egaletarian educational system works better than competative.

[RGacky3]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

Libertarian heads explode all over the place, turns out, when you let build people up let them explore and learn without pressure, and with out competitiveness, it turns out better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

Libertarian heads explode all over the place, turns out, when you let build people up let them explore and learn without pressure, and with out competitiveness, it turns out better.There's a story - I think from A people's History of the US - about priests testing native Americans for intelligence. When the native kids got their individual tests, they immediately began talking and sharing ideas and possible answers. The priests got pissed off and told them to stop cheating, but the kids replied, why, I thought you wanted to get the correct answer to the problem.

[Night Ripper]

Libertarianism says almost nothing about how children should be taught. It does say that the money to pay for their teaching shouldn't be obtained at gunpoint from taxpayers. You really don't understand your opponents if you think that all libertarians raise their children to be Gordon Gekko from birth. There's a huge amount of diversity that your pithy one-liners simply can't address.

[RGacky3]

What it does tear down is libertarian assumptions on human nature.

(Btw, finland bans private schools).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Libertarianism says almost nothing about how children should be taught. It does say that the money to pay for their teaching shouldn't be obtained at gunpoint from taxpayers. You really don't understand your opponents if you think that all libertarians raise their children to be Gordon Gekko from birth. There's a huge amount of diversity that your pithy one-liners simply can't address.
Why go after education or welfare? Why not just get to the root of the matter, defund and disband the police and the military: stop that money from being taken from you by gunpoint and then no one will have to pay any taxes or anything because there won't be a governmental force with guns to point.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Fun article, if I hadn't unfriended my libertarian friends I would enjoy waving this in their noses. Nothing that hasn't been known by leftist for a while but it is still good to have reminders about the superiority of a more egalitarian system.

[Night Ripper]

Why go after education or welfare? Why not just get to the root of the matter, defund and disband the police and the military: stop that money from being taken from you by gunpoint and then no one will have to pay any taxes or anything because there won't be a governmental force with guns to point.

Sounds like a plan to me. Replace them with voluntary militias and private security firms. Anyone that doesn't want to pay for protection, doesn't have to. This is kind of off-topic though, don't you think?

[Thirsty Crow]

Sounds like a plan to me. Replace them with voluntary militias and private security firms. Anyone that doesn't want to pay for protection, doesn't have to. This is kind of off-topic though, don't you think?
You still haven't actually explained two important things:

1) how is the criticism levelled against the idea of private, for-profit security agencies as organized racket actually false

2) how should the transition to stateless capitalist society be organized (apart from "well, it will be just like slavery and feudalism were abolished").

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sounds like a plan to me.How would you achieve this?

[Zulu]

There's a story - I think from A people's History of the US - about priests testing native Americans for intelligence. When the native kids got their individual tests, they immediately began talking and sharing ideas and possible answers. The priests got pissed off and told them to stop cheating, but the kids replied, why, I thought you wanted to get the correct answer to the problem.
Unfortunately, this story can be used as a premise to say: "Look, that's why the Europeans colonized America, and not vice versa!"

[gorillafuck]

It does say that the money to pay for their teaching shouldn't be obtained at gunpoint from taxpayers.hey just because someone is a taxpayer doesn't mean they're in the montana militia

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's a story - I think from A people's History of the US - about priests testing native Americans for intelligence. When the native kids got their individual tests, they immediately began talking and sharing ideas and possible answers. The priests got pissed off and told them to stop cheating, but the kids replied, why, I thought you wanted to get the correct answer to the problem.

Priests gave the tests? No wonder it didn't work out, the faithheads probably completely neglected to inform them that the test was intended to be for them individually. Puffed up old buffoons. Did they even make sure if the kids could read and write? Judging by their displayed incompetence it would not surprise me if they didn't.

Assuming the story is true, of course.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Studies in so many fields similar to this one would indicate that competition doesn't create quality.

But we have to remember, libertarians are often seen as a joke even among the right...

[Night Ripper]

1) how is the criticism levelled against the idea of private, for-profit security agencies as organized racket actually false

You say "the criticism" as if there's one version of one argument. Be more specific.


2) how should the transition to stateless capitalist society be organized (apart from "well, it will be just like slavery and feudalism were abolished").

Reduce the powers of government on all levels. Get us back to what the basic constitution allows for and then go further. If you think "how do we get there" is the problem then you're very optimistic. Most of the people don't want to go there, so the "how" is kind of moot.


hey just because someone is a taxpayer doesn't mean they're in the montana militia

So what? Not every US tax payer is in the local police force or US military.

