalizations. It tends to happen when I am on a rant though :lol:


No you didn't.

Unfortunately yes, yes I did. It actually took a socialist friend who I work with to tell me that it was actually fictional.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you sure you were told it was factual, or that you just assumed it was?
I don't expect you to say you were just assuming. But I want you to brood on whether it is true or not.

[RGacky3]

Cars are cheaper now because they are manufactured for the masses. They are no longer a luxury item for the rich, they are now for the general public.


Its been that way since the 50s and 60s.


Combine that with car manufacturers being artificially cartelized and propped up by the U.S. government in the form of tariffs and other trade barriers, as well as safety regulations and unionization in the auto industry, and you will see why our cars are so shit. Japanese cars are far superior, I feel like buying America is like shooting yourself in the head. Japanese cars are the future, and they could be so much cheaper if the government stopped imposing regulations on them PURPOSELY to hurt them (since the government owns the American car companies now) as well as erecting trade barriers for their import.


Japanese car manufacturers are also unionized (if not moreso), and they have tons of trade barriers and tariffs as well, infact more than the US.

BTW, whats your problem with unions?

Also my point was that Capitalism does not lead to higher quality goods.


So? When I go to Sam's Club to shop, I don't expect ANY customer service. I go because it is cheap, and I don't expect them to suck me off like I would if I went into a higher end department store like Macy's.


Your missing the point, the poing is capitalists are not slaves to the "consumer" and there is no block called the "consumer.


The capitalist cannot profit without the consumer. The consumers ARE the profit, so the capitalist being the slave to profit is the same as the capitalist being a slave to the consumer.


EVERYONE IS A CONSUMER, everyone, your acting as if the consumer is some block, consumers are not the profit, their money is.


None of the so called "private" counterparts you offered are actually privatized.


Why not? Whatever, pick ANY private counterpart.


I have a hard time picturing a democracy without a market, since the market IS democracy. The kind of democracy you are referring to is a bunch of sociopaths fighting over who gets to trample over every bodies rights.


When the top 1% have over 50% of the votes THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY, democracy is one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

As for the second sentance thats just blathering.


That is just false. If you believe that then I respectfully suggest you venture into a local store and look around. You will often notice 5 different brands of the same item on the shelves, with 5 different prices. Giving the least and taking the most would be selling the bare minimum of what makes up a good, while pricing an astronomical price. This is easily disproven by just looking at the shelf. Five different prices, and five different "homogeneous" goods with their own functions, branding and features.

And when you go to the store to buy a headset for example, the fact that you can walk in and buy one means they are serving your wants. They are providing the good, the customer service etc.

This is a major difference between us, and is basically an impasse. Until you convince me that somehow capitalists do not serve consumers wants, or you admit that capitalists do in fact serve consumer wants, there could never be a bit of agreement between us.


The fact that there are more than one brands does'nt prove anything, the Capitalist is still trying to TAKE THE MOST and GIVE THE LEAST, thats the definition of profit.

THey are not providing the good, the workers are, the capitalist is just taking a cut of the deal because they have a little handy thing called capitalist property laws.

Capitalists don't searve consumers, they control productoin so that they get the most out of workers and consumers and give the least back, the people that are actually doing the work are the workers, but they would actually be able to serve much better if they did'nt have to pay the capitalists bonus and the financeers dividend (higher and higher each year).


If they did, I wouldn't trust them, just like I don't trust the current FDA.


Chances are you would'nt know about it, btw, this is not fiction, this happens now, just lookt at Moodies and other financial rating agencies.


Corporations would pay private FDA's to put their stamps of approval on their goods. If one private FDA is bought off by Coke for example, then another private FDA would discover the scam and out their competitor as non-trustworthy, which would result in more business for them since the venal FDA's logo would now no longer be trustworthy.


And then that private FDA would'nt get anywork because they don't play ball, your market fantasy does'nt happen in the real world, people would rather play ball and make a profit.


And btw, what makes you think a single monopolistic FDA under government control that is staffed by former CEO's is somehow more venal than several privatized FDA's would be?


If it was a proper democratic institution without direct or indirect market pressure, it would be people doing theier job without thinking about profit, btw, the FDA WORKS!!! You may not trust it, but thus far they've done a pretty good job.

IN a pure market chances are an FDA would'nt even arise.


Actually, I find that leftists are the ones that are obsessed with money, which is why they wish to abolish it.


That does'nt make any sense.


I don't know what Americans for prosperity is, and I have never read a Cato Institute article in my life. I did watch two Cato Institute videos on youtube however on two separate occasions.

Well check them out, because you parrot their talking points almost perfectly.

[Rafiq]

The Austrian School doesn't say capitalists are geniuses, that would imply some sort of central control shit like the Keynesianism you so adore. If you don't think capitalists are geniuses, than why the hell do you think the government magically are? The Austrian School professes that THE PEOPLE drive the economy, that the economy is organic and as a result needs to be left alone. It actually views the capitalist as a slave to the consumer, the capitalist must fill a market demand or else they won't have any business. The capitalist is the servant of the consumers in a free market economy.



The Austrial school is literally full of shit, then.

You can't group all of the social classes into one basket, or "THE PEOPLE"... Why do libertarians always group proletarians with capitalists? As if they have the same interests.

Even if, economically, it would, work, which it can't, and has been dis proven by some of the most casual economists, you still can't get rid of the internal contradictions that of which is class. Proletarians and Bourgeois will still exist. There interests are opposites. The system you propose brings the bourgeois class to dictatorship. Do the math.

Any sensible member of the Bourgeoisie would want a kenysian style economics, since the latter, what you are advocating, is total chaos.

[Distruzio]

The Austrial school is literally full of shit, then.

You can't group all of the social classes into one basket, or "THE PEOPLE"... Why do libertarians always group proletarians with capitalists? As if they have the same interests.

Even if, economically, it would, work, which it can't, and has been dis proven by some of the most casual economists, you still can't get rid of the internal contradictions that of which is class. Proletarians and Bourgeois will still exist. There interests are opposites. The system you propose brings the bourgeois class to dictatorship. Do the math.

Any sensible member of the Bourgeoisie would want a kenysian style economics, since the latter, what you are advocating, is total chaos.

We Austrians refuse to play the game of setting one group of expropriated class against another in an arbitrary game of cat and mouse. We share a class theory (if it could be called a class theory as it is merely obvious to us) with the leftists, only our class theory diverges between the expropriators and the expropriated - the political class and the taxpaying class. In fact, Marx borrowed the class theory originally developed by classical liberal thinkers - our ideological predecessors.

Moreover, no Austrian ever pretends that a single person shares the exact same interests with another. I don't know where you got this nonsense, but it certainly wasn't from an Austrian.

Any sensible member of the non-bourgeoisie would want a free market economic system. Anything more would be absolute authoritarianism.

[RGacky3]

Moreover, no Austrian ever pretends that a single person shares the exact same interests with another. I don't know where you got this nonsense, but it certainly wasn't from an Austrian.


Yes they do, when they say "the consumer."


Any sensible member of the non-bourgeoisie would want a free market economic system. Anything more would be absolute authoritarianism.

Ok Glenn Beck.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]the Capitalist is still trying to TAKE THE MOST and GIVE THE LEAST, thats the definition of profit.

Of course. But why would a socialist community seek to do the opposite ie give the most and take the least. That makes no sense.
It also runs counter to the claim that socialism is far more efficient in production in capitalism (how could it be otherwise if the socialist factory seeks to maximise its cost (give the most and take the least?).




Capitalists don't searve consumers, they control productoin so that they get the most out of workers and consumers and give the least back,

Presumably the workers would be doing the same in a socialist community; that is get as much compensation as possible for the least amount of work. Such a problem shows how senseless the socialist conception of economic structure really is since it after all does not solve the problem the socialist is concerned about.

[DinodudeEpic]

Then, what makes a democracy not do what a dictatorship does? The answer is that giving the people control of a system ends the exploitation that said system causes.

Cause, WHO is going to be exploited if the workers (thus consumers, since consumers are workers. Where does money come from if they aren't workers?) own the businesses? Why exploit yourself? In fact, you don't need wages in a socialist society. Just split the profits that workers make from selling the products themselves.

The purpose of a socialist society is the same as democracy's purpose, having the people own themselves, more freedom, more equality, and having a say in what goes on instead of being owned collectively as puppets of a few powerful dochebags.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2173520]Then, what makes a democracy not do what a dictatorship does? The answer is that giving the people control of a system ends the exploitation that said system causes.

Not really. All it does is say the majority will rule the minority. Whether that majority seeks to end "exploitation" (however you wish to define it) is matter of the values and beliefs that majority has.


Cause, WHO is going to be exploited if the workers (thus consumers, since consumers are workers. Where does money come from if they aren't workers?) own the businesses? Why exploit yourself?

The USSR used to justify the abolishing strikes because, since the workers owned the means of production, a strike was nonsense. Why strike against yourself? The Communists were of course absolutely correct in this regard.
Your argument is no different than what came out of Moscow.


In fact, you don't need wages in a socialist society. Just split the profits that workers make from selling the products themselves.

Assuming profits are accrued...
But then again, if compensation is based upon splitting profits, it would stand the reason that the purpose of their production would be to... produce profits for themselves. So production in this new socialist becomes based upon profit and not "need." So much for socialism...

