Why are right-wing libertarians demonised?

[chefdave]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

[NewLeft]

I am not sure what you're talking about, please give us an example of "freedom" being vilified in the mainstream media.

[The Jay]

You're setting up a straw-man here. It's not freedom that we have an issue with. It's your conception of property rights in this case. The 'private' wealth you are talking about comes from either your own labor, employing a wage-worker, or inheritance. In the case of your own labor, we view the means of production and land to be of communal ownership and therefore the community has a say in how that land/means of production is used. In the case of the wage-worker method it is again an issue of communal ownership of 'your' method of generating wealth. In the case of inheritance, that wealth had to have been accrued by either the first or second method and is invalid due to the same reason.

[Offbeat]

The right-wing libetarian definition of "freedom" is freedom for the bourgeoisie to make money at the expense of the proletariat. On the left we support economic and political freedom for the working classes. Most people here have no problems with freedom of speech or association, and as you are probably a proletarian what's the problem?

[¿Que?]

I think right libertarians have an abstract sense of freedom. Freedom to do this or that, which essentially translates to freedom from being refrained from doing this or that. We communists actually rely on a concrete definition of freedom. Freedom to do this or that, which essentially translates to freedom to be able to do this or that. You see the difference? Just because you have certain abstract freedoms does not mean you have them in a concrete situation. Just because it isn't illegal to quit your job and find another, doesn't necessarily mean you can, since you may have to deal with an interim period of unemployment, you may have to start all over again at the new place, and it may not pay as much. etc. Or just because there are no laws barring people from getting an education doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to due to familial obligations, or financial need.

So it's a matter of being idealist or being realist. Right libertarians prefer ideas of freedom whereas we on the left prefer real freedom.

[whywatchthistv]

right wing libertarianism leads to ultimate tyranny and wage slavery which is therefore only liberty to the bourgeois classes. For a person who lives on the street hungry because of the position their family is born into would you call that freedom? Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism) is the only way to gain social justice and freedom. :)

[#FF0000]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

right libertarians are looked down on because they have an image of being privileged, oblivious dipshits or zealots akin to religious fundamentalists.

You're an example of the latter. You literally think people who disagree with you hate 'freedom' and don't go beyond there.

Unless you're just pretending to be the king of bellends.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth
Wealth is only generated by labor. The "freedom" you want is the "freedom" to exploit labor. That's the problem with right-libertarians, their defense of economic exploitation by a ruling class minority and an existence of a class system.

[Geiseric]

Because they worship that fucker Milton Friedman and believe in the cult of "freedom," whatever the fuck that means.

[hatzel]

Classical liberals I mean libertarians aren't demonised (by the able-minded) for paying lip service to 'freedom.' They're demonised for literally every other aspect of their politics. And even the freedom bit, when one looks closer at what they mean by it. But it's nothing to do with the appeal to 'freedom' in and of itself...

[Thug Lessons]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?
Hello fellow freedom lover. I love freedom as well. Please visit my blog, http://www.timecube.com/

[Cirno(9)]

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners."- Lenin

[pluckedflowers]

We don't have a problem with freedom. We have a problem with the freedom of rich people to exploit. Don't worry too much about why, just know that we're coming for your shit.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

"FREEDUM" Has become a dirty word because you misuse it. It's just like Orwell wrote, words lose their meaning, so the duty is to clear up those meanings:
Freedom for normal humans means to decide over their own life and make decisions regarding their life themselves with their own logic, knowing that if one wants to have the benefits of society, one has to relate to other humans. The Self-Determination not only of duty but the self-determination of ones own labor and fruits of labor are crucial rights of man for liberty.
"Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? No it can not" Lenin

Here is a quote you should think about, whether one group should have more priviliges off of the labor of others: "If I am freer than any other, then he will become my slave. Therefore equality is an absolutely necessary condition of freedom." Bakunin
"Freedom is merely Privilege extended if not enjoyed by one and all!" The Internationale

[Jimmie Higgins]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

Right-wing libertarians aren't demonized in the mainstream - they are ignored at worst. Most of their basic assumptions have been pimped in the mainstream for a generation now, "low tax orthodoxy" Friedmanesque notions of "free-market" and so on. Neo-liberal free-market poltics have ruled for a generation and been the guiding ideas behind the Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations with people like Larry Summers and so on. While not dogmatically "libertarian" politicians and the media have frequently used arguments developed by libertarian true-believers to push their agenda. The promotion of these ideas as "common sense" has in turn helped spread libertarian ideas.

As for why it is a dirty word here and on the left in general. True that there really isn't a good reason to dislike libertarian ideas any more than other petty-bourgoise ideas in this society, but I have to say, in general, they are kind of obnoxious. They're like a combination of the worse self-righteous, elitist, idealist liberal but with the dogmatism and worldview of the most repellant right-wing ditto-head.

In general.:D

[chefdave]

I am not sure what you're talking about, please give us an example of "freedom" being vilified in the mainstream media.

There are right-wing libertarian things it's simply not acceptable to say in public because you run the risk of being branded an "extremist", "crank" etc for being out of step with social norms. For example on Any Questions Nigel Farage was attacked by Peter Hain for daring to argue that should look into drug legalisation because prohibition has proven to be an unmitigated failure.

Cases like the Liam Stacey Twitter farce wouldn't have occurred under a more libertarian either because libertarians recognise that freedom of speech encompasses the freedom to say vile and unpopular things.

Right-wing libertarians have a lot to be unhappy about with the state of modern society.

[chefdave]

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners."- Lenin

Not really, the capitalist concept of private property guards against slavery because it protects the individual's right to own himself and the fruits of his labour. It's only when the state interferes and starts arbitrarily taking from some and redistributing to others that problems akin to slavery occur.

I would agree that wealth maldistribution occurs in capitalist societies but they're 100% the fault of the state rather than the free market.

[Railyon]

The USSR didn't have iPhones, therefore communism is impossible.

[chefdave]

right wing libertarianism leads to ultimate tyranny and wage slavery which is therefore only liberty to the bourgeois classes. For a person who lives on the street hungry because of the position their family is born into would you call that freedom? Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism) is the only way to gain social justice and freedom. :)

In the case of homelessness I'd say the homeless are indeed being denied their freedoms because the landowning class -with the backing of the state lets not forget- have managed to monopolise a common resource: land. As Mark Twain once said "buy land, they're not making anymore of it", suggesting that the landed enjoy monopoly privileges over everybody else.

This problem can be rectified in right-wing libertarianism with a land value tax and accompanying Citizen's Dividend. Socialism and/or anarchism offers no such solution.

[chefdave]

Classical liberals I mean libertarians aren't demonised (by the able-minded) for paying lip service to 'freedom.' They're demonised for literally every other aspect of their politics. And even the freedom bit, when one looks closer at what they mean by it. But it's nothing to do with the appeal to 'freedom' in and of itself...

As libertarian ideology is dedicated to freedom in all it's manifestations I'm not really sure what you mean. On the face of it libertarian literature promotes the ideal of economic and social individualism and when "one looks closer" and reads between the lines you may notice that they still advocate the end to collectivist tyranny.

[chefdave]

I think right libertarians have an abstract sense of freedom. Freedom to do this or that, which essentially translates to freedom from being refrained from doing this or that. We communists actually rely on a concrete definition of freedom. Freedom to do this or that, which essentially translates to freedom to be able to do this or that. You see the difference? Just because you have certain abstract freedoms does not mean you have them in a concrete situation. Just because it isn't illegal to quit your job and find another, doesn't necessarily mean you can, since you may have to deal with an interim period of unemployment, you may have to start all over again at the new place, and it may not pay as much. etc. Or just because there are no laws barring people from getting an education doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to due to familial obligations, or financial need.

So it's a matter of being idealist or being realist. Right libertarians prefer ideas of freedom whereas we on the left prefer real freedom.


I disagree, libertarian ideals are very practical and concrete and much more transparent than anything I've seen the communist brotherhood come up with. If we reduced the basic rate of income tax to 10% for example this would constitute a libertarian ideal that objectively increased the financial freedom of all those who laboured for a living. There's nothing "abstract" about it. In fact if you went through a list of libertarian policies you'd find that they all tackle the lack of freedom in a straightforward and direct manner. Legalise (most) drugs? Tick. Reduce taxes? Tick. Withdraw from the EU so we can decide our own laws once again? Tick. Reduce regulation and ease the red tape culture that harms business? Tick.

I accept that communists talk a good game and offer unconditional positive freedoms for all, but lets just say their track record hasn't lived upto the hype :lol: Freedom via committee is freedom for nobody (except the committe)

[chefdave]

right libertarians are looked down on because they have an image of being privileged, oblivious dipshits or zealots akin to religious fundamentalists.

You're an example of the latter. You literally think people who disagree with you hate 'freedom' and don't go beyond there.

Unless you're just pretending to be the king of bellends.


Well lets put it this way, I've come to the conclusion using reason and logic that right-wing libertarianism offers us the blueprint for the just society and you've instantly dismissed my post as "religious fundamentalism".

You're not exactly doing a great job of convincing me you're on the side of liberty with such a ranty post.

[danyboy27]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

Well, leftist tend to believe people like you are nuts beccause all you want to do is tu enforce private property of the mean of production over anything else. On a leftist perspective we dont see how you are really different from the other thugs who use the state has a blunt weapon to enforce their property right.

Capitalist and liberals tend to believe people like you are nuts beccause you want to keep your property right without having a state to actually enforce it, wich is a complete nonsense for anyone who actually know that markets cannot exist without states.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Because your understanding of how economics and societies function is infantile. Your "freedoms" are only promised to those who can afford them. Everyone else gets the freedom to starve, die of sickness, if they cannot afford the basic necessities needed for life. You are not for equal opportunities, there can never be any equal opportunities so long as class divisions exists.

[Tim Cornelis]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

Probably because right-wing libertarian principles lead to the justification of things like famine, debt slavery, sweatshop labour, child labour, etc.

For example, the food aid that the horn of Africa received is unjustified because it was paid through taxation, but speculating with food which drove up food prices leading to starvation in that same horn of Africa is justified because it involves voluntary exchange.

[chefdave]

Because your understanding of how economics and societies function is infantile. Your "freedoms" are only promised to those who can afford them. Everyone else gets the freedom to starve, die of sickness, if they cannot afford the basic necessities needed for life. You are not for equal opportunities, there can never be any equal opportunities so long as class divisions exists.


So you're saying that we should reject the concept of individual freedom altogether because in a free society some people might acquire a bit more wealth than others? That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard! We know from experience that the "necessities for life" such as food and clothing etc can be mass produced and made available for all, indeed that's one of capitalism's greatest triumphs so imo your fears are unfounded. I agree that that we may never achieve a perfect environment of equal opportunities for all but that's no reason not to try.

[chefdave]

Well, leftist tend to believe people like you are nuts beccause all you want to do is tu enforce private property of the mean of production over anything else. On a leftist perspective we dont see how you are really different from the other thugs who use the state has a blunt weapon to enforce their property right.

Capitalist and liberals tend to believe people like you are nuts beccause you want to keep your property right without having a state to actually enforce it, wich is a complete nonsense for anyone who actually know that markets cannot exist without states.


I'm not sure where you got your information from (probably too much neglecting the arguments of the right in favour of revolutionary socialism) but ideologically I get on ok with capitalists, although admittedly I'm a bit more free market so sometimes there's a bit of friction. I advocate the use of a minimal "nightwatchman" state to protect private property, uphold law and order, manage the borders and maintain a court system all paid for with a with a land value tax, other that the government should butt out of civic life and allow us to get on with it. I understand the attraction of an omnipotent nanny state benevolently stealing from the rich and handing to the poor but the unfortunate reality is a economic cluster**** of low wages, unemployement and a useless public sector paying themselves small fortunes for producing nothing.

[Revolution starts with U]

Private property is by its very nature unfree involuntary and coercive. I don't know why anybody buys their Orwellian definition of freedom anyway.

[chefdave]

Private property is by its very nature unfree involuntary and coercive. I don't know why anybody buys their Orwellian definition of freedom anyway.

But if you think about it people are their own private property, so are you saying it's "unfree and coercive" for people to own themselves and the fruits of their labour?

I don't know why anybody buys into the Orwellian dictionary either: individual liberty through collective tyranny and the nationalisation of the means of production? I don't think so.

[#FF0000]

Well lets put it this way, I've come to the conclusion using reason and logic that right-wing libertarianism offers us the blueprint for the just society and you've instantly dismissed my post as "religious fundamentalism".

Mostly because your post was low on susbtance and high on reliance on ill-defined words like 'freedom'. A lot of folks get the idea that libertarians are dogmatic dullards who post on the internet all day (they think the same thing about communists too lol) aaaaaaand to be honest when you come on here complaining about how libertarians are being demonized and stuff while using words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' as buzzwords and acting like your arguments aren't ones we've heard a million times before, you don't seem like a logical or reasonable person. You seem like a big dummy who likes to lean on the image of a hyper-rational and logical person

EDIT: I also forgot to mention the image of libertarians as being self-righteous as fuck.

But hey you just started posting so maybe you aren't awful welcome welcome.


You're not exactly doing a great job of convincing me you're on the side of liberty with such a ranty post.I think we have different ideas of liberty.

[#FF0000]

But if you think about it people are their own private property, so are you saying it's "unfree and coercive" for people to own themselves and the fruits of their labour?

People don't own or control the fruits of their labor under capitalism, though. Workers are the ones who labor -- and the Bosses claim the lion's share in profit.

[Railyon]

I think someone should go through Das Kapital and quote all relevant passages, good luck with that as the book is fucking massive and every actual argument against claims that private property is good and proper would be just haphazardly repeating what Marx himself wrote. Starting with his assumption that in a free market labor will be sold at its "value" and the implications of that (effective wage floor, ruling out the free market wet dream of "just undercut the wages, you're bound to get a job that way" once you realize the day only has 24 hours)

[Positivist]

I disagree, libertarian ideals are very practical and concrete and much more transparent than anything I've seen the communist brotherhood come up with. If we reduced the basic rate of income tax to 10% for example this would constitute a libertarian ideal that objectively increased the financial freedom of all those who laboured for a living. There's nothing "abstract" about it. In fact if you went through a list of libertarian policies you'd find that they all tackle the lack of freedom in a straightforward and direct manner. Legalise (most) drugs? Tick. Reduce taxes? Tick. Withdraw from the EU so we can decide our own laws once again? Tick. Reduce regulation and ease the red tape culture that harms business? Tick.

I accept that communists talk a good game and offer unconditional positive freedoms for all, but lets just say their track record hasn't lived upto the hype :lol: Freedom via committee is freedom for nobody (except the committe)

I just had a post about this several days ago. Here it is;

There is a stark difference between what is judicially permitted and what one's economic status affords to them. This is demonstrated in many advanced capitalist "democracies" such as the USA. The prime example is of wage, salary, and even commission labor. Each field of labor (with the rare exception of certain salary and commission jobs) alienate their workers from the product of their labor, from the natural fulfillment felt when engaging in labor creatively, and from meaningful relationships with one another. Wage jobs may also take a heavy toll on the worker physically. Now legally workers may avoid these jobs and their crippling effects but economically they cannot afford to. If regular people in capitalist countries wish to continue eating it is necessary that they take on these undervalued, alienating jobs. So since their economic conditions demand that they sell their labor power, workers are not truly free to determine their own lifestyle (recognizing that occupations are responsible for shaping their lifestyles) and therefore aren't free.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/progress.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2407848) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2407848) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/multiquote_off.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2407848) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quickreply.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2407848) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/blog/blogpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog_post.php?do=newblog&p=2407848)

[chefdave]

Mostly because your post was low on susbtance and high on reliance on ill-defined words like 'freedom'. A lot of folks get the idea that libertarians are dogmatic dullards who post on the internet all day (they think the same thing about communists too lol) aaaaaaand to be honest when you come on here complaining about how libertarians are being demonized and stuff while using words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' as buzzwords and acting like your arguments aren't ones we've heard a million times before, you don't seem like a logical or reasonable person. You seem like a big dummy who likes to lean on the image of a hyper-rational and logical person

EDIT: I also forgot to mention the image of libertarians as being self-righteous as fuck.

But hey you just started posting so maybe you aren't awful welcome welcome.


Thankfully the tide seem to be turning in favour of individual liberty, parties such as UKIP for example are growing in strength and the electorate seem to be tuning out of the lib/lab/con "message" (whatever it is), but I do wonder why anyone with half a brain would advocate the politics of tyranny: communism, when there's a perfectly valid alternative. Do you have a pathological obsession with being bossed around by tyrants?



I think we have different ideas of liberty.

Clearly. I prefer the real thing whereas you're happy to settle for the jackboot of the state in your "self-righteous" face. Each to their own I suppose. But if that's your thing the free market will always find a way of catering for your demands! :laugh:

[teflon_john]

aye hold up, where is this idyllic paradise in which right-wing libertarians are persecuted and do they have a travel brochure i can look at

[Positivist]

So you're saying that we should reject the concept of individual freedom altogether because in a free society some people might acquire a bit more wealth than others? That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard! We know from experience that the "necessities for life" such as food and clothing etc can be mass produced and made available for all, indeed that's one of capitalism's greatest triumphs so imo your fears are unfounded. I agree that that we may never achieve a perfect environment of equal opportunities for all but that's no reason not to try.


What we are arguing on the left is that if one does not have the resources to perform an action or actions, then they are not free to perform them. While they are not legally restricted from exercising their freedoms, they are economically restricted from doing so nonetheless. What do you mean "some people might acquire a little more wealth than others"? The majority of people are heavily indebted to the banking system while an astonishing minority have ammassed billions of dollars! Hardly a little I would say. Furthermore on the issue of your so called "fruits of their own labor" do you truly hold the output of the factory to be the factory boss' labor? Is the owner of the factory truly responsible for the productivity of it's workers? Even if the factory owner is responsible for determining how the resources that the product is composed of are to be arranged, he is not the one actually manipulating the raw materials. Now certainly the inventor deserves to be rewarded for their innovation but their vision would be meaningless if not for the workers' realizing it! In a socialist society their could remain associations of labourers with certain members providing for the intellectual design of the products, while others performed the actual assembly of the products but the difference would be that mental and physical labor would be assigned approximately equal value as opposed to the modern system where one is grossly undervalued and the other grossly overvalued. This overvaluing and undervaluing is the foundation of the exploitation that today's workers endure, and it is what we socialists are fighting against.

[Revolution starts with U]

But if you think about it people are their own private property, so are you saying it's "unfree and coercive" for people to own themselves and the fruits of their labour?

I don't know why anybody buys into the Orwellian dictionary either, individual liberty freedom through collective tyranny and the nationalisation (theft) of the means of production? I don't think so.

Ive thought about it and they're not cuz slavery is voluntary but ok...

[Revolution starts with U]

That doesn't actually look right now. But 10pts if anyone gets it.

[chefdave]

I just had a post about this several days ago. Here it is;

There is a stark difference between what is judicially permitted and what one's economic status affords to them. This is demonstrated in many advanced capitalist "democracies" such as the USA. The prime example is of wage, salary, and even commission labor. Each field of labor (with the rare exception of certain salary and commission jobs) alienate their workers from the product of their labor, from the natural fulfillment felt when engaging in labor creatively, and from meaningful relationships with one another. Wage jobs may also take a heavy toll on the worker physically. Now legally workers may avoid these jobs and their crippling effects but economically they cannot afford to. If regular people in capitalist countries wish to continue eating it is necessary that they take on these undervalued, alienating jobs. So since their economic conditions demand that they sell their labor power, workers are not truly free to determine their own lifestyle (recognizing that occupations are responsible for shaping their lifestyles) and therefore aren't free.

That's a good post and I agree with it, but it in no way detracts from the sort of libertarianism that would give labourers the leverage they need to either negotiate a decent salary or go straight into business for themselves. Let's be honest no system will ever be able to provide man a labour free existence because we need to expend effort to provide ourselves with the resources necessary for survival, the question is how we go about organising our labour. As a libertarian I advocate the subtle power of the free market pricing mechanism combined with a land value tax to redistibute society's true surplus. What does communism have to offer? A "moneyless, classless, stateless society", in other words a bag of unworkable contradictions.

[Positivist]

Ive thought about it and they're not cuz slavery is voluntary but ok...

I took it as a reference to the concept that workers voluntarily consent to wage enslavement as such is an idea that is popular amongst right wing libertarians. This process of enslavement involves the worker becoming the property of the capitalist. Haha well atleast that's what I got from it haha.

[chefdave]

What we are arguing on the left is that if one does not have the resources to perform an action or actions, then they are not free to perform them. While they are not legally restricted from exercising their freedoms, they are economically restricted from doing so nonetheless. What do you mean "some people might acquire a little more wealth than others"? The majority of people are heavily indebted to the banking system while an astonishing minority have ammassed billions of dollars!

Well I keep coming up against this claim but so far nobody has been able to elucidate who's responsible for the restriction in economic freedom once the state removes itself from economic life. The wheels won't grind to halt as soon as the government stop exacting tributes from us, in fact I predict the opposite would happen, so why would we be worse off with less taxation and less regulation?



Hardly a little I would say. Furthermore on the issue of your so called "fruits of their own labor" do you truly hold the output of the factory to be the factory boss' labor? Is the owner of the factory truly responsible for the productivity of it's workers? Even if the factory owner is responsible for determining how the resources that the product is composed of are to be arranged, he is not the one actually manipulating the raw materials. Now certainly the inventor deserves to be rewarded for their innovation but their vision would be meaningless if not for the workers' realizing it! In a socialist society their could remain associations of labourers with certain members providing for the intellectual design of the products, while others performed the actual assembly of the products but the difference would be that mental and physical labor would be assigned approximately equal value as opposed to the modern system where one is grossly undervalued and the other grossly overvalued. This overvaluing and undervaluing is the foundation of the exploitation that today's workers endure, and it is what we socialists are fighting against.

The source of the problem isn't the necessarily the factory owner but the patents and trademarks designers register to prevent others from competing with them on equal terms. While the guys on the factory floor can easily be replaced at a moment's notice (the free market) thus putting them at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating a wage the intellectuals benefit a from state backed privilege that protects them from the market. If the state removed itself from the equation and stopped giving designers a helping hand the gulf in income wouldn't be as vast. When you scale this up to the whole economy it becomes clear why some remain at the top while others find themselves in crappy jobs constantly unable to make ends meet.

[chefdave]

I took it as a reference to the concept that workers voluntarily consent to wage enslavement as such is an idea that is popular amongst right wing libertarians. This process of enslavement involves the worker becoming the property of the capitalist. Haha well atleast that's what I got from it haha.

No, right-wing libertarians want to liberate the economy from the rent seekers and the "capitalists" so workers have the opportunity to break free from the clutches of wage slavery.

You think right-wingers know nothing about wage slaving and worker alienation? Think again!

[Positivist]

Well I keep coming up against this claim but so far nobody has been able to elucidate who's responsible for the restriction in economic freedom once the state removes itself from economic life. The wheels won't grind to halt as soon as the government stop exacting tributes from us, in fact I predict the opposite would happen, so why would we be worse off with less taxation and less regulation?




The source of the problem isn't the necessarily the factory owner but the patents and trademarks designers register to prevent others from competing with them on equal terms. While the guys on the factory floor can easily be replaced at a moment's notice (the free market) thus putting them at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating a wage the intellectuals benefit a from state backed privilege that protects them from the market. If the state removed itself from the equation and stopped giving designers a helping hand the gulf in income wouldn't be as vast. When you scale this up to the whole economy it becomes clear why some remain at the top while others find themselves in crappy jobs constantly unable to make ends meet.

The economic restrictions on freedom experienced by the overwhelming majority of the population is the result of the unjust distribution of wealth. I posed my position in my second post that the labor of workers is undervalued in the capitalist economy. That is the unjust distribution of wealth I am talking about! Now this undervaluation has taken grip of all industries in our modern society, deepening the restrictions. Socialism is about creating the social conditions where basic needs are met through the cooperation of the community and where each member of the community has the resources at their disposal to live an engaged and fulfilling life. Under these conditions people will be at their freest.