[RGacky3]

Night Ripper, as I remember this thread was about different educational systems, if you want to continue with your same bullshit derailings, start a new thread, so that we can ignore it.

[lombas]

So when for example the article says Finland lacks standardized testing apart from a national final test, wants to boost creativity &c., why would anyone describe the US educational model (pre-uni) as "competitive" and the Finnish one "egalitarian"?

[RGacky3]

egalitarian in the sense that people are given equal footing, there is not ONE standard that everyone has to compete by, everyone is encouraged to foster their own education rather than it being imposed, its not graded in the sense that the students are ranked, and so on.

[lombas]

egalitarian in the sense that people are given equal footing, there is not ONE standard that everyone has to compete by, everyone is encouraged to foster their own education rather than it being imposed, its not graded in the sense that the students are ranked, and so on.

I'm not too familiar with the US systems, but you say students are ranked? According to what? Test results? Because that seems quite reasonable, I don't see where "competition" comes in there. In many socialist countries, your test results/interests determine where you go after basic education.

What we're talking about instead is indeed what you say: giving equal footing to everyone. In the US, this isn't the case? I thought the public education system was "well" developed?

[RGacky3]

In many socialist countries

What socialist countries??? If we are talking about the soviet states or some other Leninist state, I don't consider those to be socialist (which I define as a democratic economic system).


Test results? Because that seems quite reasonable, I don't see where "competition" comes in there.

Well, obviously it does'nt work as well as the other system.


What we're talking about instead is indeed what you say: giving equal footing to everyone. In the US, this isn't the case? I thought the public education system was "well" developed?

Not at all, the educational system is paid for by property taxes .... think about that for asecond, also many rich people send their kids to private schools and thus pressure to defund public schools.

qlOfZL_J5fo

[l'Enfermé]

Libertarianism says almost nothing about how children should be taught. It does say that the money to pay for their teaching shouldn't be obtained at gunpoint from taxpayers. You really don't understand your opponents if you think that all libertarians raise their children to be Gordon Gekko from birth. There's a huge amount of diversity that your pithy one-liners simply can't address.
Yes they do. Capitalist libertarians(they're not really libertarians though, like you, because you're a capitalist and that contradicts the "libertarian" part)go on and on about competition breeds excellence bla bla bla and all that shit, while all studies show that association(socialism) and not competition and intimidation(capitalism)produces better result when it comes to...basically everything.

And yeah, Finland's system is very good. I was watching a lecture about it by a Finnish government education something(adviser? minister? i don't remember) on TV a few weeks ago.

Edit: I googled a picture of the Pasi Sahlberg guy from the article and it's actually him who was giving a lecture on TV, hah.

[Night Ripper]

because you're a capitalist and that contradicts the "libertarian" part

No it doesn't.

[l'Enfermé]

No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. You're either a Capitalist, a Libertarian, or neither, but not both. How can you be a libertarian if you're an apologist for capitalism that even today robs billions of their freedom, basic human rights like food, water and housing, and turns men and women into mere commodities? Such a stance is inconsistent with the tradition of libertarianism.

So yes, you either don't understand what capitalism is, or you don't understand what libertarianism is, or both.

[Revolution starts with U]

But borscht, don't you get it? Only States can be aggressive or coercive. In a free market nobody would shop or trade with them... because humanity is notorious for its peaceful nature.

[Night Ripper]

Yes, it does. You're either a Capitalist, a Libertarian, or neither, but not both. How can you be a libertarian if you're an apologist for capitalism that even today robs billions of their freedom, basic human rights like food, water and housing, and turns men and women into mere commodities? Such a stance is inconsistent with the tradition of libertarianism.

So yes, you either don't understand what capitalism is, or you don't understand what libertarianism is, or both.

Libertarians don't believe in positive rights i.e. the right to be fed. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

[Dean]

Libertarians don't believe in positive rights i.e. the right to be fed. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Even negative liberties still refer to a positive right to the "boundaries" of the human body - which are themselves malleable; controlling the food supply in a given region may kill people off without violating the negative liberty of those particular people. The only way to meaningfully employ the concept of mutually exclusive rights is to insure that this kind of control doesn't occur, which means a proportional or communal system of property.

[Night Ripper]

controlling the food supply in a given region may kill people off without violating the negative liberty of those particular people

So what? If I own an apple orchard, and I don't want you to have my apples, too bad. It's a dick move but not something that makes the usage of violence legitimate.