[Rafiq]

We Austrians refuse to play the game of setting one group of expropriated class against another in an arbitrary game of cat and mouse. We share a class theory (if it could be called a class theory as it is merely obvious to us) with the leftists, only our class theory diverges between the expropriators and the expropriated - the political class and the taxpaying class. In fact, Marx borrowed the class theory originally developed by classical liberal thinkers - our ideological predecessors.


There is no need for a third party to set classes against each other. It has happened naturally, and systematically over time, and it is something inherit in capitalism. Marx was influenced by Adam smith slightly, though he didn't borrow the class theory from anyone. I'll link some stuff to you, later, incluidng a critique of Austrian 'economic theory', if you want to call it something like that.





Moreover, no Austrian ever pretends that a single person shares the exact same interests with another. I don't know where you got this nonsense, but it certainly wasn't from an Austrian.

Any sensible member of the non-bourgeoisie would want a free market economic system. Anything more would be absolute authoritarianism.


Because there is no such thing as "the people" hence this term is meaningless. The people cannot be classified as a collective group of interests in capitalism. They are heavily divided.

Ah, and to your last comment, yet again another economic theory on the basis of ethics. Anything more would be absolute authoritarianism? And what is your proof? One, single group of attempts, all of which followed the same path and didn't learn from each other? (Soviet Union and freinds)? Is that it? :laugh: pathetic.

And, even if you were true, I would rather live in total authoritarianism than a Bourgeois paradise of exploitation and de regulated slavery for the workers. You are a Utopian, you need to get out of the dream world. Capitalism is not a game of monopoly. Free Markets are a contradiction in terms. Let me explain:


Do you accept that the majority of people need to be proletarians in order for capitalism to work ,correct? So free markets are only free for those who are bidding: The capitalist class.

How absurd. For someone to say that what we have isn't Neoliberal enough is not only offensive, it's completely ridiculous.

I don't mean to be a twat, but anarcho capitalists are completely unuseful on this forum.

At least people like Baseball, don't put forward baseless 'economic theory' and just stick to criticizing socialism. And to be honest, I think criticism of that is perfectly fine, at least it let's us learn from our mistakes.

[RGacky3]

Of course. But why would a socialist community seek to do the opposite ie give the most and take the least. That makes no sense.
It also runs counter to the claim that socialism is far more efficient in production in capitalism (how could it be otherwise if the socialist factory seeks to maximise its cost (give the most and take the least?).

A socialist community does need profit, so if you are in a company, and you produce more, there is not reason everyone can't get a pay raise (in Capitalism that would go to profits or executive pay), also if they produce more and become more efficient, then maybe they don't need to work as much (does'nt happen under Capitalism because you need purpetual growth).

Also since there is no profits, if costs go down, there is no reason why those costs would'nt be passed over to the consumers.


The USSR used to justify the abolishing strikes because, since the workers owned the means of production, a strike was nonsense. Why strike against yourself? The Communists were of course absolutely correct in this regard.
Your argument is no different than what came out of Moscow.


They were absolutely wrong, because the workers did not own the means of production in any sense of the word other than name, if that was true it would be nonsense to ban strikes would'nt it?

Your using Soviet propeganda for your argument, don't be silly.


Assuming profits are accrued...
But then again, if compensation is based upon splitting profits, it would stand the reason that the purpose of their production would be to... produce profits for themselves. So production in this new socialist becomes based upon profit and not "need." So much for socialism...

No, that would'nt be the purpose, when I say profits I mean increased revenue, technically there are not profits under socialism.

It is based on needs because production is ultmately democratic, there is no need for purpetual growth.

Your making all these arguments based on semantics and never on economics.

[Rafiq]

Of course. But why would a socialist community seek to do the opposite ie give the most and take the least. That makes no sense.
It also runs counter to the claim that socialism is far more efficient in production in capitalism (how could it be otherwise if the socialist factory seeks to maximise its cost (give the most and take the least?).

Do you mean the government? Because socialist community would be the interests of a collective group of people. So I presume It would be natural for people (i.e. the socialist community) to take the most and give nothing except their fair share of labor. Though, I could be wrong, for I'm not a fortune teller.





Presumably the workers would be doing the same in a socialist community; that is get as much compensation as possible for the least amount of work. Such a problem shows how senseless the socialist conception of economic structure really is since it after all does not solve the problem the socialist is concerned about.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure something would be figured out. It's a waste of time to look for that now.

[Kiev Communard]

The USSR used to justify the abolishing strikes because, since the workers owned the means of production, a strike was nonsense. Why strike against yourself? The Communists were of course absolutely correct in this regard.

Do you really believe that workers owned their means of production in the USSR and that it was its problem? The problem with the so-called "socialized" property in the USSR was that the bulk of this property was controlled by the directors of plants and kolkhozes (especially in Brezhnevite period), and the other segments were run by centralized planning apparatus which was in no way accountable to workers.

[Agnapostate]

Agna, your post seems to consist mostly of attacks on prominent libertarian figures. It is important to note that not all libertarians or ancaps agree with everything Rockwell, Rothbard or Mises ever said. For example, I personally dislike Rockwell quite a bit, because he seems to have a smug sort of "conservativeness" about him.

This is a strawman fallacy (I never claimed that pseudo-libertarians "agree with everything" said by these figures), followed by an anecdote. Are there any statistical analyses of large data sets that detail the degree of disagreement with the specific positions mentioned?


As for Rothbard, the man wrote thousands of articles and tons of books over his lifetime. It is just astounding how the same handful of articles of his circulate around "proving" that Rothbard is a racist.

This article was written several weeks before his death. If you are familiar with content written after this that recanted his support of genetically determined intellectual differences between ethnic groups, pleas produce it.


Now I personally would say that I do believe Rothbard held some racial views that I do not agree with, however I agree almost completely with everything else he has to say. For example, in your citing of his essay on racialistic research, he is merely making the point that marxists in academia have chased out that field of scientific inquiry.

Aside from that claim being factually inaccurate (there are numerous scientific racists in academia, such as J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Michael Levin), the most fervent and unscientific opposition to The Bell Curve specifically stemmed from mainstream media sources, which are hardly dominated and typically opposed by Marxists. Moreover, the so-called Mainstream Science on Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence) statement, which expressed certain affinities with scientific racism, was published by the Wall Street Journal.


Unless you are against scientific inquiry, you shouldn't have a problem with it.

Rothbard was not a psychologist (neither is Murray, a co-author of the book in question), and had no basis for independently determining the veracity of the views espoused therein without consultation of the empirical literature on the topic. He never indicated that he had reviewed this literature or cited peer-reviewed analyses of scientific racism, which would be studies along the lines of A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf) or Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence (http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010.pdf), for example. This evidences a level of confirmation bias on his part.


When he discusses the need to do this in order to show why certain minority groups would be disadvantaged in a free market, I disagree with him. I don't feel there is any benefit in racialist research personally, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for it to be censored.

You wouldn't advocate for it to be censored, and neither have I or these apparently all-powerful Marxist academics advocated for it to be censored.


But to say that he is wrong for this view may not be factually correct. Just assume for the sake of argument there is a genetic difference between the traits of certain races (beyond aesthetics), then Rothbard is correct.

There is no basis for the assumption that distinct "races" exist, let alone that there are genetically determined differences between them.


Your disagreement with him based on your own observations is your own belief, and your own scientific inquiry. Perhaps you observe no differences between races (as I personally don't, nor am I a racist, and nor do I advocate for racial research) and that is fine, but it is just a matter of opinion.

Determination of mental differences between human populations and their genetic components is a matter of peer-reviewed empirical research, not "opinion."


Rothbard at no point advocates for INEQUALITY under the law, meaning he feels EVERYBODY regardless of race or income or anything else, should be equal under the law.

Rothbard claims that genetically determined differences in intelligence will result in replication of currently existing ethnic inequities in so-called "anarcho-capitalist" society, with the consequence being that institutionalized inequality will exist despite an absence of formal laws mandating it (de facto reality despite de jure theory), which is not far removed from the actually existing U.S. economy.


Rothbard is basically just saying that the question of whether they are equal genetically is something for scientific inquiry to solve, not social scientists or politicians.

Rothbard clearly believes that social scientists have some role in determining that issue, or he would not have positively reviewed a book written by a political scientist and a psychologist. If you believe that social scientists cannot participate in "scientific inquiry" regarding the topic, would you therefore reject the inputs that anthropologists, criminologists, economists, psychologists, and sociologists have thus far made?


Don't see how this is different (aside from the baseless assertion that capitalism is expropriatory) from what I consistently say. That the statist quo you leftists decry is far from capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system based on permanent inequities created through the phase of primitive accumulation of capital and exacerbated in a positive feedback cycle, and authoritarianism in the standard labor contract, whereas socialism is based on equity and associated efficiency, and workers' ownership and management.


Sorry, but Mises, however wonderful he is, opines on matters relevant to Austrian Libertarians. Not libertarians in general.

Austrian pseudo-libertarians are the only ones among that small movement that claim that capitalism does not exist and has possibly never existed, as far as I can determined. Neoclassicals such as Milton Friedman certainly make no such claim.


Btw, what is a pseudo-libertarian vs an actual libertarian?

A pseudo-libertarian is a supporter of capitalism who uses disingenuous rhetoric to pretend to support liberty. An actual libertarian is a supporter of socialism that promotes real minarchism or anarchism.


We Austrians critique, and have critiqued the statist quo during times of boom and bust for more than a century consistently.

