The faults of libertarianism? [Archive]

Ahura Mazda

4th January 2004, 01:32

The point of right-wing libertarianism is the realization that people will do whever they please, whether or not it is legal. Most legislation, everywhere, is an attempt to make those governing the lands be relieved of whatever guilt they have because they were smart enough, or in some cases lucky enough, to reach power. Often, also, they legislate morals, such as those ridiculous blue laws we have in the United States, enacted locally. Right-wing libertarians believe that such moral legislation is ridiculous to the extreme, as it only makes criminals for things that only hurt the doer (such as smoking pot, or having six wives/husbands who consent to the multiple marriages, or putting out for mula) and the enacting of said laws hurts everyone unneccessarily. It takes away the ability for one to provide for oneself and one's dependants.

I will add more later; tear this argument up if you wish, but us libertarian forum nomads will only rebuild it as a body does to excercised muscles, and it will be stronger.

redstar2000

4th January 2004, 04:16

I have, as it happens, read Ayn Rand and am loosely familiar with "libertarian" theory.

Its main problem turns around the concept of "free consent". It presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world.

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

Indeed, in the "Randian universe", one could literally sell oneself into slavery. It would be "consensual" and hence whatever minimal government existed would be prohibited from interfering.

In fact, you could even sell your kids into slavery--being minors, they have no "right of consent" and, again, the minimal government could not interfere. There might well be a law that the kids would have to be emancipated by their new owner when they reached the age of maturity...but it's fair to ask why the minimal government would bother to pass or enforce such a law?

It's common among libertarians--including Rand herself--to attribute the growth of "big government" to the "plots and schemes" of bourgeois liberals, socialists, and communists.

That quite ignores the historical and material causes of the rise of "big government".

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

Marx referred to the modern state as "the executive committee of the capitalist class"...and I think that's pretty accurate.

Of course, the one thing that this "executive committee" agrees upon is the need to keep the working class powerless and exploited. They have their disagreements as to the exact mix of stick and carrot to be applied--Sweden and Nazi Germany provide the "polar extremes" of capitalism from a worker's point of view. Sweden was lots of carrots and not too much stick; Nazi Germany was the opposite, of course.

But either way, that "big government" is not present because of "bad ideas" or "moral turpitude"...it's there because the capitalist class needs it.

And it will get bigger.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Y2A

4th January 2004, 04:21

The problem with libertarianism is the same problem with the communism. You allow corruption to become far to easy and monopolies are formed. You can't have this form of unregulated capitalism and expect people not to abuse the power given to them. Libertarianism is flawed. Deal with it.

A Pict

4th January 2004, 04:31

Err have you now redstar?

What are the only morally justifiable use of governemnt power ? Force and Fraud.

Then you make strawmen arguements against... market -anarchists, which she wasn't (and detested. well she detested most people, she was kind of a *****, hehe).

Selling your kids into slavery is force. Police would protect against this.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

This is a crushing arguement...against a market-anarchist, not a objectivist. The police would protect agains this as it is abuse of force.

The rest of the elaborations are also false, as false premises can only create false conclusions.

Try again, without strawmen.

Y2A--- A monopoly cannot exist without governent control. A business most compete against the possible of competition. Historically speaking, many individuals have tried to "corner the market' and ALL have been ruined by it, as it has a liquid nature.

How excatly could government corruption occur if they have almost no powers to corrupt?

Hoppe

4th January 2004, 12:34

All respect to the fellow libertarians here, but I sincerily hope you're not all following Rand. And Redstar, a lot of libertarians don't take her serious either, and objectivism is in my view just a religious group devouring to Rand.

What exactly is the point of right wing liberarianism? it's faults are too numerous to list.

Always easy to discredit something by calling it rightwing.

And btw, Redstar why would Hobbes not also apply to communism?

Misodoctakleidist

4th January 2004, 14:08

Here is a conversation i had with a libertarian capitailst;

ME;

Paul has just spent all his money on alchohol and had all him possesions repossesed but luckily inherits £3000. He dicides to build a car factory with this money, his factory employs 10 workers 9 of them build the cars from scratch with no machines (unrealistic i know but its just an example) and the 10th is a manager in charge of the day to day running of the factory. The raw materials needed to build the car cost £1000 and the finished product is worth, and sold for, £3000. Paul pays each of his workers £100 per car they produce and keeps £1000 for himself (he wouldn't be much of a business man if he didn't make a profit). The value of the car (£3000) minus the cost of raw materials (£1000) is £2000 so the value of the work put into the car is £2000, 10 people worked on the production of the car so (assuming they made equal contributions) each has contributed £200 yet each is only paid £100 while paul contributes £0 to each car and recieves £1000. How is it fair that the workers get half what they deserve and paul gets £1000 for doing nothing?