The point is, you have the right not to be touched, the right for your property not to be stolen, etc. You don't have the right to a hot meal and a soft bed because that would imply other people are responsible for providing for your survival, which they are not. As soon as you understand that you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, the better.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Night Ripper

"So what? If I own an apple orchard, and I don't want you to have my apples, too bad. It's a dick move but not something that makes the usage of violence legitimate."

"The point is, you have the right not to be touched, the right for your property not to be stolen, etc. You don't have the right to a hot meal and a soft bed because that would imply other people are responsible for providing for your survival, which they are not. As soon as you understand that you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, the better. "

You do not understand how leftist systems work. In a leftist system you live off of others labour, as others live off of yours ,even in the capitalist system you live off of others work.
The point is if you only live off your own property (egoism) you would only last one month.
Nobody said anything about taking your property. In the anarchist system your possessions remain your own, only the instruments of production and basic things like factories, land, tools, food, clothes, etc, are to be public.

The point also is that if your force people to live in a system that does not forbids basic human behavior (socialization) then you are authoritarian.

[Night Ripper]

even in the capitalist system you live off of others work

I'm not against people living off of others voluntarily. Rape and consensual sex both involve penetration but just because I'm against rape doesn't mean I'm against consensual sex. This is just basic logic.


The point also is that if your force people to live in a system that does not forbids basic human behavior (socialization) then you are authoritarian.

What?

[Revolution starts with U]

So what? If I own an apple orchard, and I don't want you to have my apples, too bad. It's a dick move but not something that makes the usage of violence legitimate.

The point is, you have the right not to be touched, the right for your property not to be stolen, etc. You don't have the right to a hot meal and a soft bed because that would imply other people are responsible for providing for your survival, which they are not. As soon as you understand that you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, the better.

Why does it not justify it? Because you say so? People have no such "right" outside what society allows to not be aggressed against. Sad maybe, but true.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@nighht ripper

"What?"

I was sleepy when I wrote that, here is a rewrite:

if you force people to live in a system that forbids basic human behavior (socialization) then you are authoritarian.

I do not know how I managed to fuck that up so bad.

[l'Enfermé]

As soon as you understand that you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, the better.
So you oppose wage-labor then? Because if you don't, you're falsely accusing us of thinking that people are entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, while you yourself are the only one guilty of that around here.

"You have the right to own a factory that someone else built and others operate, but you don't have the right not to starve or freeze to death in a society which can easily provide every single living person with food and warmth, but doesn't, because poor people don't have money to pay for bread or blankets"

You dismiss the most basic and elementary human rights, yet you're a champion of "rights" that only the highest and most priviliged layers of society can enjoy or need.

Anyways everytime you post your arguments are completely destroyed and then you just make replies only to small portions of counter-arguments, and even then your replies consist mainly of arguing semantics. Do you enjoy being humiliated? Are you a sadomasochist?

[Night Ripper]

So you oppose wage-labor then? Because if you don't, you're falsely accusing us of thinking that people are entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, while you yourself are the only one guilty of that around here.

Wage labor is a voluntary exchange. I am not entitled to your labor and you are not entitled to my money. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you don't like it, go hunt, farm or fish. You don't just get to take what you want from others.


"You have the right to own a factory that someone else built and others operate

Why did they build it? Did they just build it because they owned the resources required to build it and felt like building a factory? Then the big ol' mean capitalist swooped down and stole it? No. The factory was built because some capitalist said "if you work building this factory, I'll pay you X dollars per hour". That's a voluntary exchange. Coming back later and pointing out that you built it means nothing at all. Someone pays you to make a sandwich and you think you get to keep the money and the sandwich? You're delusional.


, but you don't have the right not to starve or freeze to death in a society which can easily provide every single living person with food and warmth, but doesn't, because poor people don't have money to pay for bread or blankets"

Society doesn't own blankets and food. People do. If you want something from a person that they own, you have to make an offer, "please I need it", "I'll give you $5", "I'll be your best friend", etc, and if they don't accept the offer, you have to keep your damn hands to yourself.


You dismiss the most basic and elementary human rights, yet you're a champion of "rights" that only the highest and most priviliged layers of society can enjoy or need.

Bullshit. Currently you can't go into unowned land like a national park and set up a homestead but I think you should be able to do exactly that. Is that something the megarich are going to do? Build a single room log cabin and live in it? I don't think so.