All heterodox economic schools are based on opposition to actually existing capitalism, hence the prediction of failure made by Marxian crisis theory.


Show me one article praising a boom time or failing to warn of a coming bust. One.

The quoted material is praise of the technological development that the authors claim is uniquely produced by capitalism.


This proves.... what? That Rothbard was a racist? That racism is bad? That the statist quo can resemble a post-anarchist economy? That observable facts about the statist quo are somehow unscientific and therefore false b/c a "pseudo" something or other made the observations?

Rothbard was a proponent of scientific racism who believed that the ethnic inequities of the capitalist economy were genetically determined, and that his theoretical pseudo-anarchism would approximate them in practice. The pseudo-minarchist Charles Murray is the most prominent political scientist to advocate this theory, so there is a reasonable basis for inferring that it is a belief shared by at least a portion of pseudo-libertarians.


You made no arguments. You quoted quite specific texts out of context from the articles by the original authors in order to glean some measure of their worldview.

Detail the contextual accuracy of these quoted claims and the specific manner in which their meaning was distorted.


Furthermore, you used your own understanding of "pseudo-libertarianism" to paint their observations in a particular biased light with a mere handful of sentences that were actually your own.

This is correct. What is your response to the argument that was made?


In short, I'll respond when you say something I should respond to. When you tell me things I already know (as in Rothbard's anti-egalitarian stance or Mises' pro-capitalist stance) I see no reason to comment. Make a statement worth my time, and I'll respond. ;)

If you believe that expositions of Ludwig von Mises and Lew Rockwell's description of actually existing capitalism as such, and as a beneficial economic paradigm, as well as Murray Rothbard's description of ethnic inequities as genetically determined and to be existent in his hypothetical pseudo-anarchist economy, are not issues of dispute, then simply say so.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2174199]A socialist community does need profit, so if you are in a company, and you produce more, there is not reason everyone can't get a pay raise (in Capitalism that would go to profits or executive pay), also if they produce more and become more efficient, then maybe they don't need to work as much (does'nt happen under Capitalism because you need purpetual growth).

Also since there is no profits, if costs go down, there is no reason why those costs would'nt be passed over to the consumers.



No, that would'nt be the purpose, when I say profits I mean increased revenue, technically there are not profits under socialism.

It is based on needs because production is ultmately democratic, there is no need for purpetual growth.

The term "increased revenue" seems a weaker alternative than "profit'" as the latter measures cost whereas the former does not. When the claim is made that socialism is more efficient than capitalism, that omission of measuring cost in production seems highly inefficient.

But in any event, if "increased revenue" is the ticket to greater compensation and more leisure time in the socialist community, it seems to me you are making an argument for production to be geared finding ways to increase revenue, rather than for need. In other words, eyeliner instead of food, if eyeliner production leads to greater "increased revenue."

[Baseball]

Do you really believe that workers owned their means of production in the USSR and that it was its problem? The problem with the so-called "socialized" property in the USSR was that the bulk of this property was controlled by the directors of plants and kolkhozes (especially in Brezhnevite period), and the other segments were run by centralized planning apparatus which was in no way accountable to workers.


I would suggest the situation you describe is the only logical way for worker owned industries to work together (providing of course such worker owned industries are deprived of utilising capitalist modes of production),

[Ocean Seal]

What does anyone stand to gain from anarcho-capitalism? Who would abolish it? The ruling class needs the state to function, and the working class would reasonably prefer mutualism or socialism rather than a continuation of a miny-state solution of anarcho-capitalism where the cartelized producers would be more than happy to hire private security. And when you stated that the private security firms wouldn't always be using violence, you forgot that, that is not the central problem. The central problem is that those private firms could implement a police state occasionally using violence, but most of the time intimidating the people to subjugate themselves to the ruling class.

[Kiev Communard]

I would suggest the situation you describe is the only logical way for worker owned industries to work together (providing of course such worker owned industries are deprived of utilising capitalist modes of production),

The problem with your argument is:

a) That was not worker ownership (if only you did not believe that juridical property is always a true expression of the economic one - in that case, you should conclude that the land in, say, ancient Mesopotamia was really owned by local gods, not their priests).

b) The simple market exchange by itself (if you mean it) is not equivalent to "capitalist modes of production".

c) The USSR did indeed "utilise capitalist mode of production", i.e. the centralized capitalist monopoly, where the State was the only corporation in the economy.

[DinodudeEpic]

Why have the economy be controlled by bosses? Anarcho-capitalists claim they're for rights, yet they won't give workers the right to own their factories. And, wouldn't a large corporation with land and a private security force be practically a state.

Also, Capitalism =/= Market Economy. Please don't confuse the two. Capitalism refers to the means of production. A Market Economy is a system that uses voluntary exchange.

[RGacky3]

The term "increased revenue" seems a weaker alternative than "profit'" as the latter measures cost whereas the former does not. When the claim is made that socialism is more efficient than capitalism, that omission of measuring cost in production seems highly inefficient.


Who ever said that Socialism would'nt measure cost? Where on earth did you get that?


But in any event, if "increased revenue" is the ticket to greater compensation and more leisure time in the socialist community, it seems to me you are making an argument for production to be geared finding ways to increase revenue, rather than for need. In other words, eyeliner instead of food, if eyeliner production leads to greater "increased revenue."

Its increased revenue AND decreased (non variable) cost which lead to greater compensation.

It seams to me that you don't have the ability to follow a thought. THe whole point in working is to fulfill need, if no one needs eyeliner than whats the poing in producing it? It woudl'nt increase revenue at all, if people need food of coasre they'd produce it.

WHat I'm saying is if some machine came along that made it easier to produce food then (unlike Capitalism), everyone gets to work less for the same compensation.

[Demogorgon]

Combine that with car manufacturers being artificially cartelized and propped up by the U.S. government in the form of tariffs and other trade barriers, as well as safety regulations and unionization in the auto industry, and you will see why our cars are so shit. Japanese cars are far superior, I feel like buying America is like shooting yourself in the head. Japanese cars are the future, and they could be so much cheaper if the government stopped imposing regulations on them PURPOSELY to hurt them (since the government owns the American car companies now) as well as erecting trade barriers for their import.

You are rather behind the times if you think that Japanese cars are the future. They have been at the forefront for decades and are becoming less rather than more significant now. The rise of the Japanese Car industry is a product of the general success of the Japanese Economy. And the Japanese Economy grew so fast following a series of policies very far from what you advocate. Moreoever the decline in the Japanese economy was as a result of it moving away from these policies towards more Anglo-American style ones. I'm not going to turn this into a long essay on Japanese economic policy, but suffice to say it involved a huge degree of Government planning and companies working according to Government targets in exchange for big subsidies.

Incidentally while on the subject of cars, there are a lot of very successful European car manufacturers. As well as some here in Britain, they biggest ones tend to come from places like France, Italy, Germany and Sweden. Again these are countries with noticeably less laissez-faire economies than the US.

[Baseball]

a) That was not worker ownership

Those are the types of disputes amongst the revleft scene. As a non-socialist, I refuse to be drawn into an internal conflict.




b) The simple market exchange by itself (if you mean it) is not equivalent to "capitalist modes of production".

That is fine. But then you have to examine the impact of market exchange has on a "worker ownership and control" of the means of production.

[Baseball]

Its increased revenue AND decreased (non variable) cost which lead to greater compensation.

Yes. "Profit"


It seams to me that you don't have the ability to follow a thought. THe whole point in working is to fulfill need,

Yes indeed. Profit is how to measure whether needs are being fullfilled.


if no one needs eyeliner than whats the poing in producing it?

In a capitalist community, no profit accrued thus not produced.
In a socialist community, depends who gets the most votes.




WHat I'm saying is if some machine came along that made it easier to produce food then (unlike Capitalism), everyone gets to work less for the same compensation.

There have been machines which have done this. in 1789, 90% of the USA population worked on farms. That is obviously not so today. Where would America would if 90% of the population STILL worked on farms, even with all the modern farming technology?
Why keep people employed when their labor is not needed? From where is labor drawn for needed industries, if not from the ranks of workers whose labor is not needed elsewhere?

[Klaatu]

Disciple

- Legalization of all drugs - heroine crack, cocaine, whatever

First, I would look at the reasons why these were made illegal in the first place.

- Complete deregulation of the healthcare system

They tried that, and prices went up exponentially.

- No firearm restrictions ie no gun laws

no restrictions on felons or lunatics?

- No labour laws - It's true. No labour laws they say.

kids belong in school, not in workhouses. Unions have First-Amendment-protected collective bargaining rights.

- Complete privatize healthcare and that will drive prices down

Why do you think prices would go down? They have not gone down under "privatisation" in the past 10 years
The opposite is actually true; they've skyrocketed! (not so great an argument in favor of "privatisation," eh?)

- Privatization of education altogether

So poor kids that cannot afford to go to school, go to workhouses (or "work the street") instead?

[Agent Blazkowicz]

Right-wing libertarianism is a fucking joke, seriously, in these times, can you really say, that's the way to go?

[ZombieRothbard]

Disciple

- Legalization of all drugs - heroine crack, cocaine, whatever

First, I would look at the reasons why these were made illegal in the first place.

While ignoring the gang violence and death squads that thrive off of its trade being illegal, right?


- Complete deregulation of the healthcare system

They tried that, and prices went up exponentially.

When?


- No firearm restrictions ie no gun laws

no restrictions on felons or lunatics?