[Positivist]

No, right-wing libertarians want to liberate the economy from the rent seekers and the "capitalists" so workers have the opportunity to break free from the clutches of wage slavery.

You think right-wingers know nothing about wage slaving and worker alienation? Think again!

How do you propose this be achieved other than by the establishment of resource sharing communes?

[Revolution starts with U]

The source of the problem is the social relation called private property and those with a vested interest in its sanctity. Government is but the hegemonizing arm of class oppression and until and unless we strike at the root oppression mechanism; that which compels humans to enforce domination; you will continue to see the wealth holders coercing the dispossesed laborer.

Kings don't conquer lands. Kings hire soldiers and make decisions. Societies; that is to say collections of individuals; conquer lands and oppress people. Do you think governments attract tyrants or tyrants create attractive governments? Which seems more likely?

[chefdave]

How do you propose this be achieved other than by the establishment of resource sharing communes?

By using a 'clean' pricing mechanism (i.e free from government meddling) to equitably distribute rents, profits and wages throughout the community. As wages and profits are privately earned they rightfully belong in the pockets of labourers and capitalists, however the nation's surplus value: rent, would be collected up by a government agency and returned as a universal citizen's dividend. This approach protects the integrity of private property and encourages investment while preventing the systematic injustices that leave people starving in the streets.

[Misanthrope]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

Property 'rights', hoarding of commodities, exploiting wealth from other's labour and using the state to domestically and internationally enforce business interests is not freedom, it's capitalism. You can freely associate, you can freely speak and write, you can freely generate and retain your own wealth but you may not uphold false property claims or exploit worker's labour.

[#FF0000]

Thankfully the tide seem to be turning in favour of individual liberty, parties such as UKIP for example are growing in strength and the electorate seem to be tuning out of the lib/lab/con "message" (whatever it is), but I do wonder why anyone with half a brain would advocate the politics of tyranny: communism, when there's a perfectly valid alternative. Do you have a pathological obsession with being bossed around by tyrants?

Clearly. I prefer the real thing whereas you're happy to settle for the jackboot of the state

and all this after you called one of my posts "ranty".

Yeah see shit like this is what I'm talking about. Having a different opinion is fine -- i doubt we'd agree on much -- but you're not really interested in the opinions of others or discussion. You're just here to trumpet your own.

You don't know anything about my ideas and here you are already ascribing things to me

[#FF0000]

yo guys let's just abandon the thread. this dude isn't here for discussion so it's a waste of time to engage him.

[Positivist]

yo guys let's just abandon the thread. this dude isn't here for discussion so it's a waste of time to engage him.

I agree. I was looking forward to discussing his position on liberating the masses but since he is unwilling to openly examining socialism, we should not examine his position either! (Atleast not with him anymore.) This entire thread we have constantly attempted to present our views to him and his only response has been to critiscize his elementary understanding of communism. Where we could have dismissed his view as capitalism without minimum wage or any workers rights we acted to educate him instead. Though his mind has remained closed to anything other than what he was taught in his social studies classes and for this reason is abandonment is the only appropriate response.

[~Spectre]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

In addition to the previous criticisms advanced against your ideology, I'd add that often your most public figures tend to have an unfortunate association with racism.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2461kjn.png

[chefdave]

The source of the problem is the social relation called private property and those with a vested interest in its sanctity. Government is but the hegemonizing arm of class oppression and until and unless we strike at the root oppression mechanism; that which compels humans to enforce domination; you will continue to see the wealth holders coercing the dispossesed laborer.

Kings don't conquer lands. Kings hire soldiers and make decisions. Societies; that is to say collections of individuals; conquer lands and oppress people. Do you think governments attract tyrants or tyrants create attractive governments? Which seems more likely?

I don't know if we'll ever be able to reform human nature but if we agree that mankind is flawed it's all the more reason to reject centralist ideologies that allow too much power to stack up in the hands of the few. If you're a wannabe tyrant collectivism gives you all the tools necessary to play out your power mad fantasies on the national stage, the benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat ain't gonna happen.

[~Spectre]

I don't know if we'll ever be able to reform human nature but if we agree that mankind is flawed it's all the more reason to reject centralist ideologies that allow too much power to stack up in the hands of the few. If you're a wannabe tyrant collectivism gives you all the tools necessary to play out your power mad fantasies on the national stage, the benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat ain't gonna happen.

Privatizing the ownership of the means of production is exactly this. Only less accountable to even token measures of popular control. A vote in the market place is one dollar. Most of the world's dollars, thus most of the economic votes, belong to a tiny oligarchy. Economic oligarchy can be as bad as political oligarchy, and because of the link between money and political power, usually leads to that as well.

[chefdave]

and all this after you called one of my posts "ranty".

Yeah see shit like this is what I'm talking about. Having a different opinion is fine -- i doubt we'd agree on much -- but you're not really interested in the opinions of others or discussion. You're just here to trumpet your own.

You don't know anything about my ideas and here you are already ascribing things to me

Why is it that those with the least to say always feel the need to shout the loudest? At least a few other people were prepared to put forth some reasoned arguments, you're just here to cause trouble and generally badmouth anyone who disagrees with you.

I'd be very grateful if you left the thread. You're somewhat of an unpleasant distraction.

[chefdave]

In addition to the previous criticisms advanced against your ideology, I'd add that often your most public figures tend to have an unfortunate association with racism.

Actually Ron Paul has been a vociferous critic of U.S foreign policy and was arguing for a non-interventionist approach in the Middle East for years before September 11th. If the White House had listened to his 'mad-cap' libertarianism they could have possibly avoided the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqi deaths that are the direct result of the War on Terror.

Compare that to what, an article or two written by somebody else and published on a newsletter bearing his name? Come on, that's pretty weak!

[~Spectre]

Actually Ron Paul has been a vociferous critic of U.S foreign policy and was arguing for a non-interventionist approach in the Middle East for years before September 11th. If the White House had listened to his 'mad-cap' libertarianism they could have possibly avoided the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqi deaths that are the direct result of the War on Terror.

Compare that to what, an article or two written by somebody else and published under his name under a newsletter? Come on, that's pretty weak!

Right, but opposing foreign adventures doesn't make him not-racist. He gave a lecture in front of a confederate flag, giving the "lost causer" neo-confederate version of the civil war, in addition to writing various (more than just 2) racist articles during his newsletter phase.

That's a perfectly good reason to dislike someone, and you lot tend to associate with guys like him. That's one reason why even "reasonable" libertarians tend to get a lot of disdain.

[Positivist]

I don't know if we'll ever be able to reform human nature but if we agree that mankind is flawed it's all the more reason to reject centralist ideologies that allow too much power to stack up in the hands of the few. If you're a wannabe tyrant collectivism gives you all the tools necessary to play out your power mad fantasies on the national stage, the benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat ain't gonna happen.

This is what I'm talking about. While some here on revleft do advocate the centralized planning that was executed by the Soviet Union and it's allies, it is not the dominant view. Most of us support direct democratic voting on policies at a community level. How communities federally organize is more debated. Almost no one advocates dictatorial power held by a central committee, and those who do only propose it as necessary during a transitional period from capitalism to communism. Amongst the most popular currents on this cite are actually those that reject any hierarchy in the social order. So I feel that I speak for everyone when I say that we'd appreciate if you'd stop labeling communism as the ideology of a 5 man committee who plans what cereal everyone eats, and how they react to the taste of it, because it isn't.

[chefdave]

Right, but opposing foreign adventures doesn't make him not-racist. He gave a lecture in front of a confederate flag, giving the "lost causer" neo-confederate version of the civil war, in addition to writing various (more than just 2) racist articles during his newsletter phase.

That's a perfectly good reason to dislike someone, and you lot tend to associate with guys like him. That's one reason why even "reasonable" libertarians tend to get a lot of disdain.

It just demonstrates that the critics of libertarianiam lack any sense of proportion. You show me an utterly PC, non controverisal 'reasonable' politician and I'll show you a spineless oxygen abuser. Ron Paul has lost a lot of support on the right (particularly the American right) because they believe his non-interventionist stance puts the U.S and her allies at risk of a resurgent Middle East, yes he sometimes courts controversy but I'd prefer an open honest politician to one who's more concerned about their image and poll ratings. We've got far too many of those at it is and they're killing politics.

[~Spectre]

Not really, the capitalist concept of private property guards against slavery because it protects the individual's right to own himself and the fruits of his labour. It's only when the state interferes and starts arbitrarily taking from some and redistributing to others that problems akin to slavery occur.


Your fellow libertarians disagree with you.

http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm


The Libertarian Case for Slavery*

J. Philmore

Our property in man is a right and title to human labor. And where is it that this right and title does not exist on the part of those who have money to buy it? The only difference in any two cases is the tenure.1

Introduction

A prominent economist has quipped that free-market libertarianism is derived from liberalism by taking the limit as common sense goes to zero. There is an element of truth in this because what liberals take as "common sense" often turns out to be only a shared prejudice. The Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick has carried out this limiting process of taking liberalism to its only logical conclusion: libertarianism.2 Nozick's uncompromis*ing statement of the libertarian credo represents something of a watershed in modern social and moral philosophy because of its explicit acceptance of voluntary contractual slavery.

The comparable question about an individual is whether a free system will allow him to sell himself into slavery. I believe that it would.

[~Spectre]

It just demonstrates that the critics of libertarianiam lack any sense of proportion. You show me an utterly PC, non controverisal 'reasonable' politician and I'll show you a spineless oxygen abuser. Ron Paul has lost a lot of support on the right (particularly the American right) because they believe his non-interventionist stance puts the U.S and her allies at risk of a resurgent Middle East, yes he sometimes courts controversy but I'd prefer an open honest politician to one who's more concerned about their image and poll ratings. We've got far too many of those at it is and they're killing politics.


So two things:

1) Being against the wars doesn't mean he's a good guy. Lot's of assholes are against the wars for all sorts of reasons. This can often be found on the right where lots of folks want to end all foreign ties, even foreign aid.

2) You really think his racism, and neo-confederate revisionism, is really just being "un-pc"? Really?

[Revolution starts with U]

I took it as a reference to the concept that workers voluntarily consent to wage enslavement as such is an idea that is popular amongst right wing libertarians. This process of enslavement involves the worker becoming the property of the capitalist. Haha well atleast that's what I got from it haha.

Spot on with a jab at the op's doublethink that freedom is slavery.

[chefdave]

So two things:

1) Being against the wars doesn't mean he's a good guy. Lot's of assholes are against the wars for all sorts of reasons. This can often be found on the right where lots of folks want to end all foreign ties, even foreign aid.

2) You really think his racism, and neo-confederate revisionism, is really just being "un-pc"? Really?


1) The content of his character is immaterial. I personally detest Gordon Brown to the bone, but if he were to magically reinvigorate his career and start advocating policies I identified with I'd be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Lots of good guys are complete dopes when it comes to formulating policy, would their good nature persuade you to lend them your support?

2) As I believe in freedom of speech I'm entirely comfetable with the idea of people espousing views that I disagreed with, even if they could be construed as racist. It really is a non-issue.

[chefdave]

Your fellow libertarians disagree with you.

You're quite correct libertarianism cannot account for an individual's stupidity. But I don't believe we should allow the folly of the few to hold everyone else back. ~0.1% of car owners drive recklessly and end up killing themselves in the process, does this mean we abolish all car ownership?

[~Spectre]

1) The content of his character is immaterial. I personally detest Gordon Brown to the bone, but if he were to magically reinvigorate his career and start advocating policies I identified with I'd be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Lots of good guys are complete dopes when it comes to formulating policy, would their good nature persuade you to lend them your support?

Right but not advocating for war, doesn't make his set of policies good. Especially when their guiding principle, leads him to hold simultaneously terrible policies.



2) As I believe in freedom of speech I'm entirely comfetable with the idea of people espousing views that I disagreed with, even if they could be construed as racist. It really is a non-issue.

Sure, but you asked why libertarians are demonized. When you lot rally around racist, neo-confederates, what do you expect?

Free speech flows both ways.

[~Spectre]

You're quite correct libertarianism cannot account for an individual's stupidity. But I don't believe we should allow the folly of the few to hold everyone else back. ~0.1% of car owners drive recklessly and end up killing themselves in the process, does this mean we abolish all car ownership?

No. But we as a society can decide things like "don't let someone drive drunk at 150mph near an elementary school." Accordingly, society can make similar determinations about private ownership of the means of production.

Likewise, modern humans have decided that human beings aren't property. Libertarianism gets demonized because it disputes this.

[chefdave]

Property 'rights', hoarding of commodities, exploiting wealth from other's labour and using the state to domestically and internationally enforce business interests is not freedom, it's capitalism. You can freely associate, you can freely speak and write, you can freely generate and retain your own wealth but you may not uphold false property claims or exploit worker's labour.

Agreed. As long as you renounce your right to lay claim to fruits of labour I'll rescind my right to 'false' property, no taxation, no special pleading for the starving poor, just economic justice and mutual respect from here on in. Deal? ;)

[~Spectre]

Agreed. As long as you renounce your right to lay claim to fruits of labour I'll rescind my right to 'false' property, no taxation, no special pleading for the starving poor, just economic justice and mutual respect from here on in. Deal? ;)

This shit doesn't even make sense. What a dreadful sentence.

[No_Leaders]

hey at least he's not calling himself a... a.. "anarcho"-capitalist. *cringes* Under your right wing libertarian circle jerk dream we'd still have the same class structure, so how can i say I'm free if I'm still a commodity for the employing class, the same bosses and gangsters who rob from us on a daily basis?:rolleyes: How are we free if there's still hierarchical structures in place to give more 'rights' and privileges to certain individuals? Oh wait that's right your idea of liberty and freedom is not the same as mine. You want a free unrestricted market! Silly me, i thought for a split second you wanted real freedom. Your vision is a terrifying one indeed, i mean look at what it would degenerate into? The state would be replaced with private defense firms, since well if you have private property you're gonna need something to defend said property right? So these private defense firms would function like mercenaries, or armed thugs/police to enforce that property owner's wishes protecting 'their' property 'rights' and enforcing any laws. i.e. no loitering, checking suspicious activity.. i can go on and on. So i think you can see why radical leftists cannot see eye to eye with right-wing libertarians..

[chefdave]

Right but not advocating for war, doesn't make his set of policies good. Especially when their guiding principle, leads him to hold simultaneously terrible policies.

Possibly, he's a bit of a constitutionalist and his raison d'etre is the abolishment of the Fed (both things I take issue with) but you're never going to agree with somebody 100%.




Sure, but you asked why libertarians are demonized. When you lot rally around racist, neo-confederates, what do you expect?

Free speech flows both ways.

Indeed, but the term 'racist' has been so abused by the left that it no longer carries the weight it once did. When I hear somebody calling someone else a racist my knee-jerk reaction is to assume the accuser is a feeble twerp, because 99% of the time they are. The boy who cried wolf had free speech too but it didn't exactly work out for him.

[Doflamingo]

I don't demonize Capitalist-Libertarians. I find your ignorance to be entertaining.

[Misanthrope]

Agreed. As long as you renounce your right to lay claim to fruits of labour I'll rescind my right to 'false' property, no taxation, no special pleading for the starving poor, just economic justice and mutual respect from here on in. Deal? ;)

Mutual respect and economic justice are incompatible with capitalism. There is a monopoly on the means of production by the capitalist class whose property claims are enforced by a state which forces workers to sell their labor to live.

What the hell do you mean "special pleading for the starving poor?"

10/10 troll, you sardonic fuck

[Geiseric]

Anarcho Capitalists are by far the worst.

[roy]

I don't get this whole, "the free market will sort itself out without the government and everyone will live in paradise" argument. I'm no fan of the state, but it's a hell of a lot better than the inevitable chaos and tyranny of completely unmitigated capitalism.

[Positivist]

I don't get this whole, "the free market will sort itself out without the government and everyone will live in paradise" argument. I'm no fan of the state, but it's a hell of a lot better than the inevitable chaos and tyranny of completely unmitigated capitalism.

And somehow it is communism that only works in theory...

[chefdave]

Mutual respect and economic justice are incompatible with capitalism. There is a monopoly on the means of production by the capitalist class whose property claims are enforced by a state which forces workers to sell their labor to live.

What the hell do you mean "special pleading for the starving poor?"

10/10 troll, you sardonic fuck

I take it the deal's off then? :lol:

If I set up my own smallholding somewhere and attempt to live off the back of my own labour what guarantee do I have that you and your anarchist/socialist (or whatever) bullyboys aren't going to label me an "exploitative capitalist" and go all Mugabe-esque on my ass?

I don't understand your rules.

[Klaatu]

Right Wing "Libertarianism" is a sham.

This is a facade for large corporations to have the 'freedom' to pollute the environment and exploit the worker

This is a facade for religion-tyranny to have the 'freedom' to outlaw abortion and gay rights.

This is a facade for uber-wealthy individuals to have the 'freedom' to buy and sell elected officials.

This is a facade for individuals to have the 'freedom' to act as they please, no matter who is affected or even hurt

[rylasasin]

7zgizJ-DRPU

Explains it quite well I think.

[The Jay]

I take it the deal's off then? :lol:

If I set up my own smallholding somewhere and attempt to live off the back of my own labour what guarantee do I have that you and your anarchist/socialist (or whatever) bullyboys aren't going to label me an "exploitative capitalist" and go all Mugabe-esque on my ass?

I don't understand your rules.

I already explained our conception of property rights in the first few posts of this thread. You have yet to actually try to understand them then address them. You are just a troll and will be banned soon if you don't knock it off.

[Rafiq]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

You're our class enemy, and we know very well by what you mean of this "Freedom".

On behalf of any Communist, I ask you to shove up your ass the freedom(s) of speech, the freedom(s) of assosciasion and the freedom to generate your own wealth.

[Franz Fanonipants]

fuck freedom nonstop

[¿Que?]

I disagree, libertarian ideals are very practical and concrete and much more transparent than anything I've seen the communist brotherhood come up with. If we reduced the basic rate of income tax to 10% for example this would constitute a libertarian ideal that objectively increased the financial freedom of all those who laboured for a living. There's nothing "abstract" about it. In fact if you went through a list of libertarian policies you'd find that they all tackle the lack of freedom in a straightforward and direct manner. Legalise (most) drugs? Tick. Reduce taxes? Tick. Withdraw from the EU so we can decide our own laws once again? Tick. Reduce regulation and ease the red tape culture that harms business? Tick.

I accept that communists talk a good game and offer unconditional positive freedoms for all, but lets just say their track record hasn't lived upto the hype :lol: Freedom via committee is freedom for nobody (except the committe)
pardon all student loans
provide free education for all up to any level
stop all foreclosures
cede all means of production to worker's councils
Guaranteed citizen income or 100% employment rate

I don't see any "ticks" by any of these. These are the things that I would say would directly contribute to the most concrete freedom given our present conditions.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So you're saying that we should reject the concept of individual freedom altogether because in a free society some people might acquire a bit more wealth than others? That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard! We know from experience that the "necessities for life" such as food and clothing etc can be mass produced and made available for all, indeed that's one of capitalism's greatest triumphs so imo your fears are unfounded. I agree that that we may never achieve a perfect environment of equal opportunities for all but that's no reason not to try.
There is no individual freedom if it's only freedom for the few. And it's a little more than a "bit more wealth", it's like a fucking gulch full of wealth compared to the money that can fit into my pocket. And we have to work for these people because we don't control any means of production ourselves, but they do. So five days a week for 8 hours I'm another persons slave. Why does that not matter to you? 8 hours a day five times a week I lose all freedom that I have and am under the dictatorship of the capitalist. But this is freedom? And what if I don't want to do this in your libertarian society, as most people don't want to? I would have to either rely on handouts from charities or I would starve to death. That is essentially capitalist freedom.

Also I find it funny that you say one of the triumphs of capitalism is we can mass produce food/clothing, etc, and have it available for all. Yes we agree but you seem to forget that millions of people each year starve to death under the current capitalist system, and we can only bet that it would be worse under your extreme form of capitalism. And that is with the abundance of food we already create remember.

[Per Levy]

So you're saying that we should reject the concept of individual freedom altogether because in a free society some people might acquire a bit more wealth than others? That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard! We know from experience that the "necessities for life" such as food and clothing etc can be mass produced and made available for all, indeed that's one of capitalism's greatest triumphs so imo your fears are unfounded. I agree that that we may never achieve a perfect environment of equal opportunities for all but that's no reason not to try.

ah so thats why there is over 1 billion human beings that are in danger of starving, thats why millions die every year of starvation. sorry to say but your system relies on making profit no matter how many people have to die because of that profit.

oh and individual freedom is hardly possible in a capitalist society, you need money to be free and if you dont have money or just a little money then you're not free.

[Veovis]

Capitalism was shitty decades ago when regulations were strong.

Capitalism is even shittier now that most regulations are gone.

And we're supposed to believe it will get better once there are no more regulations?

[Railyon]

And we're supposed to believe it will get better once there are no more regulations?

It's worth pointing to Das Kapital again then, as what Marx described there in regards to the real life situation of the proletariat in Great Britain is pretty much the result of no-holds-barred capitalism. More industrialized than it is now I presume, but the mechanics still hold true.

[chefdave]

ah so thats why there is over 1 billion human beings that are in danger of starving, thats why millions die every year of starvation. sorry to say but your system relies on making profit no matter how many people have to die because of that profit.

oh and individual freedom is hardly possible in a capitalist society, you need money to be free and if you dont have money or just a little money then you're not free.

Capitalism and profit are also responsible the vast amounts of wealth we create every single year, at the moment that figure stands at around $63 trillion. I accept that the poor in many nations still suffer from extreme poverty but this is why we should attempt to alleviate their plight with an economic system that allows them to create and retain their own wealth.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Capitalism and profit are also responsible the vast amounts of wealth we create every single year
No, wealth is created by labor, i.e. the working class. Profit is merely the evidence that labor is being exploited by capital.


in many nations still suffer from extreme poverty but this is why we should attempt to alleviate their plight with an economic system that allows them to create and retain their own wealth.
Capitalism expropriates the wealth created by the working class and transfers it to the capitalist class.

[Positivist]

No, wealth is created by labor, i.e. the working class. Profit is merely the evidence that labor is being exploited by capital.


Capitalism expropriates the wealth created by the working class and transfers it to the capitalist class.

What she said.

[Railyon]

No, wealth is created by labor, i.e. the working class.

First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."
Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Sorry, felt like quoting Marx. Just a trigger reaction to "wealth is created by labor", don't mean to be antagonistic as I am obviously of the same opinion that it is the working class who create our material wealth.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What he said.
She. :D

[Positivist]

She. :D

Sowwy. Haha I'll fix it.

[chefdave]

No, wealth is created by labor, i.e. the working class. Profit is merely the evidence that labor is being exploited by capital.

No, this is misguided left-wing dogma. Wealth is created when labour and capital collaborate to produce something valuable, the return to capital -profit- is merely the return capitalists require to keep their machines functioning. Capital doesn't matrialise out of the ether, it has to be built and maintained at the expense of the owner, if the owners were denied their income stream capital would eventually degredate to the point where it becomes unusable.



Capitalism expropriates the wealth created by the working class and transfers it to the capitalist class.

Capitalism aids the production process by providing labourers with tooling and machinery, in return for this beneficial service capitalists are rewarded with a relatively tiny share of the economic pie.

[chefdave]

Capitalism was shitty decades ago when regulations were strong.

Capitalism is even shittier now that most regulations are gone.

And we're supposed to believe it will get better once there are no more regulations?


Capitalism is flawed I agree, but the point is it could work much more efficiently than it does now if we collectivelly came to terms with it's internal contradictions. The crux of the matter is that the state hands some monopoly powers at the expense of everyone else allowing the nation's wealth to stack up into their hands. Get rid of these state based privileges and the free market would run fine.