Anyways everytime you post your arguments are completely destroyed and then you just make replies only to small portions of counter-arguments, and even then your replies consist mainly of arguing semantics. Do you enjoy being humiliated? Are you a sadomasochist?

Yet you're the one that continually makes this personal. If you were so confident about your argument, I think you'd stick to the topic instead of worrying about me.

[Prinskaj]

Wage labor is a voluntary exchange.
Under the threat of starvation..

Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you don't like it, go hunt, farm or fish. You don't just get to take what you want from others.
A) In the current system that choice is limited since you need a licence from the state to partake in any of them.
B) If you are referring to your ideal society, then there are still problems, such as someone taking ownership of all nearby land, rivers, seas etc. And even if someone hasn't already taken that, then participation in the capitalist system is still required to obtain the equipment for acquiring these resources.


Society doesn't own blankets and food. People do.
Stop arguing semantics! Society is composed of people, so that statement is completely useless.


Bullshit. Currently you can't go into unowned land like a national park and set up a homestead but I think you should be able to do exactly that. Is that something the megarich are going to do? Build a single room log cabin and live in it? I don't think so.
But what if these parks were ripe for the taking, wouldn't large business have a huge intensive of using these lands? It doesn't seem fair to make a large corporation and a homeless man fight in a legal battle..

[Genghis]

Maybe the Finns have higher IQ.

[Night Ripper]

there are still problems, such as someone taking ownership of all nearby land, rivers, seas etc

You clearly have no idea how homesteading works.

[Revolution starts with U]

To be honest I don't think you do either

[Prinskaj]

You clearly have no idea how homesteading works.
If you by "homesteading" mean the act of owning the means to create the products needed to sustain your own livelihood (Being self-sufficient), then I understand perfectly.
My point was, that if government property was to be redistributed, to allow for this homesteading to commence, then what would stop people, businesses or others who do not need it, to take this land for their own?

[Dean]

So what? If I own an apple orchard, and I don't want you to have my apples, too bad. It's a dick move but not something that makes the usage of violence legitimate.

The point is, you have the right not to be touched, the right for your property not to be stolen, etc. You don't have the right to a hot meal and a soft bed because that would imply other people are responsible for providing for your survival, which they are not. As soon as you understand that you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, the better.


Repeating your position doesn't change that private property can and does provide a legal or ethical "right" to exterminate human life.

I'm not sure why you're talking about forced labor. Capitalists own the fruits of our labor - but collectivizing the means of production doesn't compel anyone to work them. It simply means people can work, and enjoy the fruits of their labor - or fail to work, and starve. If you collectivize these goods, everyone has a chance to work (and in fact, your "use is ownerhsip" position is a radical collectivization system), but if they are privatized, only the owners of these goods can decide who has these opportunities.

[RGacky3]

Son of a *****, Night Ripper, stop derailing every thread with the same bullshit.

Start your own thread about it.

This thread COULD have been a good discussion about education and incentive systems, stop trolling.

[Night Ripper]

My point was, that if government property was to be redistributed, to allow for this homesteading to commence, then what would stop people, businesses or others who do not need it, to take this land for their own?

I don't argue non-concepts like "need".

You have to use the land in some way to actually own it. You can't just claim you own 100 square miles, build a shack on one corner of it and still keep the rest.


Repeating your position doesn't change that private property can and does provide a legal or ethical "right" to exterminate human life.

So? You and I kill people everyday by not donating a kidney. You kill people by not selling everything you own and giving it to starving Africans. These things are legal and should be.


(and in fact, your "use is ownerhsip" position is a radical collectivization system)

That's probably because you think ownership relies on continued usage but in my opinion it does not. Once I own something, I own it until I abandon it, sell it, gift it or gamble it away. Usage is how you claim originally unowned property. I can still rent land out that I'm not currently using as long as I initially owned it.

[Prinskaj]

I don't argue non-concepts like "need".
And again I give you the definition, that is most commonly uses, for what need is: "A need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life."
But this is however not of much importance.

You have to use the land in some way to actually own it. You can't just claim you own 100 square miles, build a shack on one corner of it and still keep the rest.
But what defines use? And who would enforce it?
Would i be able to dump my stuff all over a park and claim it as storage? Who I be able to say:"I want to build a mall here.. Someday"? Where is the limit?

[Dean]

So? You and I kill people everyday by not donating a kidney. You kill people by not selling everything you own and giving it to starving Africans. These things are legal and should be.