Capitalist;

Paul has not contributed nothing. He has contributed the capital that made the factory possible in the first place. As long as he received this inheritance fairly it is his to do with what he pleases. Paul seems like he has some personal problems however and will not be able to manage this factory too well. In a LF capitalist society there will be no government subsidy or "corporate welfare" as it is called, to bail him out, and he will suffer for his stupidity. He will lose the factory. He will only maintain this factory if he can manage it effectively. This means paying his employees a wage that they deem to be fair, otherwise they will go down the road to Joes car factory where they are offered a better deal. There is no gun pointed at the heads of these workers, this only happens in communism! Paul is entitled to whatever profits he can make from the productivity of his factory, it makes no difference whether this is 10 times or 100 times what his employees make.

Me;

But joe only needs 10 workers at his car factory and he alread has them and pays them £150 per car. Joe realises that the only other car factory is paying workers £100 and if joe want to compete with paul and make the same profit he has to cut costs so he reduces wages to £100 (after all in LF capitalism there are no rules governing this kind of practice). Joes' workers have no choice but to accept becuase if they strike joe will hire the 10 unemployed workers who are desperate for money. Paul realises that joe has taken some of his market share and decides that to regain it he need to sell his cars cheeper so he cuts wages to £50 per car bencause the workers only need £50 to survive and joe does the same. Now the workers live in poverty and can only just afford to eat but the ones with larger families have to share accomodation in order to buy food. Joe realises he can cut costs futher by getting rid of their air conditioning and paul follows suit to keep up with competition, now the workers develope asthema and start coughing up phlem by the time they reach 25 and their life expectancy drops to 50 years but what choice do they have?

The capitalist never responded to this, it's undeniable that unregulated capitalism would result in terrible conditions for the workers.

Pete

4th January 2004, 15:22

Redstar why would Hobbes not also apply to communism?

A brief simplification answer to this goes as such: Hobbes saw humanity as generally bad, any leftist sees humanity as generally good. Hobbes saw class as a good thing to keep in line humanity's nature, and leftists see class as the fundamental blaring thing that needs to be destroyed before human nature can be seen in its real colours.

Hoppe

4th January 2004, 16:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:22 PM
A brief simplification answer to this goes as such: Hobbes saw humanity as generally bad, any leftist sees humanity as generally good. Hobbes saw class as a good thing to keep in line humanity's nature, and leftists see class as the fundamental blaring thing that needs to be destroyed before human nature can be seen in its real colours.
A huge, huge gamble.

But joe only needs 10 workers at his car factory and he alread has them and pays them £150 per car. Joe realises that the only other car factory is paying workers £100 and if joe want to compete with paul and make the same profit he has to cut costs so he reduces wages to £100 (after all in LF capitalism there are no rules governing this kind of practice). Joes' workers have no choice but to accept becuase if they strike joe will hire the 10 unemployed workers who are desperate for money. Paul realises that joe has taken some of his market share and decides that to regain it he need to sell his cars cheeper so he cuts wages to £50 per car bencause the workers only need £50 to survive and joe does the same. Now the workers live in poverty and can only just afford to eat but the ones with larger families have to share accomodation in order to buy food. Joe realises he can cut costs futher by getting rid of their air conditioning and paul follows suit to keep up with competition, now the workers develope asthema and start coughing up phlem by the time they reach 25 and their life expectancy drops to 50 years but what choice do they have?

Whahaha. This is extremely realistic......what if we had only one company with a monopoly?

Since they have acquired some expertise in manufacturing cars they could easily start up a factory themselves. Furthermore, if there is a demand for cars other entrepreneurs will enter the market and then your example is evidently flawed. If there is no demand, people will work in other branches. So the point is, you can come up with nice examples, they prove nothing as you seem to miss basic points of how markets work.

redstar2000

4th January 2004, 16:21

I confess a bit of a dilemma as to how to respond to the posts by "A Pict" and Hoppe.

"A Pict" is a Randian and says my criticisms apply to "market anarchists" but not to Rand.

Hoppe seems to suggest that my criticisms apply to Rand but not to "most libertarians".

Both seem to agree that Rand was personally obnoxious...and that seems to be a general consensus. :lol:

It seems to be clear that the "right libertarian" part of the political spectrum have a "less government" bias with strict boundaries set to government functions and activities.

One of those functions, clearly, must be the "security of property" against any form of "un-consensual" alienation. "Thou shalt not steal" or take by force the property of another.

You may sell or trade your property...or even give it away, but no one is allowed to take it from you. If someone tries to do that, you may call upon the government to supply force in your defense...and/or you may hire specialists in the application of violence to defend your property.

At the base of the "right libertarian" approach is the idea that each individual "owns himself"...he may sell, lease, rent, or even give away any part of himself that he wishes, but no one may force him to labor for another or take from him the "fruits" of his labor.

Very well, under these circumstances, I don't understand why someone could not sell himself or herself into slavery.

It would be "consensual"--no violence or threat of violence would be involved. If you thought the price offered for you was "too low", you could freely refuse the transaction and the "buyer" would have to look elsewhere.

The contract could contain various terms agreed to by both buyer and seller. The new slave could insist on prior approval of any sale of himself to a third party, for example. A time limit could be set on his period of servitude...after which, ownership of himself would revert to himself.

Since we are speaking hypothetically here, I won't go into the reasons why someone would want to do that. But I can't see any principled objection that a consistent "right libertarian" could make. The fact that you would find such a "deal" distasteful does not mean that others could not freely "choose" this alternative. You are free, after all, not to buy slaves if the idea is repulsive to you.