[Deicide]

Somalia is an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia.

[danyboy27]

I'm not sure where you got your information from (probably too much neglecting the arguments of the right in favour of revolutionary socialism) but ideologically I get on ok with capitalists, although admittedly I'm a bit more free market so sometimes there's a bit of friction. I advocate the use of a minimal "nightwatchman" state to protect private property, uphold law and order, manage the borders and maintain a court system all paid for with a with a land value tax, other that the government should butt out of civic life and allow us to get on with it.
A lot of petit bourgeois tend to drink the libertarian cool-aid that all you need is a militarized state to enforce the right on property to let the free market thrive but the big corporation and industrial cartel are fully aware that it would be insufficent, that why santorum or ron paul will not get elected leader of the GOP.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No, this is misguided left-wing dogma. Wealth is created when labour and capital collaborate to produce something valuable, the return to capital -profit- is merely the return capitalists require to keep their machines functioning. Capital doesn't matrialise out of the ether, it has to be built and maintained at the expense of the owner, if the owners were denied their income stream capital would eventually degredate to the point where it becomes unusable.




Capitalism aids the production process by providing labourers with tooling and machinery, in return for this beneficial service capitalists are rewarded with a relatively tiny share of the economic pie.

1. This is true, when capital and labour collaborate it produces things. Let's look at this much closer. Capital, on it's own, produces nothing of value. Labor added to capital produces something. For example, if a hole needed to be dug and a capitalist had bought the land and the tools to do it, the hole would still not get dug. ONLY when the workers pick up the tools and begin to dig the hole will any progress be made. So, a classical capitalist examination of this would say that X acres of land is being worked by Y amount of workers using Z amount of capital. Even if we say that land and capital contribute to the process, we cannot say the same about the capitalists and landlords. The workers are the ones doing all the work. The capitalists engage in nothing that could be called productive activity. Also, what is the contribution of capital and land? Nothing, again, without the workers.

A good example I heard was that let say that 5 acres of land can produce 100 bushels of wheat with the labor of ten men and the contribution of labor are 40 and 60 bushels. The worker would receive a wage of 6 bushels of wheat while the landlord would get an income of 40 bushels. The landlord did not contribute to the productive process at all, and allowing access to the means of production is a passive, not productive act. So what is the contribution of capital? I never gave money to a machine. It goes to the capitalists. If the capitalists weren't there, as in a socialist model, that money would go to the people doing the actual work, the working class. Non-labor income exists not because the owners of capital contribute anything, but because they own the means of production which forces workers to sell themselves on the market. This shows that the workers do not get a wage based on the full value of what they produce. While some consider that profit is the capitalist's contribution to the value of a commodity, they are actually just getting a reward for allowing others to produce.

2. From this, we can see that profit is not just the return capitalists get after paying for machines, wages, ect. It is what the capitalist gains from the surplus created by the workers. If a farmer works his own land, he gets a labor check, if he has people work his farm for him, he gets profit.

[Tim Cornelis]

Listen, chefdave, it's really easy to turn right-libertarian logic against right-libertarianism, for these reasons:

1. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--work is voluntary
2. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--free to move
3. Taxation is justified in the state of New York--private property
4. Millions that died in the Congo Free State was justified--voluntarism

1. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--work is voluntary

Right-wing libertarians say to workers "you are not forced by anyone to work and subjugate yourself to a boss." Well, then paying income taxes are voluntary as well. If worker is voluntary, and you pay income taxes for the work you do, then you could choose not to work and not pay taxes.
You could choose not to be an entrepreneur if you don't like paying taxes over profits, and you could choose not to buy goods if you don't like paying taxes over the things you buy. Because buying and being an entrepreneur are voluntary as well.

If work is voluntary, so is paying taxes.

(of course, this does not attack the legitimacy of the state so from that perspective it could easily be tackled but that's besides the point).

2. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--free to move

Right-wing libertarians love to say, "you are not forced to work for that boss, you could choose another job, or become your own boss." If that's true then paying taxes is voluntary because you could move to Somalia (prior to 2006), the Moon, or buy your own libertarian island. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and pay taxes.

3. Taxation is justified in the state of New York--private property

Dutch settlers did not conquer New York, they bought it from the Natives using beads, i.e. free and voluntary exchange. (may not be accurate, but it's mainly a thought experiment). So New York become the property of the settlers, the government. Then the Dutch traded it to the British settlers for a colony, Suriname. Therefore, New York is the legitimate private property of the "government." The taxes you pay are in reality just rent.

So rather than opposing taxation you should embrace it as rent, and in fact oppose democratic interference in the affairs of the owners of New York (the government) because it is their private property.

(again, mainly a thought experiment).

4. Millions that died in the Congo Free State was justified--voluntarism

The Congo Free State was owned by a private company whose only shareholder was King Leopold II. This company fairly bought and traded all the land, there was no coercion. Therefore, the Free State was the legitimate private property of King Leopold II. The millions that died as a result of starvation, disease, and for trespassing on private property are therefore justified.

Read more here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/best-example-free-t162716/index.html).

-------------------------------
The concentration of the means of production on which all of society depends for access to means of life in the hands of a privileged elite (those with the intellectual and financial abilities to buy property) is unjustified. The worker has no access to the means of production, yet is completely dependent on them. This compels him to sell his labour-power, and factually sign his freedom away as he will become the subject of his boss. The boss imposes his will on the worker.

As Bob Black pointed out:


The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.

See, capitalists workplaces operate like private dictatorships. But all is "voluntary" right? Well then Chinese dictatorship is voluntary because the people can move abroad.

--------------------------------
Also, you didn't respond to my comment explaining why right-wing libertarianism leads to justifying famine.

For example, the food aid that the horn of Africa received is unjustified because it was paid through taxation, but speculating with food which drove up food prices leading to starvation in that same horn of Africa is justified because it involves voluntary exchange.

And I would like to add this, As renowned social economist Amartya Sen (born 1933) notes:


Take a theory of entitlements based on a set of rights of 'ownership, transfer and rectification.' In this system a set of holdings of different people are judged to be just (or unjust) by looking at past history, and not by checking the consequences of that set of holdings. But what if the consequences are recognisably terrible? … Refer[ing] to some empirical findings in a work on famines … evidence [is presented] to indicate that in many large famines in the recent past, in which millions of people have died, there was no over-all decline in food availability at all, and the famines occurred precisely because of shifts in entitlement resulting from exercises of rights that are perfectly legitimate. … [Can] famines … occur with a system of rights of the kind morally defended in various ethical theories, including Nozick's[?] I believe the answer is straightforwardly yes, since for many people the only resource that they legitimately possess, viz. their labour-power, may well turn out to be unsaleable in the market, giving the person no command over food … [i]f results such as starvations and famines were to occur, would the distribution of holdings still be morally acceptable despite their disastrous consequences? There is something deeply implausible in the affirmative answer.

-----------------

By the way, any consistent right-wing libertarian must accept debt slavery as freedom.

Right-wing libertarianism states freedom = slavery without hearing any contradiction.

---------------
PLEASE RESPOND THIS TIME

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Capitalism is flawed I agree, but the point is it could work much more efficiently than it does now if we collectivelly came to terms with it's internal contradictions. The crux of the matter is that the state hands some monopoly powers at the expense of everyone else allowing the nation's wealth to stack up into their hands. Get rid of these state based privileges and the free market would run fine.

No, this is false. The contradictions of capitalism are built into the system itself. Capitalists make decisions based on price signals. They have to try to predict the future, which no one can. They try to guess what demand will be, and base the creation of supply off this guess. If supply turns out to be more than demand, they need to lay off workers and cut costs in production to keep their profit margins. When these workers are laid off, they can't buy products and therefore there is more supply than demand in other sectors of the economy. Also, let's say a pencil making company has to cut production. This will mean that they will not need as many boxes to ship out their product and then, do to unforeseeable events, this box company now has more supply than demand and must cut costs in production (lay off workers). This can spiral out of control and create a recession in the economy. The basic workings of capitalism cause it to be plagued by a boom and bust cycle. No amount of state intervention, non-intervention can fix it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Capitalism and profit are also responsible the vast amounts of wealth we create every single year, at the moment that figure stands at around $63 trillion. I accept that the poor in many nations still suffer from extreme poverty but this is why we should attempt to alleviate their plight with an economic system that allows them to create and retain their own wealth.

Oh yeah, a system like socialism! Totally agree, nice to see you change views!
:D

[Railyon]

Wealth is created when labour and capital collaborate to produce something valuable, the return to capital -profit- is merely the return capitalists require to keep their machines functioning. Capital doesn't matrialise out of the ether, it has to be built and maintained at the expense of the owner, if the owners were denied their income stream capital would eventually degredate to the point where it becomes unusable.

I heard the "wealth is created by both labor and capital" line by free marketeers before, however I find it strangely amusing how they immediately are in favor of the latter, dead past labor, instead of the human beings that work to increase their wealth under their command.




Capitalism aids the production process by providing labourers with tooling and machinery, in return for this beneficial service capitalists are rewarded with a relatively tiny share of the economic pie.
http://sadpanda.us/images/911934-JIJ0K3T.jpg

Serious question. Also loved the "tiny share" bit.

[Revolution starts with U]

Dude take a bow. You win


Listen, chefdave, it's really easy to turn right-libertarian logic against right-libertarianism, for these reasons:

1. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--work is voluntary
2. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--free to move
3. Taxation is justified in the state of New York--private property
4. Millions that died in the Congo Free State was justified--voluntarism

1. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--work is voluntary

Right-wing libertarians say to workers "you are not forced by anyone to work and subjugate yourself to a boss." Well, then paying income taxes are voluntary as well. If worker is voluntary, and you pay income taxes for the work you do, then you could choose not to work and not pay taxes.
You could choose not to be an entrepreneur if you don't like paying taxes over profits, and you could choose not to buy goods if you don't like paying taxes over the things you buy. Because buying and being an entrepreneur are voluntary as well.

If work is voluntary, so is paying taxes.

(of course, this does not attack the legitimacy of the state so from that perspective it could easily be tackled but that's besides the point).

2. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--free to move

Right-wing libertarians love to say, "you are not forced to work for that boss, you could choose another job, or become your own boss." If that's true then paying taxes is voluntary because you could move to Somalia (prior to 2006), the Moon, or buy your own libertarian island. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and pay taxes.

3. Taxation is justified in the state of New York--private property

Dutch settlers did not conquer New York, they bought it from the Natives using beads, i.e. free and voluntary exchange. (may not be accurate, but it's mainly a thought experiment). So New York become the property of the settlers, the government. Then the Dutch traded it to the British settlers for a colony, Suriname. Therefore, New York is the legitimate private property of the "government." The taxes you pay are in reality just rent.

So rather than opposing taxation you should embrace it as rent, and in fact oppose democratic interference in the affairs of the owners of New York (the government) because it is their private property.

(again, mainly a thought experiment).

4. Millions that died in the Congo Free State was justified--voluntarism

The Congo Free State was owned by a private company whose only shareholder was King Leopold II. This company fairly bought and traded all the land, there was no coercion. Therefore, the Free State was the legitimate private property of King Leopold II. The millions that died as a result of starvation, disease, and for trespassing on private property are therefore justified.

Read more here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/best-example-free-t162716/index.html).

-------------------------------
The concentration of the means of production on which all of society depends for access to means of life in the hands of a privileged elite (those with the intellectual and financial abilities to buy property) is unjustified. The worker has no access to the means of production, yet is completely dependent on them. This compels him to sell his labour-power, and factually sign his freedom away as he will become the subject of his boss. The boss imposes his will on the worker.

As Bob Black pointed out:



See, capitalists workplaces operate like private dictatorships. But all is "voluntary" right? Well then Chinese dictatorship is voluntary because the people can move abroad.

--------------------------------
Also, you didn't respond to my comment explaining why right-wing libertarianism leads to justifying famine.

For example, the food aid that the horn of Africa received is unjustified because it was paid through taxation, but speculating with food which drove up food prices leading to starvation in that same horn of Africa is justified because it involves voluntary exchange.

And I would like to add this, As renowned social economist Amartya Sen (born 1933) notes:



-----------------

By the way, any consistent right-wing libertarian must accept debt slavery as freedom.


Right-wing libertarianism states freedom = slavery without hearing any contradiction.

---------------
PLEASE RESPOND THIS TIME

[Misanthrope]

I take it the deal's off then? :lol:

If I set up my own smallholding somewhere and attempt to live off the back of my own labour what guarantee do I have that you and your anarchist/socialist (or whatever) bullyboys aren't going to label me an "exploitative capitalist" and go all Mugabe-esque on my ass?

I don't understand your rules.

Because living off your own labour is exclusive to capitalism...

[chefdave]

Because living off your own labour is exclusive to capitalism...

It's not really an option in a modern capitalist system but I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line. No man lives off his own labour entirely because inevitably he'll be working the land and utilising some form of capital to generate enough wealth to live comfetably. At what point does self sufficiency become exploitative capitalism? When I own a tractor? When I create enough to be able to afford additional labour? When i rent out a surplus field?

I'm not trying to trip you up I'm justing trying to gauge the general feeling around here.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's not really an option in a modern capitalist system but I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line. No man lives off his own labour entirely because inevitably he'll be working the land and utilising some form of capital to generate enough wealth to live comfetably. At what point does self sufficiency become exploitative capitalism?

Working land and utilizing capital is not exploitative capitalism. It becomes exploitative when someone owns the means of production and forces workers to work for a wage that does not reflect the true value of what they have produced.

[The Jay]

Respond to my post please. It's either the first or third one of the thread. I would like to hear your response.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Also, remember to respond to previous posts by people, don't just blow them off.

[Ocean Seal]

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?
Does your home have any windows?
Look up any appeal to pathos in this country and you'll hear the word freedom several dozen times.
Why do we attack Iraq? Freedom
Why are we against single-payer healthcare? Freedom
Why do we let Nazis march through the streets and intimidate immigrants? Freedom
Why do the rich exploit us? Freedom

Anyway fuck you and your freedom.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's not really an option in a modern capitalist system but I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line. No man lives off his own labour entirely because inevitably he'll be working the land and utilising some form of capital to generate enough wealth to live comfetably. At what point does self sufficiency become exploitative capitalism? When I own a tractor? When I create enough to be able to afford additional labour? When i rent out a surplus field?

I'm not trying to trip you up I'm justing trying to gauge the general feeling around here.

The short answer is when you hire or rent. The long answer is that all human action will and should be subject to community oversight...even if to make sure his "freedom" had been protected.

[#FF0000]

itt people keep engagin' chefdave, get surprised when he doesn't respond to good posts

[chefdave]

A lot of petit bourgeois tend to drink the libertarian cool-aid that all you need is a militarized state to enforce the right on property to let the free market thrive but the big corporation and industrial cartel are fully aware that it would be insufficent, that why santorum or ron paul will not get elected leader of the GOP.

I have to say that's a very jaundiced view of what libertarianism is all about, but funnily enough I emphasise with your underlying point even if the rhetoric is a bit over the top. Yes, there are lots of very powerful vested interests that are opposed to libertarianism because they intuitively understand that it'll put an end to their corrupt 'business' model. I'm not talking exclusively about the Big Corporations because frankly (other than finance) the British government has already performed a stellar job of squeezing the lifeblood out of them, I'm talking about the major landowners and the 1001 other parasitic groups who rely on state backed renterism to fund a lifestyle they don't deserve. There's no way they'd voluntarily relinquish their state based economic privileges because they'd instantly lose out from a level playing field.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No, this is misguided left-wing dogma.
No, it's objective reality. Capitalists aren't necessary. Workers can self-manage the means of production, distribution, and exchange for their own benefit.


Wealth is created when labour and capital collaborate to produce something valuable, the return to capital -profit- is merely the return capitalists require to keep their machines functioning.
Right, profit goes to keep the machines functioning, not to keep the capitalists in fine houses, well fed, and wanting for nothing. :rolleyes:

[Misanthrope]

It's not really an option in a modern capitalist system but I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line. No man lives off his own labour entirely because inevitably he'll be working the land and utilising some form of capital to generate enough wealth to live comfetably. At what point does self sufficiency become exploitative capitalism? When I own a tractor? When I create enough to be able to afford additional labour? When i rent out a surplus field?

I'm not trying to trip you up I'm justing trying to gauge the general feeling around here.

The line is drawn when you employ wage labor. Inanimate objects cannot be exploited. The line between self sufficiency and owner of means of production is not a fine one which is why I'm puzzled you are creating this dichotomy.

[No_Leaders]

Why are we debating this guy? It's like throwing yourself at a brick wall, it's still going to be there when you're done. Everyone's made some very fine points, but i sense this will just keep going in circles. Besides some of the finer posts he hasn't even replied to. In the end he'll still be a right wing libertarian that has a simpleton view of Marxism and socialism in general, and will argue how grand libertarianism is no matter what facts we lay before him.. :glare:

[human strike]

I for one love having the freedom to (sometimes) choose between bosses.

Right-wing libertarianism is very close to passive nihilism, which essentially means you hate the world and yourself. I bet there's a very high suicide rate amongst these kinds of people.

[Railyon]

Anecdote about perfectly sane free marketeer logic:

I once debated with a libertarian about health services, he's the kind of guy who is totally opposed to people having free access to it. Sad part, he told me "the NHS killed my mother" and it still makes him very angry, so it makes perfect sense for him to advocate private health care because fuck yeah. "Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb sitting at a dinner table asking what's on the menu", direct quote. He thinks the same about health care. Two sick and a healthy man, and who's gonna pay? The poor, poor rich fucks. Being stripped of all their hard-earned wealth.

Didn't want to sound like a fuckwit by making a point that private health care will leave more mothers dead than socialized medicine did to him because that shit is expensive. Like seriously.

[chefdave]

I heard the "wealth is created by both labor and capital" line by free marketeers before, however I find it strangely amusing how they immediately are in favor of the latter, dead past labor, instead of the human beings that work to increase their wealth under their command.

I don't favour the latter but unlike communists I'm willing to recognise their contribution to the wealth creation process. It's factually accurate to say that the owners of capital aid production when they lend labour their capital, the question is how we democratically decide their return. I'm willing to let the free market make the calculation for us because it's integral competitive element ensures that capitalists don't demand too much. Commies are willing to place their faith in an all powerful state, and we know where that road leads....




http://sadpanda.us/images/911934-JIJ0K3T.jpg

Serious question. Also loved the "tiny share" bit.

We should definitely lower the cost of capital to give salaried workers the opportunity of starting their own business, this would entail tax reductions though so lefties instantly dismiss the idea without giving it due consideration. In terms of national income capitalists do indeed only take a relatively small proportion. This isn't a bit of right-wing propaganda it's an economic fact, the long run rate of return to capital is around 5%, you're doing well if you earn 10%, whereas workers enjoy around 40%-50% of national income in advanced economies.

[chefdave]

1. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--work is voluntary

No matter how much you try and twist libertarian thought libertarians will never agree that taxation is voluntary simply because in this area we're able to recognise objective reality. At best right-wingers will argue that taxation is a necessary evil to fund the core functions of the state (army, police, courts etc) but under no circumstances do we accept that it's voluntary. What you're describing is the classic left-wing stance on the matter of taxation, because you believe all property belongs to the state you'll use any old argument to justify government intervention.

If taxation was voluntary we wouldn't send people to prison to tax evasion.



2. Taxation is justified because it's voluntary--free to move.


Some right-wingers such as Daniel Hannan believe in the idea of locally levied sales taxes to engender a certain amount of tax competition, but clearly the idea behind such a proposal is to reduce taxes because of their damaging effects on society. Telling some innocent you're going to steal their belongings if they hang around but you won't pursue them to the ends of the earth doesn't count as voluntarism though.




3. Taxation is justified in the state of New York--private property


I agree with some of this but I'd phrase it a little differently. Land values are the natural property of the community because we all have a hand in creating this surplus value, it's logical therefore to allow a communal agency such as government to collect land values up and then either spend it on public services or redistribute it as a Citizen's Dividend. This is in accordance the libertarian ideal of private property. There's absolutely no need to use taxation as a proxy for rent when the real thing: land rent, ends up in the private pockets of landlords. Taxation isn't justifiable because it undermines the notion of private property, a land value tax works with the free market.




4. Millions that died in the Congo Free State was justified--voluntarism

I've come across this case before in a book written by the British economist Fred Harrison and I'm in total agreement that the Congo Free State was an abomination. Private property in land doesn't count as private property because land is the common property of mankind. Objectively speaking no piece of land can be considered more mine than yours in the same way that an arbitrary amount of oxygen can be considered more mine than yours, when the state signs over the land rights to person A while neglecting the equal rights of person B they store up problems for the future and guaranteed human rights abuses. We're in agreement that this is a disgusting element of capitalism and it needs to stop.




For example, the food aid that the horn of Africa received is unjustified because it was paid through taxation, but speculating with food which drove up food prices leading to starvation in that same horn of Africa is justified because it involves voluntary exchange.

Africa has problems with food distribution because African nations are notoriously bad at capital accumulation, some of this is down to the consequences of imperialism (as discussed above) but there may be other religious/cultural factors to consider also. Does speculation lead to rising prices? Yes in the short term, but it also incentivises food production as some foods turn into 'cash crops'. You need the appropriate resources at your disposal though (tractors, fertiliser, reliable irrigation) to be able to satisfy any excess demand.

[chefdave]

The line is drawn when you employ wage labor. Inanimate objects cannot be exploited. The line between self sufficiency and owner of means of production is not a fine one which is why I'm puzzled you are creating this dichotomy.

You're confusing your terms. In order to be self sufficient you must have direct access all 3 factors of production (land, labour and capital), in fact to release workers from the shackles of waged servitute both libertarians and socialists agree that we should disperse the means of production more widely so as to everyone a fair deal. The only quabble is how we go about doing this. So I reject your assetion that ownership over the means of production is inherently exploitative.

[Deicide]

Commies are willing to place their faith in an all powerful state, and we know where that road leads....

So you're still peddling this senile strawman..

[chefdave]

So you're still peddling this senile strawman..

So you reject the stated aims of the Communist Manifesto then?

[Cirno(9)]

So you reject the stated aims of the Communist Manifesto then?
Can you quote the Communist Manifesto please?

I used to be a right-libertarian so I get where you're coming from. I was actually 'converted' to it back in highschool when I read Milton Friedman. The simplicity of it is what attracted me to it, "The distinction between economic and social liberty is a false dichotomy! How could I have been so blinded my Michael Moore!". Ultimately the simplicity is also what turned me away from it because the world is much more complicated than "everything bad is done by the government".


I have a feeling that a lot of the people in this thread are anti-statist leftists so the fact that they are disputing libertarian arguments might cause one to think that there is something really flawed about them.

[DinodudeEpic]

'Freedom' is not demonized by the media, and nor is right-libertarianism.

In reality, right-libertarians are living under the delusion that free markets must mean an capitalist economy. (Even though capitalism is in fact anti-free market.)

[Positivist]

So you reject the stated aims of the Communist Manifesto then?

Your problem is that you can't get past the idea of a monolithic, autocratic state. The state Marx refers to in the communist manifesto would be democratically operated by the workers at both a communal and a federal level.

[chefdave]

Can you quote the Communist Manifesto please?

I used to be a right-libertarian so I get where you're coming from. I was actually 'converted' to it back in highschool when I read Milton Friedman. The simplicity of it is what attracted me to it, "The distinction between economic and social liberty is a false dichotomy! How could I have been so blinded my Michael Moore!". Ultimately the simplicity is also what turned me away from it because the world is much more complicated than "everything bad is done by the government".


I have a feeling that a lot of the people in this thread are anti-statist leftists so the fact that they are disputing libertarian arguments might cause one to think that there is something really flawed about them.