Actually, those who manage the food industry do this. I'm not talking about unreasonable requests to those who have little to give, but a reasonable dispensation of power over food resources, which is currently very centralized.

Kidney donations are significant personal choices that do not represent a public good in the way that external materials and systems do (i.e. the food industry, which itself can be managed to help dissuade kidney disease).


That's probably because you think ownership relies on continued usage but in my opinion it does not. Once I own something, I own it until I abandon it, sell it, gift it or gamble it away. Usage is how you claim originally unowned property. I can still rent land out that I'm not currently using as long as I initially owned it.

How do you define usage? Including scientific research and market speculation makes your statement patently absurd, though I think at least research is a legitimate way to use land. And you'd be hard pressed to say that you support capitalism yet oppose market speculation - the latter can be seen as the reason for every single public and private claim over unimproved land.

[Night Ripper]

But what defines use? And who would enforce it?
Would i be able to dump my stuff all over a park and claim it as storage? Who I be able to say:"I want to build a mall here.. Someday"? Where is the limit?

Some definitions are vague, for example, adulthood. There's no clear limit such as, "after 16 years, 3 weeks, 1 day and 47 seconds, you are an adult". There's still a distinction though because we know that a 4 year old isn't an adult and a 40 year old is an adult. There's just some fuzziness and room to argue around 15-19 years old.

If you spit in the ocean, you lose your spit, you don't own the ocean. We know that much. But trying to argue at the edges of the concept in order to refute the middle isn't going to work. You aren't going to convince anyone that 4 years-old is an adult simply by pointing out the fuzziness of 16 years-old, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The fuzzy parts of a definition are usually where some arbitrary decision is made and is either adopted or rejected by the market.

[Night Ripper]

Kidney donations are significant personal choices that do not represent a public good in the way that external materials and systems do (i.e. the food industry, which itself can be managed to help dissuade kidney disease).

That's just an ad hoc justification to avoid the logical absurdities that your ideology faces. If there are 30 million people with 2 kidneys each and 1 million people dying because they need a kidney, those million deaths are just a "personal choice". What a joke.


How do you define usage? Including scientific research and market speculation makes your statement patently absurd, though I think at least research is a legitimate way to use land. And you'd be hard pressed to say that you support capitalism yet oppose market speculation - the latter can be seen as the reason for every single public and private claim over unimproved land.

You don't suddenly own unowned land because you speculate that the price will change. You have to do something to it, build a fence around it or mark the boundaries in some way and use it to make a product, live on it, study it or have some sort of continued interest in using the land. That's how you get unowned land. Once you own it, you don't have to do anything but make sure others know that it isn't abandoned. Then you can engage in speculation or renting out all you like.

[Prinskaj]

Some definitions are vague, for example, adulthood. There's no clear limit such as, "after 16 years, 3 weeks, 1 day and 47 seconds, you are an adult". There's still a distinction though because we know that a 4 year old isn't an adult and a 40 year old is an adult. There's just some fuzziness and room to argue around 15-19 years old.
And that is why no rights, property or other, is bestowed upon adulthood as this way of distribution is too vague. Which is also why is usually a clear defining age for adulthood in most countries.


... You have to do something to it, build a fence around it or mark the boundaries in some way and use it to make a product, live on it, study it or have some sort of continued interest in using the land. That's how you get unowned land. Once you own it, you don't have to do anything but make sure others know that it isn't abandoned. Then you can engage in speculation or renting out all you like.
And I ask again, what is going to stop a large business, such as Wall-Mart, from building a large fence around every area of unowned land?

[Dean]

That's just an ad hoc justification to avoid the logical absurdities that your ideology faces. If there are 30 million people with 2 kidneys each and 1 million people dying because they need a kidney, those million deaths are just a "personal choice". What a joke.

It's not an ad-hoc justification. Communist ideology has never stipulated that human beings owe their labor to others, let alone their organs.


You don't suddenly own unowned land because you speculate that the price will change. You have to do something to it, build a fence around it or mark the boundaries in some way and use it to make a product, live on it, study it or have some sort of continued interest in using the land. That's how you get unowned land. Once you own it, you don't have to do anything but make sure others know that it isn't abandoned. Then you can engage in speculation or renting out all you like.

Your concept of "use" is still incredibly easy to exploit - and in fact, current property laws stipulate that boundaries be marked in some fashion upon the sale of land. Usually this means a survey is executed, but more often than not, the boundaries already have markings.