Nope. I think every human being should have the right to defend them self, whether they are a "lunatic" (your insensitive words, not mine) or otherwise.


- No labour laws - It's true. No labour laws they say.

kids belong in school, not in workhouses. Unions have First-Amendment-protected collective bargaining rights.

Your proclamation "kids belong in school" says it all. You want what YOU think is best for kids, maybe out of ageism, or maybe out of egotism (or both). Personally, I think children should be able to work if they want to.


- Complete privatize healthcare and that will drive prices down

Why do you think prices would go down? They have not gone down under "privatisation" in the past 10 years
The opposite is actually true; they've skyrocketed! (not so great an argument in favor of "privatisation," eh?)

This is one of the most obnoxious fallacies I see, the fact that you think the clusterfuck that is healthcare is actually privatized. The mere fact that corporations are "in control" of it doesn't make it privatized.


- Privatization of education altogether

So poor kids that cannot afford to go to school, go to workhouses (or "work the street") instead?

Just as there are many different prices for the same product on the shelf, there are many different prices for an education that would be offered as well, including educations catering to low income children.

[ZombieRothbard]

Why have the economy be controlled by bosses? Anarcho-capitalists claim they're for rights, yet they won't give workers the right to own their factories. And, wouldn't a large corporation with land and a private security force be practically a state.

Tell me where an anarcho-capitalist has ever said workers shouldn't have the right to own their own factories? You know, socialists kill babies and drink their blood. Thats what I have heard anyways.

[ZombieRothbard]

Right-wing libertarianism is a fucking joke, seriously, in these times, can you really say, that's the way to go?

I have, to really, disagree with your, statement that, doesn't have any, coherent argument.

[ZombieRothbard]

You are rather behind the times if you think that Japanese cars are the future. They have been at the forefront for decades and are becoming less rather than more significant now. The rise of the Japanese Car industry is a product of the general success of the Japanese Economy. And the Japanese Economy grew so fast following a series of policies very far from what you advocate. Moreoever the decline in the Japanese economy was as a result of it moving away from these policies towards more Anglo-American style ones. I'm not going to turn this into a long essay on Japanese economic policy, but suffice to say it involved a huge degree of Government planning and companies working according to Government targets in exchange for big subsidies.

Incidentally while on the subject of cars, there are a lot of very successful European car manufacturers. As well as some here in Britain, they biggest ones tend to come from places like France, Italy, Germany and Sweden. Again these are countries with noticeably less laissez-faire economies than the US.

I never said Japan was laissez-faire.

[RGacky3]

Yes. "Profit"


If you want to call it that fine, but by definition it is not, because the surplus value is going to the workers (or re-invested) which is defined as variable cost.


Yes indeed. Profit is how to measure whether needs are being fullfilled.


No, it measures how much money you've got out of people while giving the least money out. Hell the insurance industry makes its major money by specifically NOT fulfilling needs. That is just totally divorced from reality.

Also the "needs" are entirely dependant on your pocket book.


In a capitalist community, no profit accrued thus not produced.
In a socialist community, depends who gets the most votes.


Yeah, in a socialist economy people would realize that they need more food (because they are hungry) and want food.

IN a Capitalist community you ight have 90% of the people starving but as long as the richest 10% are totally fine food wise but they want eyeliner, guess whats going to be produced?


There have been machines which have done this. in 1789, 90% of the USA population worked on farms. That is obviously not so today. Where would America would if 90% of the population STILL worked on farms, even with all the modern farming technology?
Why keep people employed when their labor is not needed? From where is labor drawn for needed industries, if not from the ranks of workers whose labor is not needed elsewhere?

Yeah sure, whats your point?

[Klaatu]

I knew I would catch a fly in my ointment:

"While ignoring the gang violence and death squads that thrive off of its trade being illegal, right?"

So then, give up? And do we give up on fighting terrorism too, I suppose, because we are "losing" that battle too?

"Nope. I think every human being should have the right to defend them self, whether they are a "lunatic" (your insensitive words, not mine) or otherwise."

Well I hope you don't get shot by a lunatic. (maybe you might change your mind then?)

"This is one of the most obnoxious fallacies I see, the fact that you think the clusterfuck that is healthcare is actually privatized. The mere fact that corporations are "in control" of it doesn't make it privatized."

(a) Where are you located? In the USA?
(b) do YOU have employer-paid healthcare?

I do PAY for MY OWN healthcare. And it is in fact, SKYROCKETING in price!

Obviously, you do not know what you are talking about, since you are unaware of, or insulated from, the rapid rise in prices.

"Your proclamation "kids belong in school" says it all. You want what YOU think is best for kids, maybe out of ageism, or maybe out of egotism (or both). Personally, I think children should be able to work if they want to."

Kids belong in SCHOOL. They cannot decide this on their own.

"Just as there are many different prices for the same product on the shelf, there are many different prices for an education that would be offered as well, including educations catering to low income children."

And you actually think low income kids will get a QUALITY education for a "lower price?" HAHAHAHAHA Your idea is incredibly STUPID.

EVERY CHILD deserves an EQUAL education, poor, rich, or otherwise! This is the NORM, and it WILL stay that way!

[RGacky3]

Tell me where an anarcho-capitalist has ever said workers shouldn't have the right to own their own factories? You know, socialists kill babies and drink their blood. Thats what I have heard anyways.

In theory they would, just like in theory everyone could be the general secretary of the communist party. But in reality, in practice in the market place we all know workers would'nt have the right to own factories because they could never afford it.


Your proclamation "kids belong in school" says it all. You want what YOU think is best for kids, maybe out of ageism, or maybe out of egotism (or both). Personally, I think children should be able to work if they want to.


If they WANT too? Or you mean if their family is starving due to the market system and due to lowering wages and capital conentration which is the inevitable out come of Capitalism. Kids don't work because they want to, thats not the child labor we talk about, kids work because they don't have a choice (which ends up depressing wages even more exhasperating the unemployment and wage problem).


This is one of the most obnoxious fallacies I see, the fact that you think the clusterfuck that is healthcare is actually privatized. The mere fact that corporations are "in control" of it doesn't make it privatized.


Well those corporates are private commercial institutions, so yeah it is privatized.


Just as there are many different prices for the same product on the shelf, there are many different prices for an education that would be offered as well, including educations catering to low income children.

As education goes, yeah, the government does it.

[ZombieRothbard]

In theory they would, just like in theory everyone could be the general secretary of the communist party. But in reality, in practice in the market place we all know workers would'nt have the right to own factories because they could never afford it.

Well if the workers lack the knowledge or capital, then that isn't denying them a right to do anything, that is just their own shortcomings. In socialism how would workers own factories anyways? Would they go and get a "Build a Factory" kit?


If they WANT too? Or you mean if their family is starving due to the market system and due to lowering wages and capital conentration which is the inevitable out come of Capitalism. Kids don't work because they want to, thats not the child labor we talk about, kids work because they don't have a choice (which ends up depressing wages even more exhasperating the unemployment and wage problem).

For one, we abolished child labor in the U.S. because children no longer needed to work to sustain their families.

Two, one of the arguments that people use for the ever growing disparity of wealth is that the market would create monopolies. I have an unanswered post on monopoly price that needs to be addressed (On the Thom Hartman topic).


Well those corporates are private commercial institutions, so yeah it is privatized.

Are they subject to government regulation? Yes? Then the government claims at least partial ownership over their property and operation, since they can tell them what to do correct? So it is not privatized at all.


As education goes, yeah, the government does it.

What

[ZombieRothbard]

I knew I would catch a fly in my ointment:

"While ignoring the gang violence and death squads that thrive off of its trade being illegal, right?"

So then, give up? And do we give up on fighting terrorism too, I suppose, because we are "losing" that battle too?

We shouldn't have even BEGAN the war on terrorism, and we shouldn't have began the war on drugs. You cannot defeat the laws of supply and demand, there will always be drugs. If you make them illegal, you get a violent black market sector that will NEVER be defeated. You have the blood of street kids on your hands, and you should bare the guilt of the thousands of inmates in the prison systems around the world who are in jail for victimless crimes like drug trading. You and people like you are responsible for every single dead kid or kid in who lost his freedom in jail due to the war on drugs. And you are responsible for the SWAT raids that happen every year, resulting in countless unnecessary deaths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ


"Nope. I think every human being should have the right to defend them self, whether they are a "lunatic" (your insensitive words, not mine) or otherwise."

Well I hope you don't get shot by a lunatic. (maybe you might change your mind then?)

We should ban cars too, because a "lunatic" might hit me as I cross the street. :unsure:


"This is one of the most obnoxious fallacies I see, the fact that you think the clusterfuck that is healthcare is actually privatized. The mere fact that corporations are "in control" of it doesn't make it privatized."

(a) Where are you located? In the USA?

Yes


(b) do YOU have employer-paid healthcare?

I am on my fathers healthcare plan, which is employer paid.


I do PAY for MY OWN healthcare. And it is in fact, SKYROCKETING in price!

Obviously, you do not know what you are talking about, since you are unaware of, or insulated from, the rapid rise in prices.

Where the fuck did I say prices weren't rising? You need to invest in this (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/learn-to-read/?ShowPopup=0&gclid=CNmCrNPMi6oCFQjf4AodSShwzA).


"Your proclamation "kids belong in school" says it all. You want what YOU think is best for kids, maybe out of ageism, or maybe out of egotism (or both). Personally, I think children should be able to work if they want to."