The Communist Manisfesto:



Abolition of property in land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure) and application of all rents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting) of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax) or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance).
Confiscation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation) of the property of all emigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration) and rebels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion).
Centralisation of credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_%28finance%29) in the hands of the State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state), by means of a national bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_bank) with State capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29) and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillage) of waste-lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland), and the improvement of the soil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil) generally in accordance with a common plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_science).
Equal liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability) of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army), especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry); gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density) over the country.
Free education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education) for all children in public schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_%28government_funded%29). Abolition of children's factory labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor) in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

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



I along with many other righties have benefitted enormously from Friedman's work, but he's something of a faux-libertarian or what I like to call a Royal libertarian because he never adequately address The Land Issue. The essential component of any free market is the ability for all participants to replicate the services the market offers them. This mechanism keeps profits and wages in check. So if you had a drippy tap for example you'd be free to either fix it yourself or call out the local plumber, crucially your ability to replace his plumbing services with your own labour has a bearing on the amount he'll be able to charge. The land market doesn't work like this because it's essentially fixed in supply, owners are able to charge monopoly rents free from the threat of competition (land: they're not making any more of it) and their privileged status makes it easy for them to hoover up extraordinary amounts of wealth.


Friedman believe than anything privately owned must have automatically conformed to principles that guide the free market. This is quite often the case but where real estate is concerned his market theories just aren't applicable because the competitive element s sorely lacking. Unfortunately because he inspired the current generation of libertarians you'll quite often see them repeating his mistakes.

[chefdave]

'Freedom' is not demonized by the media, and nor is right-libertarianism.

In reality, right-libertarians are living under the delusion that free markets must mean an capitalist economy. (Even though capitalism is in fact anti-free market.)

Capitalism is like a trojan horse. We get some elements of the free market but inside lurks an army of rent-seekers who can't wait to get their claws into the wealth that everybody else creates.

Although the term 'capitalism' should have an identical meaning to the term 'free market' some of the more thoughful libertarians now reject the capitalist label because they see it as a by-word for corporate parasitism. I'm quite sympathetic to this viewpoint.

[Positivist]

Why do you insist on ignoring every good point that is made on this thread?

[chefdave]

Your problem is that you can't get past the idea of a monolithic, autocratic state. The state Marx refers to in the communist manifesto would be democratically operated by the workers at both a communal and a federal level.

This approach would soon descend into tyranny because it puts the needs of the collective before the needs of the individual. As their is no collective need in any meaningful way in practice it means the lives of all men would be determined by the few. I don't want to have my rations decided on by a Soviet committee thanks, life is just too short for endless votes on things that can be determined freely and briskly with mutually beneficial trade.

[chefdave]

Why do you insist on ignoring every good point that is made on this thread?

I've answered about 35 points on this thread so far, I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone.

[Positivist]

This approach would soon descend into tyranny because it puts the needs of the collective before the needs of the individual. As their is no collective need in any meaningful way in practice it means the lives of all men would be determined by the few. I don't want to have my rations decided on by a Soviet committee thanks, life is just too short for endless votes on things that can be determined freely and briskly with mutually beneficial trade.

Perhaps in the overly representative form of democracy that we live in today but socialist democracy will be more direct. Communal councils consisting of each member of the community will make decisions for the community. Federal decisions will be made by representatives of the councils, and that will be the top of the pyramid. No leaders beyond that point, so no room for dictators to seize control. Furthermore each representative will be subject to immediate recall if the councils their councilh don't believe they are accurately representing their views.

[chefdave]

Perhaps in the overly representative form of democracy that we live in today but socialist democracy will be more direct. Communal councils consisting of each member of the community will make decisions for the community. Federal decisions will be made by representatives of the councils, and that will be the top of the pyramid. No leaders beyond that point, so no room for dictators to seize control. Furthermore each representative will be subject to immediate recall if the councils their councilh don't believe they are accurately representing their views.


I think we're speaking different languages. Democracy for any libertarian is an absolute last resort because it implies a certain degree of collective coercion. Some people will always be unhappy with the decisions reached as democracy imposes the will of the majority onto the whole community. It's a necessary evil, something that should only be used when the individualist option isn't available.

[Positivist]

I think we're speaking different languages. Democracy for any libertarian is an absolute last resort because it implies a certain degree of collective coercion. Some people will always be unhappy with the decisions reached as democracy imposes the will of the majority onto the whole community. It's a necessary evil, something that should only be used when the individualist option isn't available.

This I can agree on. I am by no means a majoritarian though it appears to me that this necessary evil must be employed more often than you believe. The interaction of people must be understood as a system. The actions of an individual will have repercussions for the entire community. If one individual goes about to starting his own chair making business which requires a large factory to construct the chairs and many trees, then he will be polluting the environment and depleting the resources that we all depend upon. In such casesxwe see the will of a single individual imposed upon everybody else. Clearly coordinated democratic planning is more beneficial to the populace than chaotic individual planning.

[chefdave]

This I can agree on. I am by no means a majoritarian though it appears to me that this necessary evil must be employed more often than you believe. The interaction of people must be understood as a system. The actions of an individual will have repercussions for the entire community. If one individual goes about to starting his own chair making business which requires a large factory to construct the chairs and many trees, then he will be polluting the environment and depleting the resources that we all depend upon. In such casesxwe see the will of a single individual imposed upon everybody else. Clearly coordinated democratic planning is more beneficial to the populace than chaotic individual planning.

In this case I'd leave his furniture making business to the market. Trees are a natural resource but as they're also renewable the lumber he uses can easily be replaced by planting more trees. It's quite often the case that businesses such as these have trees grown specifically for them anyway so their net strain in terms of the tree population on the environment is zero (if you're concerned with such matters). If our eponymous hero damages the environment in any quantifiable way, i.e by polluting a river, then I'm more than happy for the courts to make him liable for the clean up cost.

As far as I can tell the major negative externality of the furniture business is the land (itself a finite resource) he monopolises for the plant, for this inconvenience I'd make him pay compensation to the government at the full market rate of the land's rental value.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

1. This is true, when capital and labour collaborate it produces things. Let's look at this much closer. Capital, on it's own, produces nothing of value. Labor added to capital produces something. For example, if a hole needed to be dug and a capitalist had bought the land and the tools to do it, the hole would still not get dug. ONLY when the workers pick up the tools and begin to dig the hole will any progress be made. So, a classical capitalist examination of this would say that X acres of land is being worked by Y amount of workers using Z amount of capital. Even if we say that land and capital contribute to the process, we cannot say the same about the capitalists and landlords. The workers are the ones doing all the work. The capitalists engage in nothing that could be called productive activity. Also, what is the contribution of capital and land? Nothing, again, without the workers.

A good example I heard was that let say that 5 acres of land can produce 100 bushels of wheat with the labor of ten men and the contribution of labor are 40 and 60 bushels. The worker would receive a wage of 6 bushels of wheat while the landlord would get an income of 40 bushels. The landlord did not contribute to the productive process at all, and allowing access to the means of production is a passive, not productive act. So what is the contribution of capital? I never gave money to a machine. It goes to the capitalists. If the capitalists weren't there, as in a socialist model, that money would go to the people doing the actual work, the working class. Non-labor income exists not because the owners of capital contribute anything, but because they own the means of production which forces workers to sell themselves on the market. This shows that the workers do not get a wage based on the full value of what they produce. While some consider that profit is the capitalist's contribution to the value of a commodity, they are actually just getting a reward for allowing others to produce.

2. From this, we can see that profit is not just the return capitalists get after paying for machines, wages, ect. It is what the capitalist gains from the surplus created by the workers. If a farmer works his own land, he gets a labor check, if he has people work his farm for him, he gets profit.

That is something I posted a few pages back. I understand that you are responding to a hell of a lot of points all by yourself right now (for which I applaud you) and I was wondering what your response is to this.

[Geiseric]

The "all powerful state," is simply a workers government. Its power goes towards what the point of creating it was, to take power and expropiate the means of production from the Bourgeoisie. Once that is done and there is nothing else to harm the revolution the state dissolves. But its purpose can't be changed unless there was a devastating political revolution that left a clique in charge.

[Thirsty Crow]

This approach would soon descend into tyranny because it puts the needs of the collective before the needs of the individual.
A blatant contradiction. How does enabling egotistical interests to morph into one kind of domination or another actually function as a bulwark against "tyranny"?
But anyway, this whole approch of collective vs. individual need represents a false dichotomy since needs are in fact social.


As their is no collective need in any meaningful way in practice it means the lives of all men would be determined by the few. Warped logic, false premises.
There are in fact "collective needs" - those shared by all human beings in fact. Like, the need for nutrition, something which goes unrecognized nowadays.


I don't want to have my rations decided on by a Soviet committee thanks, life is just too short for endless votes on things that can be determined freely and briskly with mutually beneficial trade.
Extrapolating from a very specific set of historical conditions (the disastrous state of agriculture and the conditions of food scarcity in cities, in early USSR) and pronouncing it a characteristic of the whole political project. Now that's lazy thinking at best, and a dishonest debating tactic and hipocrisy at worst.

But yeah, your ration will be decided upon collectively. That is, your ration which you'll get for free irrespecive of anything you do (while your own performed labour time, at least in early stages of the development of socialism, will procure you more food and diferent kinds of it, as well as other cool stuff).
At least that's what I'd advocate as a basis for social consumption in a future postcapitalist society.

[chefdave]

1. This is true, when capital and labour collaborate it produces things. Let's look at this much closer. Capital, on it's own, produces nothing of value. Labor added to capital produces something. For example, if a hole needed to be dug and a capitalist had bought the land and the tools to do it, the hole would still not get dug. ONLY when the workers pick up the tools and begin to dig the hole will any progress be made. So, a classical capitalist examination of this would say that X acres of land is being worked by Y amount of workers using Z amount of capital. Even if we say that land and capital contribute to the process, we cannot say the same about the capitalists and landlords. The workers are the ones doing all the work. The capitalists engage in nothing that could be called productive activity. Also, what is the contribution of capital and land? Nothing, again, without the workers.


In this instance I'd be quite prepared to defend the capitalist's profit because without his spade the hole wouldn't get dug. Ok on the face of it he's playing a passive role but he's still foregoing the use of his spade and is also responsible for it's general upkeep, for these two costs alone he deserves a share of the final product. The capitalist is also entirely replaceable lets not forget: if he demands too much the others could easily find someone else or even gather the necessary resources to create their own tools, this limits the capitalist's ability to extract excess profits. The landowner however is a different story. Land as a factor of production wasn't created by the owner and can be likened to a free gift of nature, any income a landowner receives through renting out 'his' land is income received for a service he hasn't provided. It would be like me charging you for the use of air! Landowners truly bring nothing to the party and in an ideal world they'd be rewarded as such.


A good example I heard was that let say that 5 acres of land can produce 100 bushels of wheat with the labor of ten men and the contribution of labor are 40 and 60 bushels. The worker would receive a wage of 6 bushels of wheat while the landlord would get an income of 40 bushels. The landlord did not contribute to the productive process at all, and allowing access to the means of production is a passive, not productive act. So what is the contribution of capital? I never gave money to a machine. It goes to the capitalists. If the capitalists weren't there, as in a socialist model, that money would go to the people doing the actual work, the working class. Non-labor income exists not because the owners of capital contribute anything, but because they own the means of production which forces workers to sell themselves on the market. This shows that the workers do not get a wage based on the full value of what they produce. While some consider that profit is the capitalist's contribution to the value of a commodity, they are actually just getting a reward for allowing others to produce.As above really. Landowners don't aid the production process one iota because the land they allow labourers and capitalists to access would be there without their presence. Any money they're paid amounts to a transfer payment the rest of the economy has to pay them in order to till the soil. I'm of the opinion that the economy would function a hell of a lot better if we cleared the landed class out the way and redistibuted their monopoly income equitably. I don't agree with taxing capital however because it inadvertantly concentrates capital ownership into the hands of the few, if we punish capital with a heavy fiscal burden capital becomes more scarce and expensive making it harder for the working class to get their hands on it. It's only the constant threat of competition that'll help keep the capitalist class in check, to do this effectively capital needs to be dispersed into as many hands as possible.


2. From this, we can see that profit is not just the return capitalists get after paying for machines, wages, ect. It is what the capitalist gains from the surplus created by the workers. If a farmer works his own land, he gets a labor check, if he has people work his farm for him, he gets profit.Imo normal profits (in the region of 5%) are ok, super profits (10-20%) are the sign of market failure but economic rent is the hallmark of outright corruption. The latter two if/when they occur certainly deserve some collective attention.

[chefdave]

A blatant contradiction. How does enabling egotistical interests to morph into one kind of domination or another actually function as a bulwark against "tyranny"?
But anyway, this whole approch of collective vs. individual need represents a false dichotomy since needs are in fact social.


Needs are individual not social, when my tummy rumbles it's a sign that my individual body needs food. This desire cannot be satisfied by feeding Bob at no. 62 or anyone else in the local community other than me.



Warped logic, false premises.
There are in fact "collective needs" - those shared by all human beings in fact. Like, the need for nutrition, something which goes unrecognized nowadays.Semantics. Yes we all need food/water/shelter etc but these shared requirements don't give us the right to interfere into each others' lives.



Extrapolating from a very specific set of historical conditions (the disastrous state of agriculture and the conditions of food scarcity in cities, in early USSR) and pronouncing it a characteristic of the whole political project. Now that's lazy thinking at best, and a dishonest debating tactic and hipocrisy at worst.

But yeah, your ration will be decided upon collectively. That is, your ration which you'll get for free irrespecive of anything you do (while your own performed labour time, at least in early stages of the development of socialism, will procure you more food and diferent kinds of it, as well as other cool stuff).
At least that's what I'd advocate as a basis for social consumption in a future postcapitalist society.That's very kind as long as you realise that some poor sod will have to labour like a dog to meet the committee's dictat? As Milton Friedman once said "there's no such thing as a free lunch", adding a communal element doesn't get around the fact that in order to consume *someone* must produce first. You don't have the moral authority to make someone labour for the sole benefit of someone else.

[Positivist]

In this instance I'd be quite prepared to defend the capitalist's profit because without his spade the hole wouldn't get dug. Ok on the face of it he's playing a passive role but he's still foregoing the use of his spade and is also responsible for it's general upkeep, for these two costs alone he deserves a share of the final product. The capitalist is also entirely replaceable lets not forget: if he demands too much the others could easily find someone else or even gather the necessary resources to create their own tools, this limits the capitalist's ability to extract excess profits. The landowner however is a different story. Land as a factor of production wasn't created by the owner and can be likened to a free gift of nature, any income a landowner receives through renting out 'his' land is income received for a service he hasn't provided. It would be like me charging you for the use of air! Landowners truly bring nothing to the party and in an ideal world they'd be rewarded as such.

As above really. Landowners don't aid the production process one iota because the land they allow labourers and capitalists to access would be there without their presence. Any money they're paid amounts to a transfer payment the rest of the economy has to pay them in order to till the soil. I'm of the opinion that the economy would function a hell of a lot better if we cleared the landed class out the way and redistibuted their monopoly income equitably. I don't agree with taxing capital however because it inadvertantly concentrates capital ownership into the hands of the few, if we punish capital with a heavy fiscal burden capital becomes more scarce and expensive making it harder for the working class to get their hands on it. It's only the constant threat of competition that'll help keep the capitalist class in check, to do this effectively capital needs to be dispersed into as many hands as possible.

Imo normal profits (in the region of 5%) are ok, super profits (10-20%) are the sign of market failure but economic rent is the hallmark of outright corruption. The latter two if/when they occur certainly deserve some collective attention.

Now I would argue from this that the capitalist ultimately cannot exist without the landlord. For ultimately the tools that the capitalist is responsible for providing were ultimately produced by labor performed not by the capitalist but by workers assembling the tools from the resources that the landed "owned." So considering this the only value the capitalist has in the production process ultimately comes from the labor of the working people. In a socialist society the capitalist acting as an intermediary between the tools produced by labor and later labor performed with the tools is unnecessary as the tools the workers produced will be owned by the community so other members of the community may use the tools at will to perform laser labor.

[Revolution starts with U]

No matter how much you try and twist libertarian thought libertarians will never agree that taxation is voluntary simply because in this area we're able to recognise objective reality. At best right-wingers will argue that taxation is a necessary evil to fund the core functions of the state (army, police, courts etc) but under no circumstances do we accept that it's voluntary. What you're describing is the classic left-wing stance on the matter of taxation, because you believe all property belongs to the state you'll use any old argument to justify government intervention.


:lol: Great response. That actually addressed anything said...

Either way; if property was voluntary they wouldn't send people to prison for tresspassing and theft.


I agree with some of this but I'd phrase it a little differently. Land values are the natural property of the community because we all have a hand in creating this surplus value, it's logical therefore to allow a communal agency such as government to collect land values up and then either spend it on public services or redistribute it as a Citizen's Dividend. This is in accordance the libertarian ideal of private property. There's absolutely no need to use taxation as a proxy for rent when the real thing: land rent, ends up in the private pockets of landlords. Taxation isn't justifiable because it undermines the notion of private property, a land value tax works with the free market.
You libertarians are all over the map :confused:
That's nothing to refute your position tho, us lefties are all over the map too.

Like this: most of the people on this state are no fans of capitalist governments or their faux-philanthropic welfare systems.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok on the face of it he's playing a passive role but he's still foregoing the use of his spade and is also responsible for it's general upkeep, for these two costs alone he deserves a share of the final product.
And why does he get to unilaterally decide all shares to the final product? Could not his role be filled by others?

The capitalist is also entirely replaceable lets not forget: if he demands too much the others could easily find someone else or even gather the necessary resources to create their own tools, this limits the capitalist's ability to extract excess profits.
It would seem so, but you forget the inherent monopoly position he gains merely by having the title/deed called "ownership." This excessively boosts his ability to extract any profits he deems fit.


The landowner however is a different story. Land as a factor of production wasn't created by the owner and can be likened to a free gift of nature, any income a landowner receives through renting out 'his' land is income received for a service he hasn't provided. It would be like me charging you for the use of air! Landowners truly bring nothing to the party and in an ideal world they'd be rewarded as such.

You're a fan of ol' Paine, eh? Me too :lol:

As above really. Landowners don't aid the production process one iota because the land they allow labourers and capitalists to access would be there without their presence.
But wait... don't they preform a discriminitory role in deciding who to lease land to, and to whom not?


Any money they're paid amounts to a transfer payment the rest of the economy has to pay them in order to till the soil. I'm of the opinion that the economy would function a hell of a lot better if we cleared the landed class out the way and redistibuted their monopoly income equitably. I don't agree with taxing capital however because it inadvertantly concentrates capital ownership into the hands of the few, if we punish capital with a heavy fiscal burden capital becomes more scarce and expensive making it harder for the working class to get their hands on it. It's only the constant threat of competition that'll help keep the capitalist class in check, to do this effectively capital needs to be dispersed into as many hands as possible.

Or dispersed with alltogether. The removal of the concept of capital IS the dispersion of it into as many hands as litterally possible; all of mankind. Capital's end IS the liberation of the working class (the masses).


Imo normal profits (in the region of 5%) are ok, super profits (10-20%) are the sign of market failure but economic rent is the hallmark of outright corruption. The latter two if/when they occur certainly deserve some collective attention.
The problem is not in the companies income/expense ratio, but in the concept of private ownership and how it alienates labor from its fruits.

[Tim Cornelis]

No matter how much you try and twist libertarian thought libertarians will never agree that taxation is voluntary simply because in this area we're able to recognise objective reality. At best right-wingers will argue that taxation is a necessary evil to fund the core functions of the state (army, police, courts etc) but under no circumstances do we accept that it's voluntary. What you're describing is the classic left-wing stance on the matter of taxation, because you believe all property belongs to the state you'll use any old argument to justify government intervention.


You're not responding to my argument. You're just ignoring it. And of course I justify state coercion, that's why I'm an anarchist. :rolleyes:

Like I already said, I am using right-wing libertarian logic to argue taxation is just. Am I a right-wing libertarian? No. Therefore, I am not arguing taxation is voluntary.


If taxation was voluntary we wouldn't send people to prison to tax evasion.

If rent was voluntary we wouldn't send people to prison for not paying rent. It's not an argument. See my point?

Keep in mind that I am not the one arguing that taxation is voluntary, it is not. Taxation is imposed and coercive. What I am doing is using right-wing libertarian logic and reasoning to argue that taxation is voluntary (reductio ad absurdum) and pushing their own logic to its logical and absurd conclusions.

If you accept that work is voluntary, you must necessarily accept that anything as a consequence of work is voluntary as well. Therefore, paying taxes is voluntary, not by mine but by your logic.


If taxation was voluntary we wouldn't send people to prison to tax evasion.

You can live in the United States and not pay taxes without going to prison. Simply, choose not to work (it's voluntary after all), choose not to buy stuff (is voluntary), and choose not to make profits (which is also voluntary). If you do all that, you can pay no taxes and still live free.

Personally, I know a new-age hippie guy who lived a few years without paying taxes. He simply did not work, did not receive welfare, and barely eat as part of his "enlightenment."


Some right-wingers such as Daniel Hannan believe in the idea of locally levied sales taxes to engender a certain amount of tax competition, but clearly the idea behind such a proposal is to reduce taxes because of their damaging effects on society. Telling some innocent you're going to steal their belongings if they hang around but you won't pursue them to the ends of the earth doesn't count as voluntarism though.

Right. But could you not apply the same argument to rent?


I agree with some of this but I'd phrase it a little differently. Land values are the natural property of the community because we all have a hand in creating this surplus value, it's logical therefore to allow a communal agency such as government to collect land values up and then either spend it on public services or redistribute it as a Citizen's Dividend. This is in accordance the libertarian ideal of private property. There's absolutely no need to use taxation as a proxy for rent when the real thing: land rent, ends up in the private pockets of landlords. Taxation isn't justifiable because it undermines the notion of private property, a land value tax works with the free market.

I disagree. The government is not a "communal agent." Land should be commonly owned, not publicly. The government and state do not and cannot represent the community.


I've come across this case before in a book written by the British economist Fred Harrison and I'm in total agreement that the Congo Free State was an abomination. Private property in land doesn't count as private property because land is the common property of mankind. Objectively speaking no piece of land can be considered more mine than yours in the same way that an arbitrary amount of oxygen can be considered more mine than yours, when the state signs over the land rights to person A while neglecting the equal rights of person B they store up problems for the future and guaranteed human rights abuses. We're in agreement that this is a disgusting element of capitalism and it needs to stop.

Private property of land does count of right-wing libertarianism, and most right-wing libertarians do accept private ownership of land valid, it's just that you are a geolibertarian.


Africa has problems with food distribution because African nations are notoriously bad at capital accumulation, some of this is down to the consequences of imperialism (as discussed above) but there may be other religious/cultural factors to consider also. Does speculation lead to rising prices? Yes in the short term, but it also incentivises food production as some foods turn into 'cash crops'. You need the appropriate resources at your disposal though (tractors, fertiliser, reliable irrigation) to be able to satisfy any excess demand.

You're ignoring my argument. I'm not arguing what caused the famine, I'm arguing that by right-wing libertarian principles it was justified.

The food aid was unjustified because it was paid through taxation, correct?
Food speculation which amplified the famine was justified, correct?

Simply answer yes or no.


So you reject the stated aims of the Communist Manifesto then?

Communism is stateless. Mind you that Marx changed his position on what the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like in 1871 after the Paris Commune.
-------------
What about this:

The concentration of the means of production on which all of society depends for access to means of life in the hands of a privileged elite (those with the intellectual and financial abilities to buy property) is unjustified. The worker has no access to the means of production, yet is completely dependent on them. This compels him to sell his labour-power, and factually sign his freedom away as he will become the subject of his boss. The boss imposes his will on the worker.

As Bob Black pointed out:


The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.


-----------

and:

you accept wage labour as valid because it's voluntary, correct?
Then debt slavery should also be seen as valid, correct?

Do you, or do you not, agree that this form of slavery is justified?