The simple difference is that your ideology explicitly approves of the centralization of those material goods needed by all humans, which allows for control over people, up to and including their very existence. Communism, on the other hand, makes a very clear demarcation for individual liberties, and stipulates that goods external to the human body should be held in common so as to prevent the centralized control over others. It's not more complicated than that.

[Night Ripper]

Communist ideology has never stipulated that human beings owe their labor to others, let alone their organs.


Communism, on the other hand, makes a very clear demarcation for individual liberties, and stipulates that goods external to the human body should be held in common so as to prevent the centralized control over others.

I don't owe you my labor, just all my goods. Because you are logically inconsistent, you make a special case for goods inside my body, ignoring that more people die in the US needing organs than needing food. Your ideology so full of shit that it's almost funny.

[Prinskaj]

I don't owe you my labor, just all my goods. Because you are logically inconsistent, you make a special case for goods inside my body, ignoring that more people die in the US needing organs than needing food. Your organs are not "goods", they are a part of you, and essential to your very survival. And I can see that you are trying to derail this thread even further by going into a discussion about self-ownership (The concept of owning yourself and your labor). Which frankly is a ridiculous concept, in that you simply cannot own yourself, since you are yourself, if my labor was a separate entity, then I would continue to sleep while by labor when to off to work..

Your ideology so full of shit that it's almost funny. Thank you for being so mature..

[l'Enfermé]

I am currently murdering people by not ripping out my kidneys. Yes. Why does anyone reply to this clown anymore?

[Revolution starts with U]

Its funny cuz those people don't starve only because someone put a gun to his head and stole his money.

[Night Ripper]

I am currently murdering people by not ripping out my kidneys.

Just as much as you are by withholding anything else.

[Dean]

I don't owe you my labor, just all my goods. Because you are logically inconsistent, you make a special case for goods inside my body, ignoring that more people die in the US needing organs than needing food. Your ideology so full of shit that it's almost funny.
Just don't expect anyone to respect your opinion when you won't acknowledge the facts surrounding theirs. Not every little difference is something to get morally outraged by - indeed, most of these are rather mundane academic minutiae, and the fact that you feel you have to fight them with such histrionic outrage is indicative of your own channeling of mainstream hysteria surrounding related issues with have moneyed interests fighting for and against them.

Indeed, communists don't demand that you give anyone "all of your goods" or "all of your labor" (why is it that you only acknowledge one?). I've already described the - rather basic - conditions that communists demand be enforced. They don't demand you hand over your possessions.

[Night Ripper]

Not every little difference is something to get morally outraged by - indeed, most of these are rather mundane academic minutiae, and the fact that you feel you have to fight them with such histrionic outrage is indicative of your own channeling of mainstream hysteria surrounding related issues with have moneyed interests fighting for and against them.

Stop trying to characterize the other side of the debate. Pointing out where your logic breaks down isn't "hysteria" and calling it that is intellectually dishonest. You're only hurting your own credibility by attacking me personally. The only thing I'm "outraged" about is your inconsistent logic and only if by "outraged" you mean "slightly annoyed".


They don't demand you hand over your possessions.

For certain definitions of "possessions". You don't want my watch, fine, but what about this factory I've built using my life savings? What about this fruit orchard I planted? Let's stop pretending that communism would never deprive me of something I've earned.

[l'Enfermé]

For certain definitions of "possessions". You don't want my watch, fine, but what about this factory I've built using my life savings? What about this fruit orchard I planted? Let's stop pretending that communism would never deprive me of something I've earned.
Wow, you must have spent several decades building that factory all by yourself! And it must be hard operating it all by yourself, too!

[Revolution starts with U]

Its only logically inconsistent if you have a knee jerk black and white condemnation of violence, like a hippie. So is that it? Are ancaps just hippies in a bowtie with a bad attitude?

[Night Ripper]

Wow, you must have spent several decades building that factory all by yourself!

"I've built using my life savings."

[Night Ripper]

Its only logically inconsistent if you have a knee jerk black and white condemnation of violence, like a hippie.

Stop trolling.

[Revolution starts with U]

Stop trolling.

Stop projecting.

[Prinskaj]

"I've built using my life savings."
If you payed someone to do it for you, then you didn't really build it.
In the same way that paying a person to run a marathon, does not mean that you ran a marathon.

[RGacky3]

Stop trolling.

Its not Revolution starts with U, that goes into every second thread of mine which may have potential to be a decent discussion on a specific topic (prison industrial complex, education system, or whatever) and turns it into the exact same bullshit propertarian argument which we are all tired of.