Kids belong in SCHOOL. They cannot decide this on their own.

So you are an ageist. Thought so.


"Just as there are many different prices for the same product on the shelf, there are many different prices for an education that would be offered as well, including educations catering to low income children."

And you actually think low income kids will get a QUALITY education for a "lower price?" HAHAHAHAHA Your idea is incredibly STUPID.

EVERY CHILD deserves an EQUAL education, poor, rich, or otherwise! This is the NORM, and it WILL stay that way!

Who the hell decides what constitutes a "QUALITY" education? My public school career was total shit, it was not quality and I despised every minute I spent in that tax funded hellhole.

So YOU apparently feel like you are superior to everybody else, that whatever YOU say is a quality education is a quality education. Whatever YOU dictate is what has to be right, and people don't know what is best for themselves, especially those damn kids who are just ingrates right? Because they are young, so fuck em, they need to be involuntarily incarcerated against their will all day.

[Klaatu]

"We shouldn't have even BEGAN the war on terrorism, and we shouldn't have began the war on drugs."

I don't think we did. These things just came about, unfortunately.

"We should ban cars too, because a "lunatic" might hit me as I cross the street."

A car has a purpose: transport. A gun has a purpose: to kill.

"I am on my fathers healthcare plan, which is employer paid."

Ah I am guessing that you are 26 or younger. Good luck. I am 53 yo, and am being screwed. I have no employer-paid benefit.

"So you are an ageist. Thought so."

WTF is an "ageist?"

"Who the hell decides what constitutes a "QUALITY" education? My public school career was total shit, it was not quality and I despised every minute I spent in that tax funded hellhole."

Sorry you had fucked-up teachers. But that does not condemn the idea of public education.

[RGacky3]

Well if the workers lack the knowledge or capital, then that isn't denying them a right to do anything, that is just their own shortcomings. In socialism how would workers own factories anyways? Would they go and get a "Build a Factory" kit?


If they lack the kowledge, they'll work in conjunction with someone that does, they'll probably not build the factory, probably people that know how to build a factory will.

Let me ask you have you EVER done volunteer work? or lived in a collective home? Its not that hard to figure out who can do what and to organize it democratically.

As for lacking the capital, its not because the capital is'nt there, its because of private property, most workers don'nt run their factories because they NEED their boss, its due to private property.


For one, we abolished child labor in the U.S. because children no longer needed to work to sustain their families.

Two, one of the arguments that people use for the ever growing disparity of wealth is that the market would create monopolies. I have an unanswered post on monopoly price that needs to be addressed (On the Thom Hartman topic).


One: Child labor was abolished in large part due to labor unions that stopped the practice and forced policies, child labor was due to unemployment, factories did'nt want to hire adults due to cost so they sent out the kids to work for less, which further exhasperated the unemployment

Two, I'll look at that argument, but another argument for growing disparity is competition the race for profits, which require constant growth of profits which means cutting and cutting labor costs and working workers harder and harder.


Are they subject to government regulation? Yes? Then the government claims at least partial ownership over their property and operation, since they can tell them what to do correct? So it is not privatized at all.


Thats a cop out, thats not the definition of privatized, under that argument EVERY SINGLE company is partially owned by the government, which is juts rediculous and if your gonna argue like that, whats the point, your not making sense.

The fact is health care is MUCH MORE privatized than the fully socialised health care systems and they do much worse, this is basically true accross the board with the economy.


What

Ever heard of public schools?

[Jose Gracchus]

You are rather behind the times if you think that Japanese cars are the future. They have been at the forefront for decades and are becoming less rather than more significant now. The rise of the Japanese Car industry is a product of the general success of the Japanese Economy. And the Japanese Economy grew so fast following a series of policies very far from what you advocate. Moreoever the decline in the Japanese economy was as a result of it moving away from these policies towards more Anglo-American style ones. I'm not going to turn this into a long essay on Japanese economic policy, but suffice to say it involved a huge degree of Government planning and companies working according to Government targets in exchange for big subsidies.

Incidentally while on the subject of cars, there are a lot of very successful European car manufacturers. As well as some here in Britain, they biggest ones tend to come from places like France, Italy, Germany and Sweden. Again these are countries with noticeably less laissez-faire economies than the US.

Apparently Zombie Rothtard is unaware that Japan has an open Ministry of Industrial Planning.

[ZombieRothbard]

Apparently Zombie Rothtard is unaware that Japan has an open Ministry of Industrial Planning.

Here (http://www.hookedonphonics.com/learntoreadcontent/?ShowPopup=0&gclid=CMrj_LmxjaoCFct95QodzRHo0Q)

[ZombieRothbard]

If they lack the kowledge, they'll work in conjunction with someone that does, they'll probably not build the factory, probably people that know how to build a factory will.

Let me ask you have you EVER done volunteer work? or lived in a collective home? Its not that hard to figure out who can do what and to organize it democratically.

Parent/Children/Spouse relationships are notoriously low quality. Unless all of your workers are in love with each other, financially committed and part of a family unit, I don't think your comparison holds.


As for lacking the capital, its not because the capital is'nt there, its because of private property, most workers don'nt run their factories because they NEED their boss, its due to private property.

They NEED their boss, which wouldn't change. Capital goods don't appear out of peoples asses, they require research and development.


One: Child labor was abolished in large part due to labor unions that stopped the practice and forced policies, child labor was due to unemployment, factories did'nt want to hire adults due to cost so they sent out the kids to work for less, which further exhasperated the unemployment

Sounds ageist to me.


Two, I'll look at that argument, but another argument for growing disparity is competition the race for profits, which require constant growth of profits which means cutting and cutting labor costs and working workers harder and harder.

Race for profits, AKA competition that lowers pricers so consumers can afford cheap goods?


Thats a cop out, thats not the definition of privatized, under that argument EVERY SINGLE company is partially owned by the government, which is juts rediculous and if your gonna argue like that, whats the point, your not making sense.

Yes, every single government is partially owned by the government, hence statist crony-capitalism that is not really capitalism.


The fact is health care is MUCH MORE privatized than the fully socialised health care systems and they do much worse, this is basically true accross the board with the economy.

There aren't market signals in the healthcare industry, because of all of the socialized and regulated aspects of it. Nobody knows what healthcare would ACTUALLY cost if it wasn't for government intervention. I would say it would cost FAR less if there was actually market feedback.

[RGacky3]

Parent/Children/Spouse relationships are notoriously low quality. Unless all of your workers are in love with each other, financially committed and part of a family unit, I don't think your comparison holds.


I never used that comparison, I said collective housing and/or voluteer work.


They NEED their boss, which wouldn't change. Capital goods don't appear out of peoples asses, they require research and development.


None of which the bosses do at all.


Sounds ageist to me.


Does it? Come up with a better argument because thats idiotic.


Race for profits, AKA competition that lowers pricers so consumers can afford cheap goods?


Not always, infact more often than not they make more profits by making workers work more for less.


Yes, every single government is partially owned by the government, hence statist crony-capitalism that is not really capitalism.


That does'nt make any sense. Re-Read my post.

If a government does'nt exist you have Somalia, if a government does exist you cannot have Capitalism, or its not real Capitalism ... Sooooo .... Where does that leave us.


There aren't market signals in the healthcare industry, because of all of the socialized and regulated aspects of it. Nobody knows what healthcare would ACTUALLY cost if it wasn't for government intervention. I would say it would cost FAR less if there was actually market feedback.

There IS market feedback, people shop between insurance companies, btw, there are some other companies with private healthcare, and we can see those statistics if you want.

The fact stands, the more privatized the worse the quality, the higher the cost, the more socialised the better, this has been shown over and over again.

If your making the standard libertarian argument that privitization and markets make things worse and worse until its totally privatized and market/profit based then its juts perfect, then make it, but its a rediculous argument.

[Rafiq]

Those are the types of disputes amongst the revleft scene. As a non-socialist, I refuse to be drawn into an internal conflict.

Actually, there is none. Even the most hardcore supporters of the USSR acknowledge that was not worker's ownership.

[Rafiq]

In a capitalist community, no profit accrued thus not produced.
In a socialist community, depends who gets the most votes.






That's bullshit.

Or would you want a list?

[Rafiq]

Tell me where an anarcho-capitalist has ever said workers shouldn't have the right to own their own factories? You know, socialists kill babies and drink their blood. Thats what I have heard anyways.

The problem is, is that the internal contradictions within all forms of capitalism will, assure that the workers of all factories will want to overthrow their bosses.

Which, in an anarcho-capitalist society, would be illegal, and therefore not the rule of 'the people'.

Anarcho Capitalists assume that a significant amount of workers will actually want private ownership over the means of production to exist.

Whilst, under Anarcho Capitalism, the problem will remain, the disputes between labor and capital, the ultimate social contradiction in capitalism: Class Warfare. And it looks to me, that the ball is favored to the capitalists, in such a society you propose.

You give the workers two options, they can have the right to eat shit(Work for a boss), or they can have the right to, say, eat a cupcake.(have no boss)

I don't see anything anarchist about this society.

[Rafiq]

Well if the workers lack the knowledge or capital, then that isn't denying them a right to do anything, that is just their own shortcomings. In socialism how would workers own factories anyways? Would they go and get a "Build a Factory" kit?




Your argument is flawed beyond belief, and it would appear your at a dead end.

Are you a fucking idiot? Really? Are you serious?

Do you actually think that workers need capitalists to know how to build a factory?