-----------------
How do you define freedom?


I think we're speaking different languages. Democracy for any libertarian is an absolute last resort because it implies a certain degree of collective coercion. Some people will always be unhappy with the decisions reached as democracy imposes the will of the majority onto the whole community. It's a necessary evil, something that should only be used when the individualist option isn't available.

So a board of directors voting on how to organise a company is unjustified?

In free market capitalism:

if it is profitable to build a road because the majority find it convenient, while the minority who live there are unhappy about it, the road will be build because profits guide production.

In socialism:

if the majority of the people want the road because they find it convenient while the minority are unhappy about it, the road will be build because it is democratic.

Yet you identify one as collective coercion and the other as voluntarism and freedom. :rolleyes: You cannot satisfy everyone in any system, period. It is a moot point to make such an argument.

Collective decisions should be taken collectively. If this is not the case, it is necessarily imposed and therefore unjustified. Collective decisions can only be taken by means of participation, deliberation, meetings, and democratic decision-making.

[Thirsty Crow]

Needs are individual not social, when my tummy rumbles it's a sign that my individual body needs food. This desire cannot be satisfied by feeding Bob at no. 62 or anyone else in the local community other than me. Of course, that's a banality, but the point is that needs are shared due to all sorts of things - for instance, due to our physical composition as homo sapiens sapiens, or due to socialization. That's what you miss


Semantics. Yes we all need food/water/shelter etc but these shared requirements don't give us the right to interfere into each others' lives. Oh the mysticism of "rights". And what actually does give us rights? Nature? God?
As far as I'm concerned, when basic needs go unmet, something needs to be done, that simple. I don't particularly care for the moralism of not intervening into someone's life - or more accurately, someone's activities of exploitation and domination.



That's very kind as long as you realise that some poor sod will have to labour like a dog to meet the committee's dictat? As Milton Friedman once said "there's no such thing as a free lunch", adding a communal element doesn't get around the fact that in order to consume *someone* must produce first. You don't have the moral authority to make someone labour for the sole benefit of someone else.
Labour like a dog?
With all the productivitiy enhhancing technology, with all the possibilities for automation which under capitalism are in fact methods of pauperisation (pauperisation as in throwing people out of work), working like a dog? YOu got it all wrong, in fact, in a socialist society people coul consciously work towards increased shortening of the working hours needed for social reproduction.
And I don't care for old Milton - I'm in fact arguing here for a free lunch, or in other words, for a free basic income irrespective of labour performed, in socialism.
And you're getting completely irrational by te end of your rant. It seems as if you're talking about capitalism, but I know you're not. So, how would I make someone labour for the sole benefit of someone else?

[Rafiq]

Remember, this isn't a clash of Utopias.

1. If you're not an Anarchist, presuppose that we support the "all powerful state".

2. Instead of being an opportunist, attack and destroy HIS Utopia, don't say "Well, thaf's not what I want, I want X society". No. Then the argument becomes useless and you can just conjure any magical society out of your ass.

Attack his Free Market paradise, since he is the one arguing for something new (new society) on a Revleftist website full of Communists. Everyone knows what "we" want, we aren't here to preach great Ideas for a new society. That's sugarcoating the proletarian dictatorship. Communism is not peace or nice society. Communism is a process, a movement that will bring destruction, violence and terror upon our enemies. Chedave, this isn't a question of compromise. When the time comes, you give us your property or we take it regardless.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Railyon]

1. If you're not an Anarchist, presuppose that we support the "all powerful state".

There's so much wrong with this, I could cry.

[Rafiq]

There's so much wrong with this, I could cry.

A workers state indeed will be "all powerful"

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[milkmiku]

I support Ron simply because he wishes to depower the federal reserve. The fed losing power would significantly weaken the banking system of America and possibly the world. A large step towards the end goal. For any progress to be made America's role in the world needs to be significantly reduced, Ronnie would do that.

The free market shit and his supposed racism is negligible considering there is little he could do outside the scope of what he has promised for 30+ years without losing all his popular support. Avid Paul supports are always going on about his consistency on the topics he preaches about. No revolution will happen over night and little things like this are needed. Not like Ron could turn America in to a freemarket paradise in 4 or 8 years, but he could damage the current system.

[Rafiq]

I support Ron simply because he wishes to depower the federal reserve. The fed losing power would significantly weaken the banking system of America and possibly the world. A large step towards the end goal. For any progress to be made America's role in the world needs to be significantly reduced, Ronnie would do that.

The free market shit and his supposed racism is negligible considering there is little he could do outside the scope of what he has promised for 30+ years without losing all his popular support. Avid Paul supports are always going on about his consistency on the topics he preaches about. No revolution will happen over night and little things like this are needed. Not like Ron could turn America in to a freemarket paradise in 4 or 8 years, but he could damage the current system.

You're a moron.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[milkmiku]

You're a moron.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


Please expound? In what way would weakening Americas influence on the world and damaging the World Banking cartel be moronic? Am I mistaken on Paluies desire to dismantle the Fed and curtail American interventionism? Am I mistatken on the assumption that he would not be able to turn America into a freemarket utopia?

Please correct me if I am incorrect.

[Rafiq]

Please expound? In what way would weakening Americas influence on the world and damaging the World Banking cartel be moronic? Am I mistaken on Paluies desire to dismantle the Fed and curtail American interventionism? Am I mistatken on the assumption that he would not be able to turn America into a freemarket utopia?

Please correct me if I am incorrect.

Because the enslavement of all of the workers, you know, who live INSIDE the U.S. Isn't on my far left checklist

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[DinodudeEpic]

A workers state indeed will be "all powerful"

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Socialism does not come from the state. It is merely an economic arrangement that is of a democracy.

Basically, a bill of rights voted upon by the people should guarantee socialism, independent of the state.

However, a state that has a socialist economy in it would most likely have changed to become a minarchistic direct democracy.

[milkmiku]

Because the enslavement of all of the workers, you know, who live INSIDE the U.S. Isn't on my far left checklist

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


As I said, I only want him because of his stance on the FED, That is something that can be dealt with, his other fantasy are not likely to get the people on board.

The FED and American interventionism being curtailed will be a major blow. It is a war and the opponent needs to be weakened before a decisive battle can be won.

I'm not sure how Ron Paul would further enslave the American people. Most of his policy would be blocked, even with EO he'd not be able to push anything that the population was soundly against.

My point stands, The federal reserve and American interventionism must be stopped or slowed, and so far Paul seems to be one of the few who is genuinely against both. The system must be picked apart, could you explain how paul would enforce the current status quo? Would any of his policies, that would actually make it through, counter his goal of ending the fed and put a stop to "America: World Police" and empower capitalism further?

[chefdave]

It would seem so, but you forget the inherent monopoly position he gains merely by having the title/deed called "ownership." This excessively boosts his ability to extract any profits he deems fit.

Ownership over something isn't the same thing as a monopoly. A monopoly is a very specific economic term that describes the exclusive provider in any given market. If you were granted a licence to sell tractors for example while your competitors were forced to shut down by government bureaucrats working on your behalf you'd be in possession of a monopoly over the supply of tractors. Merely owning a tractor doesn't constitute a monopoly.



But wait... don't they preform a discriminitory role in deciding who to lease land to, and to whom not?

Well yes, but they're still accepting payment for something they havn't provided. Landlords don't have the moral authority to decide who gets to use the land and who doesn't because it's presence is nothing to do with them. Legally the state grants them these powers but this is because the state is biased towards the owners of land at the expense of labour and capital.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ownership over something isn't the same thing as a monopoly. A monopoly is a very specific economic term that describes the exclusive provider in any given market.
Ya, "Tom's" tractors.
The legal standing of deed/title, ie private ownership, grants the title holder as the exclusive executor of claimed property (now, in reality it doesn't, and can't [you can't use your property for certain reasons even in capitalist society] but that is what is strived for, and good enough for our discussion). She is granted a monopoly status.


If you were granted a licence to sell tractors for example while your competitors were forced to shut down by government bureaucrats working on your behalf you'd be in possession of a monopoly over the supply of tractors. Merely owning a tractor doesn't constitute a monopoly.

What you're describing isn't the full definition of monopoly either, but that's neither here nor there.
for further elucidation of the etymology of monopoly in why I choose to call property holdership a monopoly status see here:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=monopoly




Well yes, but they're still accepting payment for something they havn't provided. Landlords don't have the moral authority to decide who gets to use the land and who doesn't because it's presence is nothing to do with them. Legally the state grants them these powers but this is because the state is biased towards the owners of land at the expense of labour and capital

You don't think a private court would grant property status over land? Or you don't think they should?
The title of owner of any product, be it land or commodities, itself does not produce anything and is not a role that could be filled only by exclusive minorities. The liberation of mankind is in the shared power of all, not in some noble platonic elite whipping the masses into shape.

[Rafiq]

Socialism does not come from the state. It is merely an economic arrangement that is of a democracy.

Basically, a bill of rights voted upon by the people should guarantee socialism, independent of the state.

However, a state that has a socialist economy in it would most likely have changed to become a minarchistic direct democracy.

Fuck "the people" and fuck your "democracy". That's Liberalist horse shit. I support a Worker's dictatorship of merciless totality, whether "the people" (i.e. The class collaborationist collective, Liberals, etc. ) agrees with it.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[chefdave]

Ya, "Tom's" tractors.
The legal standing of deed/title, ie private ownership, grants the title holder as the exclusive executor of claimed property (now, in reality it doesn't, and can't [you can't use your property for certain reasons even in capitalist society] but that is what is strived for, and good enough for our discussion). She is granted a monopoly status.

You're still trying to conflate private ownership with monopolism to validate Marxism. Here's how Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp) define the term:

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market.asp) for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."

Private ownership over a tractor, or a spade or a goat doesn't count as a monopoly because it tells us nothing about about the availability of the product.



What you're describing isn't the full definition of monopoly either, but that's neither here nor there.
for further elucidation of the etymology of monopoly in why I choose to call property holdership a monopoly status see here:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=monopolyIn economics the term monopoly is an uncontroverisal one used to describe the sole supplier of a commodity/service, you may have ideological reservations about privatisation but to lump it all together under the heading 'monopoly' demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic terms.



You don't think a private court would grant property status over land? Or you don't think they should?
The title of owner of any product, be it land or commodities, itself does not produce anything and is not a role that could be filled only by exclusive minorities. The liberation of mankind is in the shared power of all, not in some noble platonic elite whipping the masses into shape.
You say that having a system of private ownership in itself produces nothing (which in the surface may appear true) but you neglect the fact that political and social stability make it easier to produce wealth. It would be incredibly difficult to grow crops for example if the community made it clear that they could take away your field anytime they please, crop growing demands a medium term commitment so the farmer needs to be sure that the crops will remain his 6-12 months down the line. Without the basic assurances that the courts and private property provide they'd be significantly less wealth at the nation's disposal. Titles of ownership definitely aid production in a myriad of ways.

[Positivist]

You can answer mine whenever you get a chance chef. It's the one about the how the tools the capitalist provides are ultimately produced by workers.

[chefdave]

Now I would argue from this that the capitalist ultimately cannot exist without the landlord. For ultimately the tools that the capitalist is responsible for providing were ultimately produced by labor performed not by the capitalist but by workers assembling the tools from the resources that the landed "owned." So considering this the only value the capitalist has in the production process ultimately comes from the labor of the working people. In a socialist society the capitalist acting as an intermediary between the tools produced by labor and later labor performed with the tools is unnecessary as the tools the workers produced will be owned by the community so other members of the community may use the tools at will to perform laser labor.

There's no need to take capital into collective ownerhip when the pricing mechanism does such a wonderful job of attributing any value added to the producer. If a labourer found an unowned plot and began carving his own rudimentary tooling the capital he created would be his and his alone, it wasn't a communal effort so any attempts by the community to appropriate his capital could be accurately labelled theft. So why the confusion when we scale this up to a hyper-efficient factory with many workers and a handful of owners? The exact same principles apply. We find out who has created X amount of value and subsequently let them take that value into private ownership. In attempting to deny the link between worker/capitalist and the fruits of their labour you leave society even more vulnerable to maldistribution of wealth we experience unde the capitalist mode of production.

[Positivist]

There's no need to take capital into collective ownerhip when the pricing mechanism does such a wonderful job of attributing any value added to the producer. If a labourer found an unowned plot and began carving his own rudimentary tooling the capital he created would be his and his alone, it wasn't a communal effort so any attempts by the community to appropriate his capital could be accurately labelled theft. So why the confusion when we scale this up to a hyper-efficient factory with many workers and a handful of owners? The exact same principles apply. We find out who has created X amount of value and subsequently let them take that value into private ownership. In attempting to deny the link between worker/capitalist and the fruits of their labour you leave society even more vulnerable to maldistribution of wealth we experience unde the capitalist mode of production.

What you are describing here is actually a form of socialism. The fundamental factor that differentiates capitalism from socialism is that in socialism the surplus value produced by the workers is retained by the workers rather than be redistributed to the capitalist class which is not itself responsible for the production. As for communal ownership it is important to recognize that people do not produce substance to satisfy all of their needs and rather only a fraction of their needs are met by their own production. So the solution is to supply the fruits of their own labor (with the exception of the amount of their product that they do need) and in return may take whatever other products they need from the community. As resources increased it would become possible for community members to take more than they needed from the communal reservoir.

[chefdave]

What you are describing here is actually a form of socialism. The fundamental factor that differentiates capitalism from socialism is that in socialism the surplus value produced by the workers is retained by the workers rather than be redistributed to the capitalist class which is not itself responsible for the production. As for communal ownership it is important to recognize that people do not produce substance to satisfy all of their needs and rather only a fraction of their needs are met by their own production. So the solution is to supply the fruits of their own labor (with the exception of the amount of their product that they do need) and in return may take whatever other products they need from the community. As resources increased it would become possible for community members to take more than they needed from the communal reservoir.

There's no need to force the issue though, we don't have to to set up Workers' Committees that benevolently act on our behalf by redistributing the means of production away from the capitalists and down to the workers. It's too clunky and it would fail to take into account the intricacies of the economy. Society's natural surplus helpfully accumulates in one area and one area only: the land market, and this makes it incredibly easy to:

1) Quantify the total surplus available, and
2) Redistribute it without harming productivity via a land value tax.

Unfortunately (for you) it means taking a leap of faith and allowing the free market pricing mechanism to do it's thing while the government sits back and allows the surplus to naturally accrue. By interfering too much into the workings of the market we actually reduce the economic surplus by restricting production. This harms workers.

[Positivist]

There's no need to force the issue though, we don't have to to set up Workers' Committees that benevolently act on our behalf by redistributing the means of production away from the capitalists and down to the workers. It's too clunky and it would fail to take into account the intricacies of the economy. Society's natural surplus helpfully accumulates in one area and one area only: the land market, and this makes it incredibly easy to:

1) Quantify the total surplus available, and
2) Redistribute it without harming productivity via a land value tax.

Unfortunately (for you) it means taking a leap of faith and allowing the free market pricing mechanism to do it's thing while the government sits back and allows the surplus to naturally accrue. By interfering too much into the workings of the market we actually reduces the economic surplus by restricting production.

What do the capitalists contribute to the production process? You accuse me of promoting the redistribution of surplus value that the capitalist is somehow entitled to, even though the capitalist's only contribution to the production process is the provision of tools or raw materials to the workers, niether of which truly belong to the capitalist. No one can own raw materials as you yourself have acknowledged so reasonably the only contribution a capitalist can make is in the provision of tools. But the tools didn't spontaneously generate now did they? No. They were produced by the labor of workers! So the capitalist, not actually contributing to the production process, is not entitled to any wealth. This is the main part of your argument I don't understand. How can the capitalist be entitled to surplus value if they do not produce it, or effectively contribute to its production?

[chefdave]

What do the capitalists contribute to the production process? You accuse me of promoting the redistribution of surplus value that the capitalist is somehow entitled to, even though the capitalist's only contribution to the production process is the provision of tools or raw materials to the workers, niether of which truly belong to the capitalist. No one can own raw materials as you yourself have acknowledged so reasonably the only contribution a capitalist can make is in the provision of tools. But the tools didn't spontaneously generate now did they? No. They were produced by the labor of workers! So the capitalist, not actually contributing to the production process, is not entitled to any wealth. This is the main part of your argument I don't understand. How can the capitalist be entitled to surplus value if they do not produce it, or effectively contribute to its production?


Capitalists contribute capital to the production process, without tooling workers would be scrubbing around on their hands and knees while producing very little. Capitalists take risks, they source machinery machinery and their guidance sometimes (although admittedly it's becoming less frequent) provides a company with the vision needed to be a leader in it's field, i.e Steve Jobs or Bill Gates for example. If we accept that the fruits of one's labour is private property we must also accept that capital must be the legitimate property of individuals because labour helps create capital! A worker creates a spade, that worker owns the spade. The workers then lends out his spade for profit and all of the sudden he turns into an exploitative capitalist pig. It makes no sense.

Where we disgree is the nature of profit and respective roles of land and capital. It is a common disagreement. I don't view profit as a surplus simply because it's a form of earned income that helps ease the creation of more capital, profit is the return to stored labour. For any business to function effectively a certain amount of profit is necessary because whoever's organising the factors of production needs to earn enough to keep a roof over his head and food on the table, if we removed that income stream the entire business would collapse. The same isn't true with the rents landlord pocket, we could easily tax away this money and leave the business fully operational. This to me signifies the presence of a genuine economic surplus.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're still trying to conflate private ownership with monopolism to validate Marxism. Here's how Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp) define the term:

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market.asp) for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."

Private ownership over a tractor, or a spade or a goat doesn't count as a monopoly because it tells us nothing about about the availability of the product.


In economics the term monopoly is an uncontroverisal one used to describe the sole supplier of a commodity/service, you may have ideological reservations about privatisation but to lump it all together under the heading 'monopoly' demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic terms.


You say that having a system of private ownership in itself produces nothing (which in the surface may appear true) but you neglect the fact that political and social stability make it easier to produce wealth. It would be incredibly difficult to grow crops for example if the community made it clear that they could take away your field anytime they please, crop growing demands a medium term commitment so the farmer needs to be sure that the crops will remain his 6-12 months down the line. Without the basic assurances that the courts and private property provide they'd be significantly less wealth at the nation's disposal. Titles of ownership definitely aid production in a myriad of ways.

I'm sorry that reading comprehension is not your forte. I know it doesnt fit the economic definition. I don't care about that (and not just because economics is modern sooth saying). I'm using a more classical definition of the term. I know no other way to describe the sole executorship granted by private property. Mono =one poly =seller.
The farmer can be assured against expropriation without pp and in fact can still have it taken under pp. So your point is moot. Pp describes a social relation to the productive process. It really adds nothing to it in its own right that cannot be fulfilled by a worker's democracy.

Capitalists don't build tools. They claim ownership over them... which should remind one how ownership is inherently domination whether over people or objects. Workers take bigger risks. Entrepreneurs are not unique to capitalism and are often not capitalists and just as exploited as labor (cuz idea making is a form of labor).

Profit here is often not defined simply as a positive income/expense ratio. That will be neccessary under any system. Profit is defined here as it was classically defined; the personal income capital owners take through the expropriation. Of the surplus value of labor.


Capitalists contribute capital to the production process, without tooling workers would be scrubbing around on their hands and knees while producing very little. Capitalists take risks, they source machinery machinery and their guidance sometimes (although admittedly it's becoming less frequent) provides a company with the vision needed to be a leader in it's field, i.e Steve Jobs or Bill Gates for example. If we accept that the fruits of one's labour is private property we must also accept that capital must be the legitimate property of individuals because labour helps create capital! A worker creates a spade, that worker owns the spade. The workers then lends out his spade for profit and all of the sudden he turns into an exploitative capitalist pig. It makes no sense.

Where we disgree is the nature of profit and respective roles of land and capital. It is a common disagreement. I don't view profit as a surplus simply because it's a form of earned income that helps ease the creation of more capital, profit is the return to stored labour. For any business to function effectively a certain amount of profit is necessary because whoever's organising the factors of production needs to earn enough to keep a roof over his head and food on the table, if we removed that income stream the entire business would collapse. The same isn't true with the rents landlord pocket, we could easily tax away this money and leave the business fully operational. This to me signifies the presence of a genuine economic surplus.

[chefdave]

I'm sorry that reading comprehension is not your forte. I know it doesnt fit the economic definition. I don't care about that (and not just because economics is modern sooth saying). I'm using a more classical definition of the term. I know no other way to describe the sole executorship granted by private property. Mono =one poly =seller.
The farmer can be assured against expropriation without pp and in fact can still have it taken under pp. So your point is moot. Pp describes a social relation to the productive process. It really adds nothing to it in its own right that cannot be fulfilled by a worker's democracy.


You're not using a classical definition of the term 'monopoly' because in classical economics it still means the sole provider of a good or service, you're using an incorrect Marxist version of the term that has little to do with reality. I may own a pen and paper for example and you could say that I have a monopoly over the pen and paper, that would be gramatically correct, but in terms of macro-economics I cannot be said to hold a monopoly position because because there are milions of pens and pads in existence. My ownership imposes no restrictions on anyone else, proper economic monopolies do impose restrictions on others. Indeed, that is their whole point.



Capitalists don't build tools. They claim ownership over them... which should remind one how ownership is inherently domination whether over people or objects. Workers take bigger risks. Entrepreneurs are not unique to capitalism and are often not capitalists and just as exploited as labor (cuz idea making is a form of labor).

Under a capitalist system if someone just claims ownership over tools they get thrown in prison for theft, generally you have to obtain your tools legally before you're able to generate profits from them.



Profit here is often not defined simply as a positive income/expense ratio. That will be neccessary under any system. Profit is defined here as it was classically defined; the personal income capital owners take through the expropriation. Of the surplus value of labor.


In classical economics profit is merely the return to capital, like it or not tools and machines have running costs and their value depreciates over time so profit is required to keep tooling in good working order. Economic surpluses end up in the pockets of landlords not capitalists, even Marx recognised this eventually.

[#FF0000]

Under a capitalist system if someone just claims ownership over tools they get thrown in prison for theft, generally you have to obtain your tools legally before you're able to generate profits from them.

But that is in fact how property came to be -- with people arbitrarily claiming ownership over what was one either available to all or whoever produced it themselves. Sure, now laws are in place to determine who has the right to what property (laws which still deprive workers of the product of their labor and reward ownership instead of labor) but at the end of the day, the origin in property is basically 'don't touch this or i will hit you'.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You're not using a classical definition of the term 'monopoly' because in classical economics
Classical economics exist only to justify the way things are.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're not using a classical definition of the term 'monopoly' because in classical economics it still means the sole provider of a good or service, you're using an incorrect Marxist version of the term that has little to do with reality.
No... as I tire of explaining... I am using an etymologically correct version of the term. Mono means one. Poly, in this sense, means seller. Mono poly means one seller. This perfectly describes the relationship an individual has to possession under a private property system; the claimant of ownership is the sole arbitor over his property, the one seller.
... not to mention that even under the the economic definition most economic textbooks, which are certainly anything but Marxist, define a monopoly as at least or above 40% of market share... but that's neither here nor there.

I may own a pen and paper for example and you could say that I have a monopoly over the pen and paper, that would be gramatically correct, but in terms of macro-economics I cannot be said to hold a monopoly position because because there are milions of pens and pads in existence.
Quite right Dave. Good thing that's irrelevant. Let's get back to discussing what we're discussing instead of arguing over semantics, eh? :thumbup1:

My ownership imposes no restrictions on anyone else
Except the theif, right? What about the starving man?


, proper economic monopolies do impose restrictions on others. Indeed, that is their whole point.

As do etymolically correct monopolies, ie private ownership.