Again, make your own goddamn thread.

[l'Enfermé]

"I've built using my life savings."
So you didn't build the factory. You've payed people to build it with money you've earned by exploiting others, and you pay the people that operate it with the money that they create by themselves and you steal from them.

I get it. You're asking if a parasite like you will have "your" property confiscated from you in a Socialist society? Yes, you're going to have it confiscated, because you don't have a credible claim to it.

[Luís Henrique]

So what? If I own an apple orchard, and I don't want you to have my apples, too bad. It's a dick move but not something that makes the usage of violence legitimate.

How do you know you "own" an apple orchard? What exactly is the relation between you and the orchard, that makes it "your" orchard?


The point is, you have the right not to be touched, the right for your property not to be stolen, etc. You don't have the right to a hot meal and a soft bed because that would imply other people are responsible for providing for your survival, which they are not.

Of course we are responsible for each others' survival, how not?


As soon as you understand that you aren't entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, the better.

That's funny.

So I suppose that the owner of an apple orchard isn't "entitled" to the (quite literal) fruits of the labour of the employees in the apple orchard? Or what makes the difference?

Luís Henrique

[Revolution starts with U]

Its not Revolution starts with U, that goes into every second thread of mine which may have potential to be a decent discussion on a specific topic (prison industrial complex, education system, or whatever) and turns it into the exact same bullshit propertarian argument which we are all tired of.

Again, make your own goddamn thread.

It's funny because I accused him of having a knee jerk condemnation to violence (like a hippie) and he counter-accused me of trolling... as if someone NOT having a knee jerk condemnation of violence was an absurdity! :lol: Point proven, me thinks :thumbup1:

[Dean]

Stop trying to characterize the other side of the debate. Pointing out where your logic breaks down isn't "hysteria" and calling it that is intellectually dishonest. You're only hurting your own credibility by attacking me personally. The only thing I'm "outraged" about is your inconsistent logic and only if by "outraged" you mean "slightly annoyed".

You've failed to even point out any inconsistencies - you've merely asserted your own ideas of what might happen in a socialist society, without even explaining why it might happen.


For certain definitions of "possessions". You don't want my watch, fine, but what about this factory I've built using my life savings? What about this fruit orchard I planted? Let's stop pretending that communism would never deprive me of something I've earned.
What value do you expect money to have in a socialist society?

What purpose would you have to exclude people from land? Why should you be able to improve land - a limited social resource - without limit, such that you may exclude others from being able to work the land?

The question you should be asking is why your examples would even apply in a socialist world. The inefficiencies of currency and competitive practices of exclusion - via regulation and market tactics alike - are precisely the kinds of practices that would be phased out if the means of production were held in common. Subsequently, the privation of land would not be an issue - you can improve land or capital to make a particular good in your own interests, and nothing is there to stop you, nor from stopping you from enjoying the fruits of said labor.

But if you decide to take up a disproportionate amount of land, or control a public good in any other way, you will be prevented. This is true to a lesser extent in all capitalist societies, too.

What confuses me is why you think these potential exclusionary practices are unique to socialism. There is no kind of society that will relieve us of the scarcity of land, for instance (though socialism will greatly expand consumer production). The free market system, like any other system, has processes and rules meant to deal with the dispensation of power over these goods. By extension, it is capitalism that prevents me from opening a factory myself, or planting an orchard.

You've made it clear that you support a rather radical reappropriation land - to those who improve it - which is transferring the power over the (primitive) means of production to those who work it. In this way you are far to the left of our current society. But your arguments against socialism are relying on pure fantasy that is reflected in the satirical story of Harrison Bergeron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron) - the base hysteria that redefines communism as a capitalist society repressed by socialist rules. Most high schoolers tasked with reading the story don't realize that it is in fact a satire of that attitude about socialism, not a satire of socialism itself.

[Red Commissar]

I know that there is another argument going on in this thread, but in response to OP this kind of thing isn't so much rejected by American Teacher groups as it is by some short-sighted politicians attempting to inject what they believe are 'christian values' and an 'entrepreneurial spirit' in to the classroom.

Cooperative Learning Models have been studied and encouraged by pedagogy and teacher journals to the extent that some teacher education courses at higher education are now educating prospective teachers in their use along with traditional teaching. In general the field has attempted to study the effectiveness of cooperative learning as a way to get students involved in some way in the learning process. As things stand currently, the most students get to work with one another is the occasional group project, which is ultimately more for the purpose of evaluation rather than learning. In short there is little opportunity for students to learn with one another, and a lot of that can be attributed to the US's lack of changes to the 'normal' way of teaching.