Let me ask you a question, how are factories built now and who builds them? Do capitalists build them? Do capitalists even know how to build them? So who knows how to build a factory? Can it be the workers? Really?

So shut the fuck up and stop pulling things out of your ass.

[Rafiq]

So you are an ageist. Thought so.



So kids should be able to do whatever they want? What if a kid decides he wants to do crack? It's his choice? No stopping him?

[Rafiq]

Christ this guy is fucking crazy!

[ZombieRothbard]

The problem is, is that the internal contradictions within all forms of capitalism will, assure that the workers of all factories will want to overthrow their bosses.

What? I never understood this assumption on the part of you folks that the working class hate their bosses and secretly want to kill them or steal their property. To me that is some sort of psychosis that needs psychiatric attention.


Which, in an anarcho-capitalist society, would be illegal, and therefore not the rule of 'the people'.

They can go work for another boss? They can pool capital and start their own business? Basically you are saying that anarcho-capitalism prevents people from committing acts of violence, and taking things which they did not earn.


Anarcho Capitalists assume that a significant amount of workers will actually want private ownership over the means of production to exist.

Whilst, under Anarcho Capitalism, the problem will remain, the disputes between labor and capital, the ultimate social contradiction in capitalism: Class Warfare. And it looks to me, that the ball is favored to the capitalists, in such a society you propose.

I personally don't think class warfare exists in the way that you guys talk about it. I think the whole concept is a spectre in the back of your minds that was planted there by Marx or whoever else you read. It is just some sort of spooky mysticism that doesn't actually exist, and in effect is just a talking point. There are numerous topics on here asking "Why doesn't the working class support communism?". The answer is that your guys analysis is just wrong.


You give the workers two options, they can have the right to eat shit(Work for a boss), or they can have the right to, say, eat a cupcake.(have no boss)

I don't see anything anarchist about this society.

I would argue it is more "anarchist" than your society, if you are to define anarchy as being individualistic. The reason why the left has trouble with it is because it doesn't allow for people to commit acts of violence or enslave eachother collectively.

[ZombieRothbard]

Your argument is flawed beyond belief, and it would appear your at a dead end.

Are you a fucking idiot? Really? Are you serious?

Do you actually think that workers need capitalists to know how to build a factory?

Let me ask you a question, how are factories built now and who builds them? Do capitalists build them? Do capitalists even know how to build them? So who knows how to build a factory? Can it be the workers? Really?

So shut the fuck up and stop pulling things out of your ass.

Workers need capitalists to calculate what actually has to go into the construction of a factory for production. A bunch of hammer swingers likely are not accountants, researchers or CEO's. You are totally ignoring the division of labor necessary to construct a factory. The building of the walls is probably one of the least important parts. And your lack of consideration of the complexity of the division of labor is likely one of the reasons why you are a socialist.

[ZombieRothbard]

So kids should be able to do whatever they want? What if a kid decides he wants to do crack? It's his choice? No stopping him?

If the parent allows him to use it, and he chooses to use it, he should be allowed to use it. If his parents do not allow him to use it, and he wants to use it, he can emancipate himself by leaving his home. The relationship between a parent and offspring should be a trusteeship, not one where the child is the parents property/chattel like in our current system. And I am surprised that there are people on this site who support the war on drugs and ageist slavery. The revolutionary left doesn't seem very revolutionary to me, at least not some of it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Workers need capitalists to calculate what actually has to go into the construction of a factory for production. A bunch of hammer swingers likely are not accountants, researchers or CEO's. You are totally ignoring the division of labor necessary to construct a factory. The building of the walls is probably one of the least important parts. And your lack of consideration of the complexity of the division of labor is likely one of the reasons why you are a socialist.

You don't need capitalists for entrepreneurship.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Workers need capitalists to calculate what actually has to go into the construction of a factory for production. A bunch of hammer swingers likely are not accountants, researchers or CEO's. You are totally ignoring the division of labor necessary to construct a factory. The building of the walls is probably one of the least important parts. And your lack of consideration of the complexity of the division of labor is likely one of the reasons why you are a socialist.
Worker's need capitalists...they need people who do nothing, but absorb the profits?

Accountants and researchers are not capitalists.

Yes. It takes a combined effort to construct/complete a building. Architects, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, heavy equipment operators etc. The CEO, contrary to what you may believe, has little to do with the work. Perhaps he chooses what will be aesthetically pleasing to himself. Maybe he will choose 13 instead of 14 floors. Other than that, he sits down, and reaps the profits.

If building the walls is the least important part, perhaps we shouldn't build them, and we can see how well everything else goes.

Marx wrote that "with this division of labour", the worker is "depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine". Division of labour is not a good thing, as well the division of labour is a result of capitalism.

[ZombieRothbard]

I never used that comparison, I said collective housing and/or voluteer work.

Volunteer work is usually for free isn't it? So how does that relate to having to come to democratic decisions with people whose lives depend on the vote?


None of which the bosses do at all.

The bosses coordinate it.


Does it? Come up with a better argument because thats idiotic.
Ok, I am against people claiming other human beings as property.


Not always, infact more often than not they make more profits by making workers work more for less.

This may be true, but is not universal and I do not see why it is necessarily bad.


That does'nt make any sense. Re-Read my post.

I meant to say that private property is partially controlled by the state, making it not actually private. When the government regulates your business, they are claiming partial ownership over your business (and partial ownership over you, which is basically a form of partial slavery, hence collectivism is slavery).


If a government does'nt exist you have Somalia, if a government does exist you cannot have Capitalism, or its not real Capitalism ... Sooooo .... Where does that leave us.

I call myself an anarcho-capitalist, but I have come to disagree with private security models proposed by many ancaps. I think over time security companies would consolidate into separate regions to avoid conflict, resulting in small localized "governments". I still consider this anarcho-capitalism, because as long as these small governments are built on the principle of voluntary association, they are still legitimate.


There IS market feedback, people shop between insurance companies, btw, there are some other companies with private healthcare, and we can see those statistics if you want.

The fact stands, the more privatized the worse the quality, the higher the cost, the more socialised the better, this has been shown over and over again.

The reason why it seems this way, is because you do not understand that the economy is basically a closed system. You can hypothetically socialize a healthcare industry and give everybody in society top level healthcare, but you have to fund that industry somehow. They do it in may ways, but there are two which I will mention.

One, they tax the rich, essentially taking investment capital away from the market. In doing so, you kill potential "unseen" jobs and industry that will never be created. Many people say that the rich hoard their money, so it is not creating jobs etc. Well, the rich typically invest their capital back into the market, which funds job creation even when they are not directly opening factories themselves.

Two, the government will print money, which devalues the currency. This is basically a hidden tax, even the poor are taxed in this way. They basically steal the dollars right out of your pocket, so even the poorest bum on the street gets his beer money taken away to pay for other peoples healthcare.


If your making the standard libertarian argument that privitization and markets make things worse and worse until its totally privatized and market/profit based then its juts perfect, then make it, but its a rediculous argument.

We have established two ways the government simply shuffles around money. They shuffle it into the healthcare industry by either stealing your money via taxation, or devaluing it with the printing press. Then they dump it into the healthcare industry, and run up deficits etc. There is no way of knowing what healthcare REALLY should cost, because nobody opts out of the healthcare system. Since everybody can afford it (through public insurance), nobody rejects the high prices, and there are no signals to the healthcare industry that they are charging too much. So they continue to raise the prices, since the government is footing the bill anyways. There is no reason to lower the price, because nobody even looks at the price, they just swipe their insurance card. It is no bother to them how high the price is, it isn't their money so who cares? Does anybody try to save the government money, hell no? So there are no market signals, hence runaway prices in the so called "privatized" insurance industry.

[ZombieRothbard]

Worker's need capitalists...they need people who do nothing, but absorb the profits?

Accountants and researchers are not capitalists.

They are not, but the capitalist organizes production.


Yes. It takes a combined effort to construct/complete a building. Architects, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, heavy equipment operators etc. The CEO, contrary to what you may believe, has little to do with the work. Perhaps he chooses what will be aesthetically pleasing to himself. Maybe he will choose 13 instead of 14 floors. Other than that, he sits down, and reaps the profits.

If by aesthetically pleasing, you mean making sure that what is needed for production is actually being constructed and implemented properly, then yes.


If building the walls is the least important part, perhaps we shouldn't build them, and we can see how well everything else goes.

How about we build four walls, put a roof over it and order some random machinery and producers goods and hope we can make something out of it.


Marx wrote that "with this division of labour", the worker is "depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine". Division of labour is not a good thing, as well the division of labour is a result of capitalism.

You can't even make a bowl of ice cream without the division of labor, which begs the question why you and Marx both hate ice cream so much? :blink:

[Rafiq]

What? I never understood this assumption on the part of you folks that the working class hate their bosses and secretly want to kill them or steal their property. To me that is some sort of psychosis that needs psychiatric attention.

:rolleyes: Surly you understand that the interests of the Workers and that of the Capitalists are not only opposed, they are complete contradictions. I see no reason why I should even have a conversation with you

1. The society you propose will end in class warfare and will most likely not happen.

2. You're a Utopian, therefore anything I throw against your Utopia you will dismiss with petty-straw man arguments such as the one above.




They can go work for another boss? They can pool capital and start their own business? Basically you are saying that anarcho-capitalism prevents people from committing acts of violence, and taking things which they did not earn.