Under a capitalist system if someone just claims ownership over tools they get thrown in prison for theft, generally you have to obtain your tools legally before you're able to generate profits from them.
1. Private court utopism, I know... but I'm glad you recognize that all property is the world is currently and always has been a statist enterprise :thumbup1:
2. The only difference between owner and thief is that one's claim is recognized socially as legitimate. To sum up, private property is a perverse definition of the relationship of people to possession and control and so scientifically should be abandoned... just as 4 element physics was recognized as a misunderstanding of the relationship of matter to energy and so stricken out of the public mind.
Private property defines a relationship, it really adds nothing to the productive effort that could not be provided by a worker's democracy.



In classical economics profit is merely the return to capital, like it or not tools and machines have running costs and their value depreciates over time so profit is required to keep tooling in good working order. Economic surpluses end up in the pockets of landlords not capitalists, even Marx recognised this eventually.
Do you not even notice that you are saying the same thing in different terms, but adding more to it that is unnecessary?
Let me ask you; is profit defining a function of exchange or a function of ownership? By this I mean, is profit merely the positive income to expense ratio of a productive enterprise, and so neccessarily present under any system. Or is profit the claim of the property holder after income and expenses of the company?
Is it profit to grow a tree, and so get 40 apples out of 1 seed?
Or is it profit to pay for labor, transport, stocking, merchanting, and advertising, and then claim what is left as the just claim of a property holder?

We're generally using the second definition.

[chefdave]

No... as I tire of explaining... I am using an etymologically correct version of the term. Mono means one. Poly, in this sense, means seller. Mono poly means one seller. This perfectly describes the relationship an individual has to possession under a private property system; the claimant of ownership is the sole arbitor over his property, the one seller.
... not to mention that even under the the economic definition most economic textbooks, which are certainly anything but Marxist, define a monopoly as at least or above 40% of market share... but that's neither here nor there.

Quite right Dave. Good thing that's irrelevant. Let's get back to discussing what we're discussing instead of arguing over semantics, eh? :thumbup1:

Except the theif, right? What about the starving man?

As do etymolically correct monopolies, ie private ownership.




1. Private court utopism, I know... but I'm glad you recognize that all property is the world is currently and always has been a statist enterprise :thumbup1:
2. The only difference between owner and thief is that one's claim is recognized socially as legitimate. To sum up, private property is a perverse definition of the relationship of people to possession and control and so scientifically should be abandoned... just as 4 element physics was recognized as a misunderstanding of the relationship of matter to energy and so stricken out of the public mind.
Private property defines a relationship, it really adds nothing to the productive effort that could not be provided by a worker's democracy.


Do you not even notice that you are saying the same thing in different terms, but adding more to it that is unnecessary?
Let me ask you; is profit defining a function of exchange or a function of ownership? By this I mean, is profit merely the positive income to expense ratio of a productive enterprise, and so neccessarily present under any system. Or is profit the claim of the property holder after income and expenses of the company?
Is it profit to grow a tree, and so get 40 apples out of 1 seed?
Or is it profit to pay for labor, transport, stocking, merchanting, and advertising, and then claim what is left as the just claim of a property holder?

We're generally using the second definition.

The term 'monopoly' means one seller not sole possession. It is possible to have exclusive access to an item without having an economic monopoly if there a number of suppliers of the product in the marketplace. In short a monopoly defines the relationship between buyers and sellers, not the relationship between an individual's property and 3rd parties. There's no point debating anything else unless we can agree on the meaning of this v.important economic term.

[Revolution starts with U]

The term 'monopoly' means one seller not sole possession. It is possible to have exclusive access to an item without having an economic monopoly if there a number of suppliers of the product in the marketplace. In short a monopoly defines the relationship between buyers and sellers, not the relationship between an individual's property and 3rd parties. There's no point debating anything else unless we can agree on the meaning of this v.important economic term.

So you're going to maintain course on this semantical off-road?

Pretend I said "blarglapasla" isntead of "monopoly" and let us discuss something actually topical, not the meaning of words.:thumbup1:

Terms aside, the point is; private property preports to give the title holder exclusive control of a particular object, ie the property.

[chefdave]

So you're going to maintain course on this semantical off-road?

Pretend I said "blarglapasla" isntead of "monopoly" and let us discuss something actually topical, not the meaning of words.:thumbup1:

Terms aside, the point is; private property preports to give the title holder exclusive control of a particular object, ie the property.

Well of course private property gives the title holder exclusive access to the item in question, but what's wrong with that? If I turn a lump of iron into a bucket I would argue that the added value is my private property as it was a result of my labour, if we introduce an arbitrary system where some government official gets to decide who the value belongs to the economy will be unable to function because it won't be worth anyone's while to produce more than a subsistence allowance. Private property is a natural state of man that should be backed up by law.

[Conscript]

Can't be too natural if you/the state are building walls around it, and its existence is relatively recent.

[Rafiq]

Always, I say, "Moral arguments" over capitalism are useless when debating a member of the Bourgeoisie.

Capitalism has failed globally and is systemically crumbling to pieces. It's contradictions have been shown to the fullest, and, it doesn't look like it will recover from this. Is this not enough proof?

[l'Enfermé]

Well of course private property gives the title holder exclusive access to the item in question, but what's wrong with that? If I turn a lump of iron into a bucket I would argue that the added value is my private property as it was a result of my labour, if we introduce an arbitrary system where some government official gets to decide who the value belongs to the economy will be unable to function because it won't be worth anyone's while to produce more than a subsistence allowance. Private property is a natural state of man that should be backed up by law.
Except for, the bucket isn't your private property. It's your personal property. Regarding private property, it's a pretty recent concept that hasn't become widespread until even more recently. The concept has been absent for at least 95% of humanity's existence. It's basically a social-relationship that was invented very recently, and can be abolished quite easily, like other social-relationships have been in the past, without any drawbacks. In Ch.27 in Das Kapital, Marx explains the origins of private property.
(http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm)
And regarding government officials arbitrarily deciding this and that, well, the state itself arbitrarily decides whose private property is this or that already, and Socialists wish to see the the state, and thus "government officials", abolished and done away with, so why you're complaining about government officials to us is hard to figure out for me.

[fabian]

Capitalist concept of private property is in contradiction with with classic liberal definition of possessions formulated by Locke, called "labor theory of property" (not to be confused with labor theory of value!), "homestead principle" or also "occupancy and use principle". Proudhon expanded nicely on this topic.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well of course private property gives the title holder exclusive access to the item in question, but what's wrong with that?
It doesn't give it to her. It attempts to give her that authority. In reality it is impossible to grant that type of authority and maintain a stable society. Even in an ancap society there are certain ends you are not allowed to use your property to get.

If I turn a lump of iron into a bucket I would argue that the added value is my private property as it was a result of my labour,
That's not how private property works, and you know it. There need be no labor involved. You give me $500, I buy stocks. Private property is not equivalent to possession and use. Private property is a specific historical relation to possession and use. PP in short means that the legal structure recognizes the title holder as the exclusive executor of a given object, and entitled to any fruits thereof (regardless of labor involved).

if we introduce an arbitrary system where some government official gets to decide who the value belongs to the economy will be unable to function because it won't be worth anyone's while to produce more than a subsistence allowance.
Let me put this in other terms:
"If we introduce an arbitrary system where some title holder gets to decide who the value belongs to, the economy will be unable to function because it won't be worth anyone's while to produce more than a subsistence allowance."
Obviously this isn't true, and neither is your sentence. But let me blow your mind...
Literally nobody on this site is advocating an "arbitrary system where some govt official gets to decide who the value belongs to." We're advocating the worker maintain that position. Some of us are not opposed to the state, true. But I seriously doubt you're going to find a single person on this site who literally wants the government to plan the economy.

Private property is a natural state of man that should be backed up by law.
Murder is a natural state of man. Should it be backed up by law? This isn't really an argument you made here. It's just a statement.

[chefdave]

Except for, the bucket isn't your private property. It's your personal property. Regarding private property, it's a pretty recent concept that hasn't become widespread until even more recently. The concept has been absent for at least 95% of humanity's existence. It's basically a social-relationship that was invented very recently, and can be abolished quite easily, like other social-relationships have been in the past, without any drawbacks. In Ch.27 in Das Kapital, Marx explains the origins of private property. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm)

Are you able to clearly define the difference between personal property and private property? It seems like your objection is purely semantic.



And regarding government officials arbitrarily deciding this and that, well, the state itself arbitrarily decides whose private property is this or that already, and Socialists wish to see the the state, and thus "government officials", abolished and done away with, so why you're complaining about government officials to us is hard to figure out for me.An entirely predicatable response. Socialists want a public body to collectivise the means of production, they favour state intervention over the free market and label individualists like myself as 'reactionaries' or members of the bourgeoisie. Statelessness and proletariat dictatorships don't go hand in glove, in fact they're polar opposites. You have to choose.

[chefdave]

Can't be too natural if you/the state are building walls around it, and its existence is relatively recent.

You need some sort of mechanism to back up people's claims to their rightful private property. Under an anarchic system this cannot be guaranteed, under socialism/communism the state tries to replace the free market and gets it hopelessly wrong and capitalism is flawed because it takes the legitimate private property of some and hands it to others. Out of the 3 I'd prefer reformed capitalism.

[chefdave]

Capitalist concept of private property is in contradiction with with classic liberal definition of possessions formulated by Locke, called "labor theory of property" (not to be confused with labor theory of value!), "homestead principle" or also "occupancy and use principle". Proudhon expanded nicely on this topic.

That's closer to the definition I use, but I'd still argue that homesteading subverts the concept of private property because it's a system that allows land (i.e a common resource made by no man) to be taken into private ownership without recompense. It's very capitalistic in a way.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you able to cleary define the difference between personal property and private property? It seems like your objection is purely semantic.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy...
Private property is a specific legal relation to possession and use (ie, personal property) that defines legitimacy in holding of title, and places authority of possession in the title holder exclusively (or at least tries to).
There is no "property" in this sense in socialism. All possessions will be subject to reasonable democratic community control. You can keep your toothbrush to yourself... until, that is, you start using it to strip the paint off people's cars. You can keep your factory, that is until you start needing other laborers than yourself to produce things (which without, it's not really a factory, is it?).
This isn't as wild as you may think. You already, under Capitalism, are subject to some outside community control (even if not democratic) of your property, and must be. Socialism is simply a scientific way of respecting possession and use for what it is, rather than trying to impose what it should be (a tool to maintain class oppression).




An entirely predicatable response. Socialists want a public body to collectivise the means of production,
It should be predictable, as that is the whole point.

they favour state intervention over the free market
Some of them do. Many, if not most, of the members of this board wholeheartedly oppose both.

and label individualists like myself as 'reactionaries' or members of the bourgeoisie.
I'm an individualist. Check the name comrade.


Statelessness and proletariat dictatorships don't go hand in glove, in fact they're polar opposites. You have to choose.

Why? I see no reason why, if PDA's are stateless, that Community Defense Agencies (CDA's) would not be.
In fact, history has shown that statelessness and bourgoisie dictatorship have been, as of yet, incompatible.
What is it about proletariant rule that is incompatible with a monopoly on violence in a given area (which is a bogus definition of the state, btw. But I'll just go with it so as not to derail the thread too much). What is about bourgiousie rule that is conducive to the lack of a state?
You can't just assert these things, at least not around here. We've heard it all before.


You need some sort of mechanism to back up people's claims to their rightful private property. Under an anarchic system this cannot be guaranteed, under socialism/communism the state tries to replace the free market and gets it hopelessly wrong and capitalism is flawed because it takes the legitimate private property of some and hands it to others. Out of the 3 I'd prefer reformed capitalism.
No, that's wrong. Try again...

[chefdave]

It doesn't give it to her. It attempts to give her that authority. In reality it is impossible to grant that type of authority and maintain a stable society. Even in an ancap society there are certain ends you are not allowed to use your property to get.

But what's wrong with granting that authority? If the state's concept of private property included the individual and any value they added to the world it would put a stop to the widespread maldistribution of wealth. Private property isn't a problem if our definition is fair and just, an unjust definition however has the protential to corrupt the economy.


That's not how private property works, and you know it. There need be no labor involved. You give me $500, I buy stocks. Private property is not equivalent to possession and use. Private property is a specific historical relation to possession and use. PP in short means that the legal structure recognizes the title holder as the exclusive executor of a given object, and entitled to any fruits thereof (regardless of labor involved).

There's nothing wrong with this is the property was obtained legitimately and at no-one else's expense. We don't need to oversee every single transaction to make sure that the economy is working ethically, we just need a few simply rules to stop the individuals and the state from infringing on genuine private property.


Let me put this in other terms:
"If we introduce an arbitrary system where some title holder gets to decide who the value belongs to, the economy will be unable to function because it won't be worth anyone's while to produce more than a subsistence allowance."
Obviously this isn't true, and neither is your sentence. But let me blow your mind...
Literally nobody on this site is advocating an "arbitrary system where some govt official gets to decide who the value belongs to." We're advocating the worker maintain that position. Some of us are not opposed to the state, true. But I seriously doubt you're going to find a single person on this site who literally wants the government to plan the economy.

There's nothing preventing you from turning this dream into a reality though. If you want to set up a workers' co-operative then do so. The fact that you've turned worker control into an ideology suggests that you want some form of state based remedy.


Murder is a natural state of man. Should it be backed up by law? This isn't really an argument you made here. It's just a statement.

Murder violates the free market concept of private property as free marketiers believe that you own yourself and the value of your labour.

[fabian]

That's closer to the definition I use, but I'd still argue that homesteading subverts the concept of private property because it's a system that allows land (i.e a common resource made by no man) to be taken into private ownership without recompense. It's very capitalistic in a way.
First thing- the principle of private property should be subverted, second thing- according to the homestead principle, you do not own the land, because, as you said- it is not the product of your work; you don't own it (and accordingly, can't sell it) - you use it, and without occupancy or use, when you abandon the land, it is no longer yours. Nothing capitalist about that (and that's a good thing).

[Revolution starts with U]

But what's wrong with granting that authority?
1. Small groups of elites are generally unconnected from the community of the commoner and as such is ill equipped to gueage public sentiment. Publicly traded companies dominate big business. This is not a coincidence, nor is it a statist conspiracy. It is a direct outcome of the capitalist mode of production, the incessant hunger for more profits.

If the state's concept of private property included the individual and any value they added to the world it would put a stop to the widespread maldistribution of wealth. Private property isn't a problem if our definition is fair and just, an unjust definition however has the protential to corrupt the economy.
If society conceptualized possession and use to include the individual and any value they added, it would cease to be private property. If this is what you want, for society to include individual contributions to production, thna you want is socialism. You may not know it yet but...


There's nothing wrong with this is the property was obtained legitimately and at no-one else's expense Was it? How do I know you didn't rob an old lady for that money? Let's assume you weren't there at all and I just robbed the old lady myself, and invested it in stocks.


We don't need to oversee every single transaction to make sure that the economy is working ethically, we just need a few simply rules to stop the individuals and the state from infringing the value of labor. Ie, a few simple rules to stop private ownership.




There's nothing preventing you from turning this dream into a reality though. If you want to set up a workers' co-operative then do so. The fact that you've turned worker control into an ideology suggests that you want some form of state based remedy.
I plan on doing exactly that. But alas, the existence of one or two hundred succesful cooperatives is not socialism. There is no state necessary, tho I am not intrinsically opposed to its use. All that is needed is for the working class to rise in solidarity and begin the revolutionary reorginzation of society. You're just suggesting that it requires the state, yet you give no reasons as to why.





Murder violates the free market concept of private property as free marketiers believe that you own yourself and the value of your labour.

Free marketers certainly do not believe that you own the value of your labor. They believe you own the product of your title. Labor is irrelevant to rightists defenses of private property.
Buuuut... Private property violates the socialist concept of possession and use, as socialists belive ownership inherently exploits the value of labor.

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh yeah, skipped this...

2. It subjects whole swaths of people, the propertyless masses, to a relationship of subjugation and alienation, and relegates the use value of a thing as lesser than its exchange value.

[chefdave]

1. Small groups of elites are generally unconnected from the community of the commoner and as such is ill equipped to gueage public sentiment. Publicly traded companies dominate big business. This is not a coincidence, nor is it a statist conspiracy. It is a direct outcome of the capitalist mode of production, the incessant hunger for more profits.

This is tautological. Of course some of the biggest companies dominate the stock market as the stock market allows individuals to trade the right to own shares in large corporations.



If society conceptualized possession and use to include the individual and any value they added, it would cease to be private property. If this is what you want, for society to include individual contributions to production, thna you want is socialism. You may not know it yet but...

But the term private property is correct because it signifies that the property in question has a legitimate owner, I don't think it's helpful to label value added as anything other than private property.


Was it? How do I know you didn't rob an old lady for that money? Let's assume you weren't there at all and I just robbed the old lady myself, and invested it in stocks.

Then that would be theft and the state would seek to punish you for your crime. Again this comes back to the idea of legitimate private property. If you work through various types of property logically it becomes easy to identify the legitimate fro, the illegitimate.



I plan on doing exactly that. But alas, the existence of one or two hundred succesful cooperatives is not socialism. There is no state necessary, tho I am not intrinsically opposed to its use. All that is needed is for the working class to rise in solidarity and begin the revolutionary reorginzation of society. You're just suggesting that it requires the state, yet you give no reasons as to why.

Your revolutionary dream is unobtainable because the raison d'etre of socialism is to attack the 'corrupt' forces of capital. Once you realise that capital is a product of labour and by attacking capital you simultaneously devalue the role of labour the structural flaws in socialism become obvious. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect of course, far from it in fact: I'm a vociferous critic of Crony Capitalism, but socialist critiques shed no light on the source of the problem.




Free marketers certainly do not believe that you own the value of your labor. They believe you own the product of your title. Labor is irrelevant to rightists defenses of private property.
Buuuut... Private property violates the socialist concept of possession and use, as socialists belive ownership inherently exploits the value of labor.

Free market libertarians are strongly opposed to the income tax for example because they realise it infringes on the earnings of labour, ironically socialists quite like the income tax so out of the two groups the rightists are much more willing to defend the working classes (as they labour for a living). I would abolish all income tax if I was in charge of the public's finances because I respect labour's crucial role in the economy. Could you say the same?

[fabian]

Free market libertarians are strongly opposed to the income tax for example because they realise it infringes on the earnings of labour
It is not the income tax that violates every person's right to the product of his labor (which is the Lockean definition of the right to possession), but employment.

In order for the right to the product of one's labor not to be violated the position of (slaveowner/ feudalist/ capitalist) employer must be abolished, and and the right to personal possessions and freedom to join cooperatives are to be upheld.


Also, capital (/profit) is not the product of labor, it is the product of exploatation, of the unpaid labor performed by workers and collected by the capitalist.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is tautological. Of course some of the biggest companies dominate the stock market as the stock market allows individuals to trade the right to own shares in large corporations.

Of course, as you must not have noticed, I didn't say they dominate the stock market. I said they are the dominant form of business that gets "big."



But the term private property is correct because it signifies that the property in question has a legitimate owner, I don't think it's helpful to label value added as anything other than private property.

Falsehood is never helpful, and that's not private property. Even wikipidia recognizes this:

The concept of property is not equivalent to that of possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession). Property and ownership refer to a socially-constructed circumstance conferred upon individuals or collective entities by the legal system (state), whereas possession is a physical phenomenon
Private property has nothing to do with value added, per se. I could hold my property indefinitely, adding nothing to it, and it would still be my property.



Then that would be theft and the state would seek to punish you for your crime. Again this comes back to the idea of legitimate private property. If you work through various types of property logically it becomes easy to identify the legitimate fro, the illegitimate.

The whole point is that if the state doesn't catch me, the market doesn't care if its stolen. Any possession that enhances profits is legitimized by private property. If it can't do that, the likelihood is that the capitalists superstructure won't legitimize it.




Your revolutionary dream is unobtainable because the raison d'etre of socialism is to attack the 'corrupt' forces of capital. Once you realise that capital is a product of labour and by attacking capital you simultaneously devalue the role of labour the structural flaws in socialism become obvious. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect of course, far from it in fact: I'm a vociferous critic of Crony Capitalism, but socialist critiques shed no light on the source of the problem.

Capital is a product of a propertied system, and cannot exist without it. Labor can exist without property, as can progress. Obviously labor and progress are not dependant upon capital for their existence. Socialist critique really offers the only true light on the "source" of the problem; capital. If capital exists, it enforces class domination, which antagonizes the dominated class, leading the downfall of both and the reorginization of society anew. The only way the masses can liberate themselves, being mostly workers in a capitalist system, is to destroy the concept of capital and base production on want, not profit... because that's the whole point of producing in the first place.



Free market libertarians are strongly opposed to the income tax for example because they realise it infringes on the earnings of labour, ironically socialists quite like the income tax so out of the two groups the rightists are much more willing to defend the working classes (as they labour for a living). I would abolish all income tax if I was in charge of the public's finances because I respect labour's crucial role in the economy. Could you say the same?

1. Not all (or very many) socialists support the income tax. You're thinking of democrats, shill.
2. Nearly all of the working class gets paid by income tax, rather than paying into it.
3. I wouldn't command the economy, first. I find it ironic to see a FML saying he would... but either way, I would abolish all taxes AND property, and base society on need/want so that the whole idea of taxes are redundant. We tax to protect the social structure (that social structure is a class sytem, so the government attacks the lower classes first). With no class structure, government need not exist, as the people can build roads and protect ports themselves.
4. What did this have to do with out discussion? Was this just thrown in there as an attempt at a "na na na boo boo?"

[chefdave]

It is not the income tax that violates every person's right to the product of his labor (which is the Lockean definition of the right to possession), but employment.

As the income tax gets in the way of a labourer and the fruits of his labour the income tax is every bit as pernicious as waged employment.



In order for the right to the product of one's labor not to be violated the position of (slaveowner/ feudalist/ capitalist) employer must be abolished, and and the right to personal possessions and freedom to join cooperatives are to be upheld.If we abolish all forms of productive enterprise other than cooperatives we prevent individuals from exercising their free will, this too is a violation of basic liberty. Any coercive elements in the employee/employer relationship should indeed be looked at and dealt with at state level, adding extra coercion though is counter productive. You cannot solve slavery by ordering everyone around at gunpoint to effect an outcome you desire, you'll end up creating another type of slavery.



Also, capital (/profit) is not the product of labor, it is the product of exploatation, of the unpaid labor performed by workers and collected by the capitalist.

Profit is the return to capital (tooling and machinery), as tools have running costs the owners of tools need to generate a return to cover their outlay.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

Because it's too mainstream.

[chefdave]

Private property has nothing to do with value added, per se. I could hold my property indefinitely, adding nothing to it, and it would still be my property.

But the time limit is immaterial as long as you acquired your property justly. If I turn a lump of wood into a wardbrobe at what point does the community get to deprive me of it because my claim to private ownership conflicts with their rights? I don't have to continue adding value by painting it for example to renew my claim to ownership in society's eyes. It's mine.



The whole point is that if the state doesn't catch me, the market doesn't care if its stolen. Any possession that enhances profits is legitimized by private property. If it can't do that, the likelihood is that the capitalists superstructure won't legitimize it.

Not true, if the market knows that the state will act if they're caught handling stolen goods the market will respond according, i.e refusing to deal with suspicious companies. You can test your theory if you like though, go and rob your local convenience store and use their capital to start your own business. Do you genuinely believe the state will nod this through if your business generates more profit than your victim's? :confused:




Capital is a product of a propertied system, and cannot exist without it. Labor can exist without property, as can progress. Obviously labor and progress are not dependant upon capital for their existence. Socialist critique really offers the only true light on the "source" of the problem; capital. If capital exists, it enforces class domination, which antagonizes the dominated class, leading the downfall of both and the reorginization of society anew. The only way the masses can liberate themselves, being mostly workers in a capitalist system, is to destroy the concept of capital and base production on want, not profit... because that's the whole point of producing in the first place.