Lot of it comes down to how educated the teacher is in using it (because admittedly it will require a bit more planning and structure than just lecturing) and how much the prevailing education system uses it. Plus the overall opposition, which still feels that conclusions that are summarized in the following image, where discussing and working with others,

http://wiki.bssd.org/images_up/f/f4/Learning_pyramid.png

Is not strongly supported by data and studies and refused by some. At any rate though, there are some other things to take in mind about Finland compared to the US along with its use of new learning models such as cooperative ones. A major difference is that in Finland, teacher education emphasizes both pedagogy and content knowledge, while in the US some teachers might be deficient in pedagogy and may not actually specialize in what they are teaching (those that can teach it are often turned away either by the pay or commitments). To boot, Finland's educational sector and government cooperate a lot more than they do in the US, which is plagued by differences on the local, state, and national level with different standards, policies, funding, etc. that hinder implementation of policy.

[Luís Henrique]

Let me ask again:


How do you know you "own" an apple orchard? What exactly is the relation between you and the orchard, that makes it "your" orchard?

Of course we are responsible for each others' survival, how not?

I suppose that the owner of an apple orchard isn't "entitled" to the (quite literal) fruits of the labour of the employees in the apple orchard? Or what makes the difference?

Should be five quite easy questions.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

How do you know you "own" an apple orchard? What exactly is the relation between you and the orchard, that makes it "your" orchard?

Of course we are responsible for each others' survival, how not?

So I suppose that the owner of an apple orchard isn't "entitled" to the (quite literal) fruits of the labour of the employees in the apple orchard? Or what makes the difference?

Too difficult to answer?

That's a pity, because those questions would make for an interesting discussion.

Let me make some points, even in the absence of your response.

It seems that, as most libertarians, you are under the delusion that "property" is a relation between a person and some object. It is not; it is a relation between people. If I am the proprietor of an orchard, this means that only I (and the persons I allow to) can use the orchard, to the exclusion of all other people. There is nothing in the trees, the land, the fruit, that makes it impossible for any other person to "illegitimately" use the orchard (otherwise theft would be impossible). And so, property has to be socially enforced; either all other people have to recognise my property, or it has to be enforced (through violence) against them; and since I am one person, and there are six billion other people that might want to trespass my property, I can't by myself, alone, enforce it by violence.

So, if no one else is responsible for my survival, no one else is also responsible for my property. In short, my property only exists if other people "care" about that. It is no less "social welfare" than Medicare.

On the other hand, you seem to think that the foundation of property is work - that I am entitled to the orchard as long as I have created it. If so, naturally, this is an ethical proposal, and nothing else. It isn't a natural relation, as it can be easily seen by the fact that most orchards are property of people who don't work on them; and it is not even a legal provision under most legal systems that I know (to which labour and property do not connect in this way by no means, otherwise inheritance would be impossible).

But it is a contradictory ethical proposal. If we are to seriously discuss why anyone has an orchard, and assuming, as it is only reasonable, that no one can either eat all apples that the orchard produces, nor live exclusively of apples, then we can only assume that the production of orchards is for the sake of other people, the non-owners of orchards. So we are discussing a society where people are, again, responsible for each others, even if such responsibility is alienated, ie, enforced from the outside by a blind mechanism such as market: if I own an orchard, and I don't make the apples accessible to anybody else, I will soon die of whatever diseases one develops when feeding in such an unbalanced diet like eating only apples, because I won't have access to the products of other people's property either.

And so, the foundation of work is not individual, but social, just like the foundation of property.

Now, of course, I am not clear on whether you do consider the hiring of "hands" legitimate or not. But what follows from your position regarding work as the legitimating origin of property, is that it is not legitimate. I cannot even argue that I pay for the labour of the hired "hands": for I am not paying for "the fruit of their labour" (otherwise I would be unable to sell the apples for a profit), but for a quite different thing, ie, the expending of their vital energy (muscle, brains, etc.) In other words, they "make" apples for me, and instead of paying them for "making" the apples, I pay them for making themselves able to come back the following day and repeat the process, which is very different thing.

Unless you have a very different definition of work; perhaps, as opposed to most people, you don't consider the labour of hired "hands" work, and instead call 'work' the managerial activities of the owner?

Luís Henrique