Now you piss me off. Fuck you. I said if the majority of workers decide they want to overthrow their bosses, what will your society do about it? Do you remember the weichmere republic in Germany, or whatever it's called, how will you deal with worker's uprisings? Are you kidding me? Do you not expect there to be any worker's uprisings at all? Yet again, your so called "Anarchist society" will prevent that from happening, Alas, we draw the line to square one. The revolutionaries against the tyrants, the workers against the Capitalists. You can put whatever name you like, Ancap, Libertarian, it's generally the same shit anyway.

Take things they did not earn? You fucking prick, HOW DOES THE CAPITALIST EARN HIS MONEY? HMMM? He certainly doesn't work for it, that's for sure. If you want a chart, I'll give it to you.



I personally don't think class warfare exists in the way that you guys talk about it. I think the whole concept is a spectre in the back of your minds that was planted there by Marx or whoever else you read. It is just some sort of spooky mysticism that doesn't actually exist, and in effect is just a talking point. There are numerous topics on here asking "Why doesn't the working class support communism?". The answer is that your guys analysis is just wrong.

I don't give three flying fucks if you think it exists or not, it does. The working class doesn't support communism for obvious reasons: They are unaware of what communism really is.

And, take a look at fucking history, even in the United States, there IS a class war going on, and even Anarcho Capitalists could acknowledge that and just say "We want to stop it". Then you say:


"Ha! Class war where? I don't see any! It's Dead!"

Yes, the working class took a blow from the 90's. But we are recovering. The Middle east, Greece, is something to keep an eye on. I know the mindset of the Workers in the Middle East. They want communism and don't even know it.



I would argue it is more "anarchist" than your society, if you are to define anarchy as being individualistic. The reason why the left has trouble with it is because it doesn't allow for people to commit acts of violence or enslave eachother collectively.


Whatever Anarchist means, I wouldn't fucking say so, since Anarchism is rule of the people, while your society is rule of the capitalists, like Ancient greece.

[Die Rote Fahne]

They are not, but the capitalist organizes production.
The capitalist is not needed to do this. A democratic council of workers could easily organize production more efficiently because their focus is on completing it, and completing it right, not on making a profit. The construction workers know more about construction than the capitalist. The Architect knows more about the design than the capitalists. Etc.


If by aesthetically pleasing, you mean making sure that what is needed for production is actually being constructed and implemented properly, then yes.
No, not at all. The CEO/capitalist hires people to make sure things go properly. The architect draws the designs and blue prints, the CEO may say yes or no to them. That is all. He has no input or authority on what will make the building stand up, be safe, etc.


How about we build four walls, put a roof over it and order some random machinery and producers goods and hope we can make something out of it.
What?



You can't even make a bowl of ice cream without the division of labor, which begs the question why you and Marx both hate ice cream so much? :blink:
http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/medium/double-facepalm.jpg

[Rafiq]

You can't even make a bowl of ice cream without the division of labor, which begs the question why you and Marx both hate ice cream so much? :blink:

You don't know what the division of labor means in Marxist terms, it certainly doesn't mean 'People doing different types and amounts of works".

And to the fellow you were replying to: Marx didn't say the DOL was an outcome of capitalism, it was an outcome of agriculture.

to Zombie: Stop talking about Marx when clearly he is a man you are unfamiliar with in terms of his works.

Have you read capital? Have you read anything of his, besides the communist manifesto, which he later wanted to revise? No? Then shut the fuck up.

[RGacky3]

Volunteer work is usually for free isn't it? So how does that relate to having to come to democratic decisions with people whose lives depend on the vote?


Exactly, its for free, and how are decisions made? Many times democratically, there are tons of examples of how this stuff works, just look at cooperatives for example.


The bosses coordinate it.


And there is no reason the workers could'nt coordinate it themselves, plus the bosses coordinate it in a way that benefits them first, the investor second and the worker way way at the bottom.


Ok, I am against people claiming other human beings as property.


So THAT is your argument about why children should work? First of all, I'm not actually in favor of child laws in general, but I am under Capitalism, but what I'm more against is the conditions (Capitalism) that would require children to work.


This may be true, but is not universal and I do not see why it is necessarily bad.


Its mostly universal, and its bad because its bad for the worker, their productivity goes up and up and their wages drop, and it eventually leads to a demand deficit and a collapse.


I meant to say that private property is partially controlled by the state, making it not actually private. When the government regulates your business, they are claiming partial ownership over your business (and partial ownership over you, which is basically a form of partial slavery, hence collectivism is slavery).


Yeah, but they are also guaranteeing your property, the goernment is the whole reason private property can exist.

As far as your slavery part of it, thats rediculous, regulating buisiness is not even close to slavery, wage labor is, in a very real sense.


I call myself an anarcho-capitalist, but I have come to disagree with private security models proposed by many ancaps. I think over time security companies would consolidate into separate regions to avoid conflict, resulting in small localized "governments". I still consider this anarcho-capitalism, because as long as these small governments are built on the principle of voluntary association, they are still legitimate.


The principle of voluntary association goes out the window when you have vast land and capital "property" that is protected by threat and violence and thus deprives other people of the means to even exist, or even stand on land.

What you described is Monarchy, or more like Somalia.


The reason why it seems this way, is because you do not understand that the economy is basically a closed system. You can hypothetically socialize a healthcare industry and give everybody in society top level healthcare, but you have to fund that industry somehow. They do it in may ways, but there are two which I will mention.


Not hypothetically, they do it in EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.


One, they tax the rich, essentially taking investment capital away from the market. In doing so, you kill potential "unseen" jobs and industry that will never be created. Many people say that the rich hoard their money, so it is not creating jobs etc. Well, the rich typically invest their capital back into the market, which funds job creation even when they are not directly opening factories themselves.

Two, the government will print money, which devalues the currency. This is basically a hidden tax, even the poor are taxed in this way. They basically steal the dollars right out of your pocket, so even the poorest bum on the street gets his beer money taken away to pay for other peoples healthcare.


Or they could run it as a non-profit buisiness, or run it with the revenues of another socialized buisiness.


We have established two ways the government simply shuffles around money. They shuffle it into the healthcare industry by either stealing your money via taxation, or devaluing it with the printing press. Then they dump it into the healthcare industry, and run up deficits etc. There is no way of knowing what healthcare REALLY should cost, because nobody opts out of the healthcare system. Since everybody can afford it (through public insurance), nobody rejects the high prices, and there are no signals to the healthcare industry that they are charging too much. So they continue to raise the prices, since the government is footing the bill anyways. There is no reason to lower the price, because nobody even looks at the price, they just swipe their insurance card. It is no bother to them how high the price is, it isn't their money so who cares? Does anybody try to save the government money, hell no? So there are no market signals, hence runaway prices in the so called "privatized" insurance industry.

No, Norway for example pays for it partially with Oil money, i.e. the resources of the country which belong to the people of Norway.

I would respond to your issue point by point, but its a waste of time, because the rest of hte world has a public healthcare system and it WORKS.

Also if the healthcare insdsutry is actually public, the ballot box decides how expensive it is, if its just the insurance, then guess what, the government CAN negotiate.

[Rafiq]

Arguing against Utopia is not going to get us anywhere. And this same thing does happen with 'communists' who argue for their own Utopia with people, and tend to win. You cannot argue against Utopia, it's simply impossible.

Thread closed

[Klaatu]

Workers need capitalists to calculate what actually has to go into the construction of a factory for production. A bunch of hammer swingers likely are not accountants, researchers or CEO's. You are totally ignoring the division of labor necessary to construct a factory. The building of the walls is probably one of the least important parts. And your lack of consideration of the complexity of the division of labor is likely one of the reasons why you are a socialist.

(a) Why couldn't accountants, researchers and "ceo's" be Socialist?

(b) I can build a house or even an entire machine shop (I think I am smart enough to do that, because I went to a good school. I've rebuilt engines, transmissions, and have designed and constructed countless mechanical and electronics projects...)

And yet no capitalist has ever funded me for my endeavours.

(c) Do you think that capitalists are the only ones smart enough to build things? Do you think that capitalists are the only ones that can do math calculations? Do you think that capitalists are the only ones that can run a business?

(d) What makes you think that a Socialist-owned factory does not practice division of labor? What makes you think a Socialist-owned factory would be non-productive? Are you suggesting that Socialists are lazy?

[RGacky3]

BTW, ageist is not a real thing.

[ZombieRothbard]

You don't know what the division of labor means in Marxist terms, it certainly doesn't mean 'People doing different types and amounts of works".

And to the fellow you were replying to: Marx didn't say the DOL was an outcome of capitalism, it was an outcome of agriculture.

to Zombie: Stop talking about Marx when clearly he is a man you are unfamiliar with in terms of his works.

Have you read capital? Have you read anything of his, besides the communist manifesto, which he later wanted to revise? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Have you read Man, Economy and State with Power and Market? Have you read Human Action?

No? Then shut the fuck up. :thumbup1:

[ZombieRothbard]

:rolleyes: Surly you understand that the interests of the Workers and that of the Capitalists are not only opposed, they are complete contradictions. I see no reason why I should even have a conversation with you

If you don't want to have a conversation, than you can stop pos... wow, you went on to post several times after you said this. Well... :confused:


1. The society you propose will end in class warfare and will most likely not happen.

Jesus will send plagues of locusts to destroy your socialist society.


2. You're a Utopian, therefore anything I throw against your Utopia you will dismiss with petty-straw man arguments such as the one above.