I'm going to rewrite that paragraph turn it into something that makes sense:

Private property including the right to lay claim to your labour is protected under a propertied system. No labourer will be able to enjoy the full fruits of their labour unless this right is enshrined into law. Society is dependent on improved technology and capital as these incremental improvements aid the wealth creation process, this progress can only be sustained when the creators of wealth are guaranteed access to their productivity. When the state backs some businesses heavy subsidies average taxpayers become antagonised because they see their hard earned money being appropriated by the undeserving rich, if the rich are allowed to get away with this for prolonged periods of time their damaging activities may eventually crash once healthy economies. We need to clean up social life by ending Crony Capitalism and allowing unrprofitable businesses to fail so their capital can be redistributed. The mass will be liberated when we end state capitalism and replace it with the free market.



1. Not all (or very many) socialists support the income tax. You're thinking of democrats, shill.
2. Nearly all of the working class gets paid by income tax, rather than paying into it.
3. I wouldn't command the economy, first. I find it ironic to see a FML saying he would... but either way, I would abolish all taxes AND property, and base society on need/want so that the whole idea of taxes are redundant. We tax to protect the social structure (that social structure is a class sytem, so the government attacks the lower classes first). With no class structure, government need not exist, as the people can build roads and protect ports themselves.
4. What did this have to do with out discussion? Was this just thrown in there as an attempt at a "na na na boo boo?"

1) Most lefties I know are strong advocates of a "progressive" income tax. I find this ironic considering that the super-rich have never done a days work in their lives. The income tax is a poor person's tax.
2) The unemployed may be net recipients of the current regime but they could hardly be called working class. The working class work.
3) If some people are subjugating others and I reorganise the system so this no longer takes place am I 'commanding' the economy? It takes a state or some sort of collective agency to abolish private property, the very notion is imbued with with authoritarianism.
4) Nope, I'm just pointing out the internal contradictions of socialist thought.

[Conscript]

No, it is imbued with class conflict, which breeds states. It takes just as much 'authoritarianism' to enforce private property as it does to abolish it, men with guns.

The difference is proletarian revolution abolishes classes, and thus the need for a state. Libertarians would want to continue state oppression of the workers for eternity because of their property fetish. You want labor to keep its master, just tax them less :rolleyes:

But id support the move. If liberal philosophy has bred enough stupid ideas that they start weakening their own protector and the defender of private property, I'm all for it.

Also the idea the unemployed aren't working class is ridiculous, if they weren't they wouldn't suffer from their reliance on selling their labor and would instead be exploiting others'.

[Revolution starts with U]

But the time limit is immaterial as long as you acquired your property justly.
If you presuppose a right to property...

If I turn a lump of wood into a wardbrobe at what point does the community get to deprive me of it because my claim to private ownership conflicts with their rights?
Whever "society" deems fit, and this is true in even the most ardent capitalist economies.


I don't have to continue adding value by painting it for example to renew my claim to ownership in society's eyes. It's mine.

Ownership only exists "in society's eyes."



Not true, if the market knows that the state will act if they're caught handling stolen goods the market will respond according, i.e refusing to deal with suspicious companies. You can test your theory if you like though, go and rob your local convenience store and use their capital to start your own business. Do you genuinely believe the state will nod this through if your business generates more profit than your victim's? :confused:

The Kennedy Family. That's my answer. Moonshiners and thugs.
Consider all the companies right now that are complicit in some of the most brutal repression in the world. But as long as they generate large profits, that's a-ok.



I'm going to rewrite that paragraph turn it into something that makes sense:

It's been painfully obvious that your ability to make sense is lacking. But we'll see how this goes...


Private property including the right to lay claim to your labour is protected under a propertied system.
Is it? I have a right to lay claim to my time. My labor belongs exclusively to my employer.

No labourer will be able to enjoy the full fruits of their labour unless this right is enshrined into law.
That right simply cannot be enshrined in law in capitalism, because it undermines the whole system.

Society is dependent on improved technology and capital as these incremental improvements aid the wealth creation process, this progress can only be sustained when the creators of wealth are guaranteed access to their productivity.
They are not under capitalism, yet capitalism progresses. Hypothesis false.

When the state backs some businesses heavy subsidies average taxpayers become antagonised because they see their hard earned money being appropriated by the undeserving rich, if the rich are allowed to get away with this for prolonged periods of time their damaging activities may eventually crash once healthy economies
Wage labor is an income tax. Period.
Capitalism crashes healthy economies, by necessity. It doesn't need any moralism to do that. The interests of profiteers run directly opposed to the mass of society (Smith ch 8 if you want a capitalist perspective). Overproduction is a necessary component of the for profit system.


We need to clean up social life by ending Crony Capitalism and allowing unrprofitable businesses to fail so their capital can be redistributed. The mass will be liberated when we end state capitalism and replace it with the free market.
They could liberate themselves with genies too. Both share the same existence; a fairy tale.






1) Most lefties I know are strong advocates of a "progressive" income tax. I find this ironic considering that the super-rich have never done a days work in their lives. The income tax is a poor person's tax.

1) Most left-libs maybe. Some socialists. Not many.
2) Most people get paid when they file their income taxes. Some people who make 100k/year get paid when they file. The income tax code is actually quite friendly to labor. (Even tho it shouldn't exist)


2) The unemployed may be net recipients of the current regime but they could hardly be called working class. The working class work.

I'm sorry. I've been polite till now, but fuck you. You have no idea what working class is. This is apparent. "The unemployed" are almost exclusively former full time workers, some still are (under the table). You calling them net recipients is like saying the mugger who allowed me to keep my bank card made me a net recipient.


3) If some people are subjugating others and I reorganise the system so this no longer takes place am I 'commanding' the economy? It takes a state or some sort of collective agency to abolish private property, the very notion is imbued with with authoritarianism.

Yes, you are "commanding the economy, if you... you know.. command the economy in any way. It takes the state or some sort of collective agency to protect private property. So even if your statement were true, it's moot. Society is a collective effort. Get used to it.


4) Nope, I'm just pointing out the internal contradictions of socialist thought.
You fooling yourself is no business of mine ;)

[fabian]

If we abolish all forms of productive enterprise other than cooperatives we prevent individuals from exercising their free will, this too is a violation of basic liberty.
My right to liberty should end where the exploatation of another begins.


Any coercive elements in the employee/employer relationship should indeed be looked at and dealt with at state level
Employee/ employer relationship itself is exploitative and should be abolished.


Profit is the return to capital
Saying that profit in not the product of one's labor, and thus not legitimate possession.

[chefdave]

My right to liberty should end where the exploatation of another begins.

In that case you have to prove why the employee/employer relationship is inherently exploitative. Despite what Marxist dogma may have us believe nobody is forced at gunpoint to go and work for a large company, you're free to pick from a number of employers or can even set up your own business if you want. Where is this exploitation that you talk of?



Employee/ employer relationship itself is exploitative and should be abolished.Low wages are a social problem but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the employer/employee relationship. Unless you're suggesting that we all return to the land and live isolated self sustaining lives free from trade (because trade is a type of employment) you'll never be able to abolish employers.



Saying that profit in not the product of one's labor, and thus not legitimate possession.Capital is produced when land and labour cobine to create tooling, as capital is the product of labour any subsequent profits the capital earns is the rightful property of the tool owner. In other words you cannot abolish private property in capital without simultaneously abolishing private property in labour.

[chefdave]

If you presuppose a right to property...

Whever "society" deems fit, and this is true in even the most ardent capitalist economies.

Ownership only exists "in society's eyes."


Private property can only be guaranteed when there are customs and institutions that legitimise and protect the earnings of labour and capital, but the point is society sometimes gets it wrong and ends up privatising social income while socialising private income. What I'm arguing for a re-examination of our core principles so the state doesn't end up killing the economy by mixing up various forms of property.




The Kennedy Family. That's my answer. Moonshiners and thugs.
Consider all the companies right now that are complicit in some of the most brutal repression in the world. But as long as they generate large profits, that's a-ok. Then it's the job of the state to kick out the rent seekers and secure a better deal for the citizens. You think all corruption will be solved if only we stopped businesses from trading and adding value to the world? There aren't many big businesses operating in Somalia or North Korea for example yet they're hardly shining examples of workers' utopias.




Is it? I have a right to lay claim to my time. My labor belongs exclusively to my employer.The labour gets his wage the capitalist get the profits. As they both operate in a free market their respective returns will be determined by market conditions.


That right simply cannot be enshrined in law in capitalism, because it undermines the whole system.

They are not under capitalism, yet capitalism progresses. Hypothesis false.Within this context I don't want to hear about your take on capitalism, I'm asking whether the paragraph I wrote works logically as a stand alone statement. I'm arguing how things ought to be, not how they are under 'capitalism'.


Wage labor is an income tax. Period.
Capitalism crashes healthy economies, by necessity. It doesn't need any moralism to do that. The interests of profiteers run directly opposed to the mass of society (Smith ch 8 if you want a capitalist perspective). Overproduction is a necessary component of the for profit system.If all market participants were acting rationally they'd each try to maximise their return. So yes it's in the capitalist's interest to generate as much profit as he can but his ability to do so is limited by the presence of other capitalists -who are prepared to undercut him- and a consumer base who also act 'selfishly' by demanding to pay as little as possible. As usual you're only looking at one side of the equation.

Whats wrong with an abundance (aka overproduction)? This is exactly the outcome we should be aiming for if the economy is to run efficiently.




I'm sorry. I've been polite till now, but fuck you. You have no idea what working class is. This is apparent. "The unemployed" are almost exclusively former full time workers, some still are (under the table). You calling them net recipients is like saying the mugger who allowed me to keep my bank card made me a net recipient.Sorry but to be a member of the class you actually have to be out there labouring for a living. The unemployed may be disenfranchised or poor, but the one thing they're not is a member of the workforce. And you're right some unemployed people do work cash in hand but the point is the state actively discourages them to do so, the first Unions were set up by hardy working class folk in heavy industries such as mining and metal production, i.e they were proud of their blue collar status, it's demeaning to genuine workers to lump them in with benefit claimants who happen to do a bit of cleaning on the side.

[fabian]

In that case you have to prove why the employee/employer relationship is inherently exploitative.
Marx called it "surplus value", I (being that I'm not a marxist and don't see anything "surplus" about it) call it unpayed labor and stealing of the products of one's labor. It's very simple. If I work for an employer for 10 hours and he gives me 100 dolars, it is clear that my work's worth was more then 100 dolars, because if it were 100 dolars, then that would mean that my employer gave me all the product (/worth) of my work, and took nothing for himself. But as we know that employers do take a part of the product of the worker's work, it would mean that I have earned my 100 dolas in e.g. a 5 hours work. What's with the rest of the day's toil? I have been stripped of my right to the product of my labor (which is the Lockean definition of the right to possession), I have performed unpaid labor and the product of my labor was taken by someone else (which is exploatation, stealing, and it is the employer's unearned income- which is in contradiction with the Lockean right to possession).


Low wages are a social problem but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the employer/employee relationship.
Yes there is. It is exploitative and in contradiction with the (Lockean) right to possession


Unless you're suggesting that we all return to the land and live isolated self sustaining lives free from trade (because trade is a type of employment) you'll never be able to abolish employers.
Trade is not a type of employment, because in trade no one is denied the right to the product of his labor.


as capital is the product of labour any subsequent profits the capital earns is the rightful property of the tool owner.
It is not. Having legimitate possessions does not allow you to use it in order to gain illegitimate ones.

[chefdave]

Marx called it "surplus value", I (being that I'm not a marxist and don't see anything "surplus" about it) call it unpayed labor and stealing of the products of one's labor. It's very simple. If I work for an employer for 10 hours and he gives me 100 dolars, it is clear that my work's worth was more then 100 dolars, because if it were 100 dolars, then that would mean that my employer gave me all the product (/worth) of my work, and took nothing for himself. But as we know that employers do take a part of the product of the worker's work, it would mean that I have earned my 100 dolas in e.g. a 5 hours work. What's with the rest of the day's toil? I have been stripped of my right to the product of my labor (which is the Lockean definition of the right to possession), I have performed unpaid labor and the product of my labor was taken by someone else (which is exploatation, stealing, and it is the employer's unearned income- which is in contradiction with the Lockean right to possession).

As capitalists aid production with their own capital they're entitled to a income stream that covers their costs and puts food on the table. To put it another way could a business function without computers, buildings, tools and the myraid of other forms of capital that capitalists provide? No. Without essential tooling the wealth creating potential of labour is severely limited so in return for an uplift in productivie capacity business owners get to enjoy a portion of the national wealth. If anyone benefits from a reduction in pay it's actually the consumer because these cuts in costs are reflected in final selling prices. And who is the consumer? The consumer in may cases is the labourer and the worker emplyed in businesses up and down the country.



Yes there is. It is exploitative and in contradiction with the (Lockean) right to possession

Working for a boss is often unpleasant so understandably there may be some reluctance on behalf of the employee to seek salaried employment, but I believe you're looking at the symptom rather than the cause. The individual's economic autonomy is being systematically curtailed by a state that backs a cartel in the land market, when land has been monopolised in it's entirety labour has no choice but to labour for somebody else. This is not something that can be solved by attacking capital.



Trade is not a type of employment, because in trade no one is denied the right to the product of his labor.

When someone purchases something from somebody else they're engaging in an act of employment. It doesn't matter whether it's an individual that only has his labour to offer or a large company that is selling it's protect to another large company: trade = employment.



It is not. Having legimitate possessions does not allow you to use it in order to gain illegitimate ones.

Ok, so if I build a spade and then go and dig a hole for a farmer I'm the beneficiary of "illegitimate" income because I'm also charging a small profit for the use of that spade? If wages are a legitimate form of income then so too are profits because capital is the result of labour.

[Revolution starts with U]

Private property can only be guaranteed when there are customs and institutions that legitimise and protect the earnings of labour and capital,
PP doesn't protect the earnings of labor. It directly works against them.



but the point is society sometimes gets it wrong and ends up privatising social income while socialising private income. What I'm arguing for a re-examination of our core principles so the state doesn't end up killing the economy by mixing up various forms of property.

Societies create principles, not vice versa; materialism.



Then it's the job of the state to kick out the rent seekers and secure a better deal for the citizens. You think all corruption will be solved if only we stopped businesses from trading and adding value to the world? There aren't many big businesses operating in Somalia or North Korea for example yet they're hardly shining examples of workers' utopias.

This only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our position. We want the opposite of stopping production and trade. We want to expand production and trade by removing the artificial restrictions placed upon it by capital. We want the workers to run the "business" and society by themselves, with no class domination.


The labour gets his wage the capitalist get the profits. As they both operate in a free market their respective returns will be determined by market conditions.
But I don't get to enjoy the fruits of my labor. I'm paid for my time. My labor is just capital for the owner, of which he will profit just as if he bought a machine.
Are you suggesting the current capitalist superstructure is a "free" market?


Within this context I don't want to hear about your take on capitalism, I'm asking whether the paragraph I wrote works logically as a stand alone statement. I'm arguing how things ought to be, not how they are under 'capitalism'.
Is/ought problem. And that's the problem with the capitalist theoretician; idealism.


If all market participants were acting rationally they'd each try to maximise their return. So yes it's in the capitalist's interest to generate as much profit as he can but his ability to do so is limited by the presence of other capitalists -who are prepared to undercut him- and a consumer base who also act 'selfishly' by demanding to pay as little as possible. As usual you're only looking at one side of the equation.
If...
No, I'm looking at the macro effects of all sides of the equation; and that is that the capitalist must, by his material interests, place profits over people, or even production and consumers. He must, by necessity, undermine the very base by which his products are bought, leading to widespread underconsumption, and massive economic collapse. There's no moralism involved. Crash is an inherent function of the for profit system.



Whats wrong with an abundance (aka overproduction)? This is exactly the outcome we should be aiming for if the economy is to run efficiently.

Forgive me. That was a vague term easily mis-defined. By overproduction I mean a large misallocation of funds; basically I meant underconsumption, but from the capitalist's perspective. She produced too many things that the consumer doesn't want, or can't afford. Collapse.


Sorry but to be a member of the class you actually have to be out there labouring for a living.
No

The unemployed may be disenfranchised or poor, but the one thing they're not is a member of the workforce.
Yes, they are (the reserve labor army, which helps to flood the market with unused labor and drive down the price of it). Working class means the only thing (or the only functional thing) you have to offer the market is your work. Anybody in that situation is working class, regardless of their employment situation.


And you're right some unemployed people do work cash in hand but the point is the state actively discourages them to do so, the first Unions were set up by hardy working class folk in heavy industries such as mining and metal production, i.e they were proud of their blue collar status, it's demeaning to genuine workers to lump them in with benefit claimants who happen to do a bit of cleaning on the side.
You're just being a patronizing little shit now, with no knowledge of the actual history of working class collaboration. What were the first unions, pray tell? Why is a miner any better than a maid?
Do you have any idea how many people work under the table construction right now? Get a clue.
You have no idea what it's like to be working class.

[Revolution starts with U]

As capitalists aid production with their own capital they're entitled to a income stream that covers their costs and puts food on the table.
What is it, then, that gives him exclusive right to decide the income of everyone involved in the productive effort? (The state gives him that right with their guns, if you want an answer)

To put it another way could a business function without computers, buildings, tools and the myraid of other forms of capital that capitalists provide? No. Without essential tooling the wealth creating potential of labour is severely limited so in return for an uplift in productivie capacity business owners get to enjoy a portion of the national wealth.
All of those can be provided without the privelaged position of "capitalist."


If anyone benefits from a reduction in pay it's actually the consumer because these cuts in costs are reflected in final selling prices. And who is the consumer? The consumer in may cases is the labourer and the worker emplyed in businesses up and down the country.

Pay cuts almost always far outstrip the cost cuts (if they didn't, what would be the point?). Again tho, what exactly is it that allows the capitalist to be the exclusive decider, cutting the worker's income, but not his own?



Working for a boss is often unpleasant so understandably there may be some reluctance on behalf of the employee to seek salaried employment, but I believe you're looking at the symptom rather than the cause. The individual's economic autonomy is being systematically curtailed by a state that backs a cartel in the land market, when land has been monopolised in it's entirety labour has no choice but to labour for somebody else. This is not something that can be solved by attacking capital.

:rolleyes:
Do you really think the bourgiousie isn't going to oppose your collectivizing land just as they oppose collectivising other property? You'll be lumped in with the rest of us, when it comes down to it.



When someone purchases something from somebody else they're engaging in an act of employment. It doesn't matter whether it's an individual that only has his labour to offer or a large company that is selling it's protect to another large company: trade = employment.

No. Employment is a condition wherein one person sells his time and autonomy for pay. It is a form of trade. But not all trade is employment, and I don't know how you didn't see the ridiculousness of your statement when you said it.





Ok, so if I build a spade and then go and dig a hole for a farmer I'm the beneficiary of "illegitimate" income because I'm also charging a small profit for the use of that spade? If wages are a legitimate form of income then so too are profits because capital is the result of labour.
Wages aren't a legitimate form of income.

[chefdave]

PP doesn't protect the earnings of labor. It directly works against them.

The current setup does indeed infringe upon private property rights which is why I argue for fundamental reforms: wages should be the pp of labourer, profit should be the pp of the capitalist, and any land rents generation (the economy's true surplus) should be taken away from landlords and dispersed equitably throughout the community. It's a neat and tidy solution that seperates the genuine pp from the parasitic rent seeking.



Societies create principles, not vice versa; materialism.

I don't really care who creates them as long as they're derived logically and backed up via our shared instutions.



This only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our position. We want the opposite of stopping production and trade. We want to expand production and trade by removing the artificial restrictions placed upon it by capital. We want the workers to run the "business" and society by themselves, with no class domination.

Well it's good to hear that we have similar aims but I disagree strongly with your analysis. Capitalists only restrict the economy when they have a government mandate to do so, if we removed the rules and regulations that keep them in privileged positions workers would be able to compete on a level playing field. The economy is a means to an end remember, it's not an end in itself. We don't all aspire to work in workers' cooperatives or turn the workplace into a democracy, most of us just want to get our work out the way and then do something more important. Like sit around playing computer games.



But I don't get to enjoy the fruits of my labor. I'm paid for my time. My labor is just capital for the owner, of which he will profit just as if he bought a machine.
Are you suggesting the current capitalist superstructure is a "free" market?

So if you were working in a basket weaving factory you'd prefer it if the owner paid you in baskets rather than cash?

No the market isn't free, but I'd like to see it become more free so average workers are afforded the opportunity to acquire capital and set up their own businesses. The major barriers to economic freedom for the masses is the left, because they equate freedom with the freedom to starve rather than the freedom to produce. This boneheaded approach has allowed big business to accrue vast profits because the state does their dirty work and prevents workers from setting up new businesses.



Is/ought problem. And that's the problem with the capitalist theoretician; idealism.

I'm not arguing for the impossible, just a few fiscal rules that re-privatise the earnings of labour and capital while re-socialising the rent of land. It could be achieved in a year or two no problem.



If...
No, I'm looking at the macro effects of all sides of the equation; and that is that the capitalist must, by his material interests, place profits over people, or even production and consumers. He must, by necessity, undermine the very base by which his products are bought, leading to widespread underconsumption, and massive economic collapse. There's no moralism involved. Crash is an inherent function of the for profit system.

Profit seeking serves the people. If a capitalist is deploying his capital in areas the generate the highest profits he's helping to relieve scarcity and provide the consumer with what they need. Even though he's acting selflishly he's still providing an incredibly valuable social service. This is a concept that left-wingers can never get their head around so instead they prefer to gov't to micromanage the economy to ensure that we're all acting morally.

[Revolution starts with U]

The current setup does indeed infringe upon private property rights which is why I argue for fundamental reforms: wages should be the pp of labourer, profit should be the pp of the capitalist, and any land rents generation (the economy's true surplus) should be taken away from landlords and dispersed equitably throughout the community. It's a neat and tidy solution that seperates the genuine pp from the parasitic rent seeking.

It's a nifty idea, that well suits petibos if they ever have the material means to express their class interest in such a way. It will still make labor subservient to capital and as such create class anatagonism. It may or may not be more equitable, if so awesome. But do you really think you're going to get this voted in?

Expect aggressive (violent) retaliation from the power players in society.



I don't really care who creates them as long as they're derived logically and backed up via our shared instutions.

It'd be nice if people inherently acted logical, like Vulcans. It would be nicer if people had scant means or interest in antagonizing society, that is to say "being bad," like the Federation (I'm not really much of a Trek fan, but it's an apt metaphor imo).



Well it's good to hear that we have similar aims
... well... it's not like there are many people who waant a "dark ages" type society. :lol:

Capitalists only restrict the economy when they have a government mandate to do so, if we removed the rules and regulations that keep them in privileged positions workers would be able to compete on a level playing field.
I agree. That mandate is property, those rules and regulations are the business structure and propertarian parlaimentarism. That privelaged position is ownership. Only when labor makes capital subservient will the free expression of mankind be realized, meaning the end of involuntary privelage, legal domination of entrenched interests, and artificial scarcity.
When doing activity with existing materials is unrestricted it is by definition a classless stateless society of free labor.


The economy is a means to an end remember, it's not an end in itself. We don't all aspire to work in workers' cooperatives or turn the workplace into a democracy, most of us just want to get our work out the way and then do something more important. Like sit around playing computer games.

Again you misunderstand. That's our whole point.
It's not as if workers were in great desire to work 8 hrs a day 40hrs a week. It's that they value their time and had the material means, through their growing solidarity, to force some concessions from capitalists. What they didn't want was to work alongside their children 10hrs/day (or more) and still barely scrape bye.
(Scientific) socialists don't really "advocate" for working class revolution, more than we just remind everyone that it either will happen, or world wide species collapse will have happened beforehand. It is the recognition of the material interest of people and the mechanics of class expression, and their evidential conclusions.
It is profit, capital, generalized commodity production that dominates labor, not "unfairness" or "corruption."



So if you were working in a basket weaving factory you'd prefer it if the owner paid you in baskets rather than cash?