AKA if you don't agree with mysticism about how society is at war with itself, you are a utopian.


Now you piss me off. Fuck you.

:laugh:


I said if the majority of workers decide they want to overthrow their bosses, what will your society do about it? Do you remember the weichmere republic in Germany, or whatever it's called, how will you deal with worker's uprisings? Are you kidding me? Do you not expect there to be any worker's uprisings at all? Yet again, your so called "Anarchist society" will prevent that from happening, Alas, we draw the line to square one. The revolutionaries against the tyrants, the workers against the Capitalists. You can put whatever name you like, Ancap, Libertarian, it's generally the same shit anyway.

I wouldn't expect workers uprisings, no. As for the rest of it, it seems like you are giving a soliloquy, so I will let you talk to yourself.


Take things they did not earn? You fucking prick, HOW DOES THE CAPITALIST EARN HIS MONEY? HMMM? He certainly doesn't work for it, that's for sure. If you want a chart, I'll give it to you.

How did the capitalist get his money in the first place? By working for it?


I don't give three flying fucks if you think it exists or not, it does. The working class doesn't support communism for obvious reasons: They are unaware of what communism really is.

Jesus exists too, and the only reason there are so many atheists around is because they are unaware of what Jesus really represents, which is peace/love etc. ;)


And, take a look at fucking history, even in the United States, there IS a class war going on, and even Anarcho Capitalists could acknowledge that and just say "We want to stop it". Then you say:


"Ha! Class war where? I don't see any! It's Dead!"

Yes, the working class took a blow from the 90's. But we are recovering. The Middle east, Greece, is something to keep an eye on. I know the mindset of the Workers in the Middle East. They want communism and don't even know it.

Those godless savages in Scandinavia want Jesus, and they don't even know it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Have you read Man, Economy and State with Power and Market? Have you read Human Action?

No? Then shut the fuck up. :thumbup1:

I have, and it was an incredibly dry piece of pseuo-academic propaganda; starting with its opening premise of what constitutes Human Action... /yawn

[Rafiq]

If you don't want to have a conversation, than you can stop pos... wow, you went on to post several times after you said this. Well... :confused:

No, this is a site for revolutionary leftists. You can go on and fuck yourself long and hard to some Ancap Ayn rand cult site.





Jesus will send plagues of locusts to destroy your socialist society.


fail troll. You claim a socialist society will fail because workers need capitalists to enslave them. I claim any capitalist society is doomed to destruction because of internal contradictions such as class antagonism.

Which one sounds more realistic?



AKA if you don't agree with mysticism about how society is at war with itself, you are a utopian.

You are a Utopian, not because of your idiocy in regards to class analysis, but because you believe in mystical bullshit that is the market.

:laugh:




I wouldn't expect workers uprisings, no. As for the rest of it, it seems like you are giving a soliloquy, so I will let you talk to yourself.

The fuck if I care what you expect, it's going to happen.




How did the capitalist get his money in the first place? By working for it?

No, by inheriting it you fucker. Majority of rich people got rich through inheritance. And many of which trace down to the fuedal aristocracy. Fail.



Jesus exists too, and the only reason there are so many atheists around is because they are unaware of what Jesus really represents, which is peace/love etc. ;)

Atheists are more familiar with Jesus than Christians, yet Communists are more familiar with communism than Non communists such as yourself.



Those godless savages in Scandinavia want Jesus, and they don't even know it.

You fucking ****, because Jesus is an economic model, right? :rolleyes:

Workers are starting to want to overthrow their bosses, in Egypt, some workers are calling for total state ownership of all factories. I wonder...

[ZombieRothbard]

No, this is a site for revolutionary leftists. You can go on and fuck yourself long and hard to some Ancap Ayn rand cult site.

The guy on the Revolutionary Leftist site (who presumably supports children being treated as property and locking people up for doing drugs, correct me if I am wrong) is telling me to go post on a cult website.

Neither of these websites, Revleft or whatever other website you are referring to, are cult websites in my opinion. They are advocacy/discussion sites for non-mainstream ideologies. If you want to call the Austrian School a "cult", then I think you are throwing stones from a glass house.


fail troll. You claim a socialist society will fail because workers need capitalists to enslave them. I claim any capitalist society is doomed to destruction because of internal contradictions such as class antagonism.

You make my entire argument into one talking about that you obviously strawmanned for hyperbolic effect. I don't even think it warrants more of a response than that.


Which one sounds more realistic?

I have a theory called democratic antagonism. Basically, the anti-gay marriage and the gay-marriage folks are in an antagonistic relationship within democracy, because democracy pits different social ideologies against eachother. Therefor, democracy totally fails. Every time somebody makes a topic promoting democracy on this forum, I will now say "It won't work because of "Democratic Social Group Warfare", and I will effectively ignore the rest of your argument, swear at you and call you utopian. Does that sound about right?


You are a Utopian, not because of your idiocy in regards to class analysis, but because you believe in mystical bullshit that is the market.

:laugh:

Socialists aren't even necessarily against the market.



The fuck if I care what you expect, it's going to happen.

So is Democratic Social Group Warfare, are you a fucking idiot? It is totally going to happen, because I said so. :thumbup:


No, by inheriting it you fucker. Majority of rich people got rich through inheritance. And many of which trace down to the fuedal aristocracy. Fail.

Source? Not saying you are lying, I just want to see it.

Also, please tell me the ethical argument against being able to pass wealth you worked for onto your children when you die?


Atheists are more familiar with Jesus than Christians, yet Communists are more familiar with communism than Non communists such as yourself.

What? I know Jesus really well, he talks to me and everything. He even told me the plague of locusts is going to destroy your socialist society.


You fucking ****, because Jesus is an economic model, right? :rolleyes:
Work with me here, I am just lampooning your non-argument.


Workers are starting to want to overthrow their bosses, in Egypt, some workers are calling for total state ownership of all factories. I wonder...

In the United States, some members of a Democratic Social Group are trying to use the force of the state to prevent gays from getting married. This Democratic Social Group Warfare is brutal, democracy has failed etc etc.

[ZombieRothbard]

Btw Rafiq, since your tone on the other topic got less combative, I apologize for taking an equal tone with you in my last post.

[Rafiq]

The guy on the Revolutionary Leftist site (who presumably supports children being treated as property and locking people up for doing drugs, correct me if I am wrong) is telling me to go post on a cult website.[QUOTE]

You're wrong, I never said people should be locked up for doing drugs, that's just dishonest. And yes, Children should be required to go to school at least until they're of proper age. Children are easily manipulated and can be brainwashed at young ages not to go to school.


[QUOTE]Neither of these websites, Revleft or whatever other website you are referring to, are cult websites in my opinion. They are advocacy/discussion sites for non-mainstream ideologies. If you want to call the Austrian School a "cult", then I think you are throwing stones from a glass house.


The Austrian school is certainly not a cult, that's ridiculous, however, Objectivism is a cult.


You make my entire argument into one talking about that you obviously strawmanned for hyperbolic effect. I don't even think it warrants more of a response than that.

You don't believe in Class conflict. That's absurd.


I have a theory called democratic antagonism. Basically, the anti-gay marriage and the gay-marriage folks are in an antagonistic relationship within democracy, because democracy pits different social ideologies against eachother. Therefor, democracy totally fails. Every time somebody makes a topic promoting democracy on this forum, I will now say "It won't work because of "Democratic Social Group Warfare", and I will effectively ignore the rest of your argument, swear at you and call you utopian. Does that sound about right?

Because it's true, yes, we will have free speech, and in democracy, we will always have arguments and disagreements. However, with proper education, we can keep it civil, and it won't have to lead to a war.

However, that doesn't mean Democracy is doomed to failure, because I'm a materialist, and unlike you I'm no Idealist. Wars do not occur because people have different opinions on subjects. Including religion.

Now, talking about conflict between opinions in capitalism, all political views can be distinguished between Bourgeois and Proletariat. So, yes, that's still part of class war.

Class war, on the other hand, is based out of Human need, it's based on the most important thing to human beings: Survival. Not bickering against each other to's whether we should have Xbox in prison, etc.




Socialists aren't even necessarily against the market.

I was reffering to Utopian Capitalists who claim the magical Free Market fixes problems

(self correcting :laugh:)





So is Democratic Social Group Warfare, are you a fucking idiot? It is totally going to happen, because I said so. :thumbup:

it is already happening, of course, yet it isn't a War and is kept civil most of the time.



Source? Not saying you are lying, I just want to see it.

Also, please tell me the ethical argument against being able to pass wealth you worked for onto your children when you die?

I will give you a source later.

Because that Wealth mostly wasn't yours you worked for, you most likely have got it passed down to you. And if not, you still didn't work for it, you worked as a proletarian, than opened a factory and lived off of other people's work.

That doesn't even deserve wealth.

But I'm no ethical critic of capitalism.



What? I know Jesus really well, he talks to me and everything. He even told me the plague of locusts is going to destroy your socialist society.

(Does not respond due to spam and trolling)



Work with me here, I am just lampooning your non-argument.


No you're not.



In the United States, some members of a Democratic Social Group are trying to use the force of the state to prevent gays from getting married. This Democratic Social Group Warfare is brutal, democracy has failed etc etc.


But things like Anti-Gay feelings are stemmed off from Bourgeois ideology, which, again, is part of a class war against the Proletarians.

All ideas are reflections of the material world.

[RGacky3]

Rafiq ... take it easy