I would like to have just as much a say in where the "money" generated from our productive efforts goes, and what direction we're taking. I wouldn't want their to be an "owner" so much as a group of people expressing reasonable and accountable control over the means of production.


No the market isn't free, but I'd like to see it become more free so average workers are afforded the opportunity to acquire capital and set up their own businesses.
I've always found it curious to talk about a "free" market in the first place... isn't that a tad contradictory? ... but I realized we're talking two different defintions of free.
I wouldn't mind seing that either. Were it to happen, it would serve well the ability of the proletatariat to express itself. Yet it still does not serve to address the relationship of labor to capital in such a way as to overcome class oppression. It's all about incentives and "purchasing power" for lack of a better term.
What you will see is a Orwellian like society, not in the sense of Big Brother (tho maybe, the peti bourgs are quite puritan), but rather in the sense of a generally equal society within upper management, and large swaths of ghettoized people that everyone knows are there, but really don't know what their life is about.
I'm just going to skip the bs and work towards a fundamental, revolutionary, overthrowing of the established order, in the interests of the real do'ers in the world.

The major barriers to economic freedom for the masses is the left, because they equate freedom with the freedom to starve rather than the freedom to produce.
:blink:
Again, you have it backwards. It is capitalism which works against the freedom to produce.


This boneheaded approach has allowed big business to accrue vast profits because the state does their dirty work and prevents workers from setting up new businesses.

:blink:
:confused:
:crying:
...
:lol:
Wut?





I'm not arguing for the impossible, just a few fiscal rules that re-privatise the earnings of labour and capital while re-socialising the rent of land. It could be achieved in a year or two no problem.


I'm saying; regardless of whether anyone "ought to" join your cause... "is" anyone, especially enought to see it to fruition?



Profit seeking serves the people.
Some of the people, sometimes.

If a capitalist is deploying his capital in areas the generate the highest profits he's helping to relieve scarcity and provide the consumer with what they need.
What you mean is that if anyone deploys capital in areas seemed highly demanded they are serving the interests of society writ large. Which is correct. A capitalist can do this, a king, anyone. The working class can deploy the means of production to the wants and needs of society, and really is the only class suitable.


Even though he's acting selflishly he's still providing an incredibly valuable social service. This is a concept that left-wingers can never get their head around so instead they prefer to gov't to micromanage the economy to ensure that we're all acting morally.
By selfish of course you mean acting according to risk/reward incentives, not the common nomenclature of "being a dick." If only you could recognize the class structure...
Our whole point is that the incentive of the super majority is classless stateless free labor.
Stateless... get it. We don't want the "government" to micromanage anybody, nor do we want ownership to either. That's the concept rightists don't get. They don't realize their vociferous denunciation of one set of tyrants is directly in the interests of another.
Your like Lui Bei, trying to protect the peope... not even realizing your a feudal lord and the cause of the problem in the first place.

... I'm sorry for yelling :D

[chefdave]

It's a nifty idea, that well suits petibos if they ever have the material means to express their class interest in such a way. It will still make labor subservient to capital and as such create class anatagonism. It may or may not be more equitable, if so awesome. But do you really think you're going to get this voted in?

You misunderstand, it strikes at the heart of the class divide because traditionally the upper class: Lords, ladies and Royals etc have all lived off the rent of land: they're major landowners. This monopoly attachment to the real estate market can be dissolved with a simple land value tax thus abolishing the more damaging aspects of class greed.

Will it get voted in? Probably not because the middle classes via the housing market are landowners in their own right so they have a stake in the parasitic economy, but the lack of support doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad policy.



I agree. That mandate is property, those rules and regulations are the business structure and propertarian parlaimentarism. That privelaged position is ownership. Only when labor makes capital subservient will the free expression of mankind be realized, meaning the end of involuntary privelage, legal domination of entrenched interests, and artificial scarcity.
When doing activity with existing materials is unrestricted it is by definition a classless stateless society of free labor.

Labour and capital work in harmony to produce wealth so there's no need for one to dominate another, both labour and capital need to realise that they're being exploited by a cartel of landowners who are extracting vast fortunes from the economy because the government believes the nation's land supply is their property. It's only when we officially recognise the communal nature of land will the left/right capitalist vs worker false dichotomy finally be dealt with. There is no conflict between labour and capital, it's a 100 year old neo-classical myth.



I would like to have just as much a say in where the "money" generated from our productive efforts goes, and what direction we're taking. I wouldn't want their to be an "owner" so much as a group of people expressing reasonable and accountable control over the means of production.

In the free market you get your say over how the economy functions because your spending dicatates where others deploy their resources. If you and a number of other people suddenly start getting a taste for obscure French cheese for example some canny businessman will realise there's profit to be made through the importation of such produce. The free market acts as a perfect democracy because everyone gets exactly what they want.



I'm just going to skip the bs and work towards a fundamental, revolutionary, overthrowing of the established order, in the interests of the real do'ers in the world.

Each to their own, I'd prefer reform rather than revolution. Western states have the capability to gives workers a fair deal but instead we've collectively decided to reward the land monopolists with effort free rents and mind blowing 'capital' gains. We can't have a well paid working class and a parasitic land-owner upper class: it's one or the other.


Again, you have it backwards. It is capitalism which works against the freedom to produce.

Yes, capitalism works against the freedom to produce but right-wingers are the only ones who have come up with a convincing antedote. What we require is a free market in all 3 factors of production, not freedom in labour and capital and a monopoly in land.



What you mean is that if anyone deploys capital in areas seemed highly demanded they are serving the interests of society writ large. Which is correct. A capitalist can do this, a king, anyone. The working class can deploy the means of production to the wants and needs of society, and really is the only class suitable

But leftist theory states that as soon as workers get their hands on the means of production they immediately become exploitative capitalists, this is why permanent revolution is required. I would like to see the workers given more of a say over how the economy is run, this is why we should wrestle surplus lands off the landed and hand it down to those with limited means.



By selfish of course you mean acting according to risk/reward incentives, not the common nomenclature of "being a dick." If only you could recognize the class structure...
Our whole point is that the incentive of the super majority is classless stateless free labor.
Stateless... get it. We don't want the "government" to micromanage anybody, nor do we want ownership to either. That's the concept rightists don't get. They don't realize their vociferous denunciation of one set of tyrants is directly in the interests of another.
Your like Lui Bei, trying to protect the peope... not even realizing your a feudal lord and the cause of the problem in the first place.

The cause of the problem is a cartel in land and the raft of rules and regulations that prevent people from producing the goods and services they require for survival. When you cut off people's ability to labour for themselves they have no choice but to seek waged employment.

[fabian]

As capitalists aid production with their own capital they're entitled to a income stream that covers their costs and puts food on the table.
You are not. Right to possession = right to the product of your labor. Thereby, investment, rent, usury and other uneared income are illegimate possessions.


To put it another way could a business function without computers, buildings, tools and the myraid of other forms of capital that capitalists provide? No.
Can they be provided by other means expect capitalist investment? Yes. A workers' cooperative taking a load from a mutualist bank.


Working for a boss is often unpleasant so understandably there may be some reluctance on behalf of the employee to seek salaried employment, but I believe you're looking at the symptom rather than the cause.
Ey? :confused: This entire time I'm talking only about principles and root causes, I haven't mentioned externalities (such as consequences, feelings, symptoms or such) once. As I said, the employer-employee relationship is in contradiction with the (Lockean) right to possession in two ways: the worker is stripped of his right to the product of his labor, and the employer acquires unearned income thus taking for himself illegitimate possessions.


When someone purchases something from somebody else they're engaging in an act of employment.
No, they are not. When I make bricks from soil I have used labor to create legitimate possessions. When I sell bricks to you I am selling my possessions and I am not stripped of my right to the product of my labor. When I work for you, I am, because I do not take the full product of my labor, but you take a portion of it for yourself.



Ok, so if I build a spade and then go and dig a hole for a farmer I'm the beneficiary of "illegitimate" income because I'm also charging a small profit for the use of that spade?
No, you would be charging your work, i.e. getting the product of your work. But if you rent your spade to him, that would be making illegitimate possessions, because the Locken/ classical liberal definion of "possession" is "the product of one's work". You can only sell the spade, you cannot consider the spade yours if you have abondened it (given it to someone else to use).


If wages are a legitimate form of income then so too are profits because capital is the result of labour.
Wages are legitimate because they are the product of one's labour, profits are not becase they are the product of labor of other people that has been acquired by stripping them of the right to the full product of their labor. I can sell my brick- my possessions, but if I work for you and you make profits I am denied my right to possessions (/the right to the product of one's labor).

The only way that the employer-employee relationship could be legitimate, and not in contradiction with the right to possessions is if the employer would give to the worker the entire product of his labor, taking nothing for himself, and then the worker by his own free choice (truly voluntarily) give a portion of the product of his labour to the employer.

[chefdave]

You are not. Right to possession = right to the product of your labor. Thereby, investment, rent, usury and other uneared income are illegimate possessions.

These other forms of trade only become illegetimate when there's an element of coercion involved, setting up a car rental company for example isn't exploitative if the public are able to choose from a range of options to satisfy their transportation needs. Lending things for profit is a proper value adding business that demands skill and effort, I don't see why the owners of such enterprises should have their incomes taken away.



Can they be provided by other means expect capitalist investment? Yes. A workers' cooperative taking a load from a mutualist bank.

But surely your point is that profit is illegitimate so even if a workers' cooperative get to keep they're still exploiting someone to get their hands on it. Why is a profit making business run by a single person any different morally from a profit making cooperative? Are profits evil or not?



Ey? :confused: This entire time I'm talking only about principles and root causes, I haven't mentioned externalities (such as consequences, feelings, symptoms or such) once. As I said, the employer-employee relationship is in contradiction with the (Lockean) right to possession in two ways: the worker is stripped of his right to the product of his labor, and the employer acquires unearned income thus taking for himself illegitimate possessions.

The worker gets to keep his value added in the form of wages, wages may be lower than you'd like but to claim that workers receive nothing back from production is demonstrably false. Capitalists don't make as much as seem to believe, thousands of businesses fail each year in the UK because the owners are simply unable to turn a profit. Value adding is hard work, even for 'privileged' capitalists.



No, they are not. When I make bricks from soil I have used labor to create legitimate possessions. When I sell bricks to you I am selling my possessions and I am not stripped of my right to the product of my labor. When I work for you, I am, because I do not take the full product of my labor, but you take a portion of it for yourself.

Purchasing soil bricks from you is still a form of employment though as I'm employing you to make soil bricks for me, without employment from others your brick making business would quickly fail. Ok you may be self employed, but you're essentially still labouring for others when you sell your bricks.




No, you would be charging your work, i.e. getting the product of your work. But if you rent your spade to him, that would be making illegitimate possessions, because the Locken/ classical liberal definion of "possession" is "the product of one's work". You can only sell the spade, you cannot consider the spade yours if you have abondened it (given it to someone else to use).

As capital is a form of stored labour lending that capital out for a fee represents a return to labour by proxy. It's illogical to say that I can go and labour for someone in person but not lend them the fruits of my labour for profit, what's the difference? The economy would be severely handicapped if prevented people from lending and borrowing things for money.



Wages are legitimate because they are the product of one's labour, profits are not becase they are the product of labor of other people that has been acquired by stripping them of the right to the full product of their labor. I can sell my brick- my possessions, but if I work for you and you make profits I am denied my right to possessions (/the right to the product of one's labor).

Profits are the return to capital, and as capital means tooling and machinery you're not disenfranchising anyone by making money from your capital.



The only way that the employer-employee relationship could be legitimate, and not in contradiction with the right to possessions is if the employer would give to the worker the entire product of his labor, taking nothing for himself, and then the worker by his own free choice (truly voluntarily) give a portion of the product of his labour to the employer.

Employers add value to businesses so it's unreasonable to expect them to sacrifice their income for the good of the workforce. If the worker feels like he's getting a bad deal he's free to replace his employer and obtain his own capital. Capitalists don't often hold monopoly positions.

[fabian]

These other forms of trade only become illegetimate when there's an element of coercion involved
No, they are illegimate acording to the classical liberal/ Lockean definition of the right to possession.


setting up a car rental company for example isn't exploitative if the public are able to choose from a range of options to satisfy their transportation needs. Lending things for profit is a proper value adding business that demands skill and effort, I don't see why the owners of such enterprises should have their incomes taken away.
Legitimate possessions are the product of one's labor. If you rent something or charge usury, you're taking something that is not the product of your labor, but someone else's. A car or money cannot work instead of you.


But surely your point is that profit is illegitimate so even if a workers' cooperative get to keep they're still exploiting someone to get their hands on it.
Workers in the workers' cooperatives get wages for the work they do, they do not take product of someone else's labor (which profit is by definition).


Value adding is hard work
Exerting effort is not by definiton work. Robbers exert effort to steal and rob, being a criminal is "hard work" too, but it still doesn't make it legitimate.


Purchasing soil bricks from you is still a form of employment though as I'm employing you to make soil bricks for me
No, you are not. I am employing myself to make bricks and afterword can sell the product of my labor. If you come in my yard to buy bricks, you are not employing me to make bricks, you'r just buying bricks. If you would call me in your yard and say- dig up the soil here and make brick and I'll pay you, then you'd be employing me, and I would have to give you the bricks which are the products of my labor. But when I make my own brick I don't have to give them to you, I can always say "go F* youself you bloody capitalist, I ain't selling my bricks to you".


It's illogical to say that I can go and labour for someone in person but not lend them the fruits of my labour for profit
You cannot labor for someone, you can only labor for yourself, if you labor for someone else that's ("voluntary") slavery (also called "employment" today).


The economy would be severely handicapped if prevented people from lending and borrowing things for money.
Or people would just buy anything they need.


Profits are the return to capital, and as capital means tooling and machinery you're not disenfranchising anyone by making money from your capital.
Letimate possessions = product of your work. Tools cannot work instead of you. If someone else uses them, whatever they make is the product of their work.


Employers add value to businesses
They do not. Value comes from labor. If a capitalist would sit next to his tools and machinery without there being any workers to perform labor, he would starve to death.

[danyboy27]

I have to say that's a very jaundiced view of what libertarianism is all about, but funnily enough I emphasise with your underlying point even if the rhetoric is a bit over the top. Yes, there are lots of very powerful vested interests that are opposed to libertarianism because they intuitively understand that it'll put an end to their corrupt 'business' model. I'm not talking exclusively about the Big Corporations because frankly (other than finance) the British government has already performed a stellar job of squeezing the lifeblood out of them, I'm talking about the major landowners and the 1001 other parasitic groups who rely on state backed renterism to fund a lifestyle they don't deserve. There's no way they'd voluntarily relinquish their state based economic privileges because they'd instantly lose out from a level playing field.
no market can survive without a state.
Ultimately without a proper state what you will have is Apple, intel and lockeed martin creating their own big private state and subjecting the worker to a life of slave and serf.

Exploitation does not need the market to work, all you need is property right enforced by bayonet and rifles.

[DinodudeEpic]

"But surely your point is that profit is illegitimate so even if a workers' cooperative get to keep they're still exploiting someone to get their hands on it. Why is a profit making business run by a single person any different morally from a profit making cooperative? Are profits evil or not?"

Profits are not evil. Nor is anything. However, I consider giving power to one person over others to be an absolute antithesis to liberty.




"The worker gets to keep his value added in the form of wages, wages may be lower than you'd like but to claim that workers receive nothing back from production is demonstrably false. Capitalists don't make as much as seem to believe, thousands of businesses fail each year in the UK because the owners are simply unable to turn a profit. Value adding is hard work, even for 'privileged' capitalists. "

For goodness sakes! There is no way that a capitalist can or want to calculate the right wage for products produced with factors like Labor Theory of Value, Supply and Demand, and such. It is better to let the free market determine it than the absolute will of a capitalist.



"Purchasing soil bricks from you is still a form of employment though as I'm employing you to make soil bricks for me, without employment from others your brick making business would quickly fail. Ok you may be self employed, but you're essentially still labouring for others when you sell your bricks."

No, you are laboring for your own wealth. Not to benefit society socially. You sell the bricks you make, and you get your fair share for the paying customers. Capitalists, on the other hand, do NOTHING behinds managing businesses, which is what workers should be doing democratically.


"As capital is a form of stored labour lending that capital out for a fee represents a return to labour by proxy. It's illogical to say that I can go and labour for someone in person but not lend them the fruits of my labour for profit, what's the difference? The economy would be severely handicapped if prevented people from lending and borrowing things for money."

Capital is made by the workers of other companies. The workers of one cooperative would just buy capital from the other cooperative. The other cooperative gets their fair share.




Profits are the return to capital, and as capital means tooling and machinery you're not disenfranchising anyone by making money from your capital.



"Employers add value to businesses so it's unreasonable to expect them to sacrifice their income for the good of the workforce. If the worker feels like he's getting a bad deal he's free to replace his employer and obtain his own capital. Capitalists don't often hold monopoly positions."

They don't. And, Capitalists have monopoly positions over the COMPANY. And, the worker signed the contract only for the wage that was presented to him at the contract's signing. The wage needs constant worker approval to change, which is NOT present in capitalist corporations.

[Revolution starts with U]

You misunderstand, it strikes at the heart of the class divide because traditionally the upper class: Lords, ladies and Royals etc have all lived off the rent of land: they're major landowners.
Maybe it strikes at the heart of feudal class division. It still maintains the employee/employer heirarchy and thus antagonizes the working class.



Will it get voted in? Probably not because the middle classes via the housing market are landowners in their own right so they have a stake in the parasitic economy, but the lack of support doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad policy.


... tell me about it... :lol:




Labour and capital work in harmony to produce wealth so there's no need for one to dominate another, both labour and capital need to realise that they're being exploited by a cartel of landowners who are extracting vast fortunes from the economy because the government believes the nation's land supply is their property. It's only when we officially recognise the communal nature of land will the left/right capitalist vs worker false dichotomy finally be dealt with. There is no conflict between labour and capital, it's a 100 year old neo-classical myth.

:blink:
... sometimes you say things, and I just don't know what you were thinking...



In the free market you get your say over how the economy functions because your spending dicatates where others deploy their resources. If you and a number of other people suddenly start getting a taste for obscure French cheese for example some canny businessman will realise there's profit to be made through the importation of such produce. The free market acts as a perfect democracy because everyone gets exactly what they want.

Market democracy is 1 man unlimited votes. It in no way reflect real demand, more than economic demand.



Each to their own, I'd prefer reform rather than revolution. Western states have the capability to gives workers a fair deal but instead we've collectively decided to reward the land monopolists with effort free rents and mind blowing 'capital' gains. We can't have a well paid working class and a parasitic land-owner upper class: it's one or the other.

Capital gains is capitalism....




Yes, capitalism works against the freedom to produce but right-wingers are the only ones who have come up with a convincing antedote. What we require is a free market in all 3 factors of production, not freedom in labour and capital and a monopoly in land.

The only right wing anectote I see is "worker's deserve to be lead." You my friend need to realize that when it comes down to it, they will lump you in with the rest of anti-capitalists and execute you just as quickly.




But leftist theory states that as soon as workers get their hands on the means of production they immediately become exploitative capitalists, this is why permanent revolution is required. I would like to see the workers given more of a say over how the economy is run, this is why we should wrestle surplus lands off the landed and hand it down to those with limited means.
We should just do that with all property to be honest...






The cause of the problem is a cartel in land and the raft of rules and regulations that prevent people from producing the goods and services they require for survival. When you cut off people's ability to labour for themselves they have no choice but to seek waged employment.
You think if you open the market in land it won't just quickly be gobbled up by the big money interests, resulting in massive massive amounts of rentage, creating a society that for all intents and purposes is a kind of neo-capitalist fuedal state?

[chefdave]

Legitimate possessions are the product of one's labor. If you rent something or charge usury, you're taking something that is not the product of your labor, but someone else's. A car or money cannot work instead of you.

If you lend things out for money you're providing a value adding service so you're entitled to a return on your labour. If I cut someone's hair for example there's nothing tangible I can claim as the product of my labour: the value I'm adding is the difference between the hairstyle the customer has and the style they want. The same principle applies to the tool hire shop. The value I add is the service I'm providing the customer. They may not want scaffolding 365 days a year so they hire it out for a short time for a fraction of the cost of a scaffolding rig. Even though it doesn't conform strictly to the Lockean notion of property rights the customer is still receiving a valuable product so in terms of the free market the transaction is valid.




No, you are not. I am employing myself to make bricks and afterword can sell the product of my labor. If you come in my yard to buy bricks, you are not employing me to make bricks, you'r just buying bricks. If you would call me in your yard and say- dig up the soil here and make brick and I'll pay you, then you'd be employing me, and I would have to give you the bricks which are the products of my labor. But when I make my own brick I don't have to give them to you, I can always say "go F* youself you bloody capitalist, I ain't selling my bricks to you".When a supermarket chooses farmer A over farmer B to supply them with milk they're providing farmer A with employment, even if he's a self-employed sole trader he's still being employed by a large company to produce something. It may not be salaried employment in the strict sense but the nature of the transaction means that one party is hiring another because this is the essence of all trade.




They do not. Value comes from labor. If a capitalist would sit next to his tools and machinery without there being any workers to perform labor, he would starve to death.And if labourers tried to labour without capital they'd only be capable of producing a fraction of the output. This would reflect in their wages.

[chefdave]

Profits are not evil. Nor is anything. However, I consider giving power to one person over others to be an absolute antithesis to liberty.

Sure, but this won't be solved by beating capital around the head with socialist solutions.




For goodness sakes! There is no way that a capitalist can or want to calculate the right wage for products produced with factors like Labor Theory of Value, Supply and Demand, and such. It is better to let the free market determine it than the absolute will of a capitalist.

Free market? Burn the witch! :lol:



No, you are laboring for your own wealth. Not to benefit society socially. You sell the bricks you make, and you get your fair share for the paying customers. Capitalists, on the other hand, do NOTHING behinds managing businesses, which is what workers should be doing democratically.

Sure. I too would like to see workers given a greater stake in the economy. However instead of attacking the capitalists direxctly I think the workers' interests would be best served by removing the restrictions that prevent them from competing on a level playing field. Once these restrictions have been removed and basic property laws are upheld any other meddling is likely to make things worse.

[fabian]

If you lend things out for money you're providing a value adding service so you're entitled to a return on your labour. If I cut someone's hair for example there's nothing tangible I can claim as the product of my labour:
Yes there is. You have performed labour, and you get paid for it (without enyone else taking a cut). If you sit down and give someone else scissors to cut someone's hair, all the money he gets are his own, and you are not entitled to anything, because you have not labored.


When a supermarket chooses farmer A over farmer B to supply them with milk they're providing farmer A with employment,
No they are not, they are just buying milk from him. If I sell something to you that's not the same the thing as working for you. Stop being an idiot.


And if labourers tried to labour without capital they'd only be capable of producing a fraction of the output. This would reflect in their wages.
Workers don't need the capitalist, and the capitalists can be entierly replaced with mutualist bank that would give intrest-free loans to worker cooperatives, whereas the workers cannot be replaces, and if no worker existed, capitalists would die of hunger.

[RGacky3]

As somebody who believes in freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to generate and retain my own wealth so that I don't have to rely on welfarist handouts, I often find my opinions being vilified or dismissed by many of those in the mainstream

Why has 'freedom' become a dirty word?

It hasn't.

Here is why I don't agree with libertarians.

1. They don't have an understanding of capitalism, how it works, its internal contradictions and its problems.

2. They're form of justice relies on a concept of merit from capitalism, which does'nt stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

3. They have a very naive understanding on how wealth is created and distributed in a capitalist system, or even how property works.

4. Most of them have a sociopathic outlook, and have a ideology that is elitist and disdainful.

5. They arn't ACTUALLY interested in freedom, they are interested in market authority, i.e. whoever has the money makes the rules, as opposed to democracy. Which explains why they would be ok with a Pulman style town, but not democratic oversight.
Amung others.