Keep in mind, by the way, that a disobedient or rebellious slave would be in breach of contract and could be subject to fines or even imprisonment.

I can see that "right libertarians" would find it even more distasteful to witness the sale and purchase of children into bondage.

But legal traditions throughout all of recorded history have, in one fashion or another, treated parents as the rightful "decision-makers" for children until they reach whatever the legal age of adulthood is. (There are some modern exceptions--partial ones--to this doctrine, of course.)

Perhaps a "right libertarian" social order would not permit parents to sell their children into slavery...or perhaps it would insist that child-slaves be emancipated on their 18th birthday or 21st birthday or whatever.

But, if consistency were the only factor to be considered, it should permit such transactions. If the parents consent to the sale, that "counts" as consent "by" the kids...under traditional legal norms.

As to how "Hobbesian" capitalism in a "right libertarian" regime would be, I concede that I was speculating...based on actual historical events. The first Rockefeller was well known for blowing up his competitors' oil refineries if they refused to sell out to him, for example.

A large police apparatus and/or the maintenance of private security armies to protect industrial properties from sabotage or theft (or to engage in retaliatory attacks) would be features of a "right libertarian" society...to one extent or another.

Should the workers become unduly restive, private armies are also useful; consult the internet on the 1915 massacre in Ludlow, Colorado, for example.

A "right libertarian" regime could hardly intervene on the side of the workers...that would be "depriving" the owners of property of the "right" to do as they wished with their property.

It would be a tough life...unless you were pretty rich.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Intifada

4th January 2004, 16:21

Whahaha.

man, you have a fucked up laugh. :P

Misodoctakleidist

4th January 2004, 16:52

Since they have acquired some expertise in manufacturing cars they could easily start up a factory themselves.

They don't have the capital, the whole point of my example is that the owner doesn't contribute anything but takes the profit.

Furthermore, if there is a demand for cars other entrepreneurs will enter the market and then your example is evidently flawed.

And the other entrepeneurs will pay equally low wages, my point is that competition drives down wages.

If there is no demand, people will work in other branches.

which are equally poorly paid.

So the point is, you can come up with nice examples, they prove nothing as you seem to miss basic points of how markets work.

My example demonstates quite accurately how free market forces drive down wages and working conditions creating mass poverty and accumulateing massive wealth for a minority who do nothing. I know it's simplified, i could hardly descib an entire economy, but it serves it's purpose.

Hoppe

4th January 2004, 16:58

Hoppe seems to suggest that my criticisms apply to Rand but not to "most libertarians".

Oh no, I just meant that every time the word libertarian is used somehow people only seem to identify this with Rand.

They don't have the capital, the whole point of my example is that the owner doesn't contribute anything but takes the profit

Then it is still a crappy example. Who is stopping the workers from throwing all their savings together and start a company?

And the other entrepeneurs will pay equally low wages, my point is that competition drives down wages.

Oh yes, I am sorry. Nowadays we are much poorer than one century ago.

Well history proves your example clearly wrong. And if you still try to counter this, why aren't all wages on the minimum-wage level?

Germanator

4th January 2004, 17:35

Misodoctakleidist

4th January 2004, 17:35

this is an example of a free market, the reason wages are better now is because the workers demanded restrictions to the free market.

A Pict

4th January 2004, 17:39

Well history proves your example clearly wrong. And if you still try to counter this, why aren't all wages on the minimum-wage level?

Don't evade this

Ahura Mazda

4th January 2004, 17:40

That is the best argument I have seen yet in this thread, redstar, and it appears you are not saying anything against right-wing libertarianism. There are a few flaws in your logic. :redstar2000:

Both seem to agree that Rand was personally obnoxious...and that seems to be a general consensus. :lol:
No flaw there, she was, really. Just had to point it out like everyone else.

But legal traditions throughout all of recorded history have, in one fashion or another, treated parents as the rightful "decision-makers" for children until they reach whatever the legal age of adulthood is. (There are some modern exceptions--partial ones--to this doctrine, of course.)

The children would have no say in it. There is a big difference between sending a kid to school and selling a kid into slavery. You do not own your children.

The first Rockefeller was well known for blowing up his competitors' oil refineries if they refused to sell out to him, for example.

What, you think that would be legal?

A large police apparatus and/or the maintenance of private security armies to protect industrial properties from sabotage or theft
This is not about anarcho-capitalism.

that would be "depriving" the owners of property of the "right" to do as they wished with their property.

Are you saying that the bosses own the workers?

Hoppe

4th January 2004, 18:11

Libertarianism's fault is that it is deliberately repressive. There's no public education, no health care, and no unemployment. That's all fine and dandy, but ultimately who deals with the consequences? Children. Children born into lower class families would have no opportunity to be educated, would be denied medical aid, and their parents would have no way of subsidizing their income or attain income should they lose their job. It's not the kids' fault their parents are poor, yet the libertarian philosophy deems it necessary to punish them for it. It's immoral and barbarous, and there is no excuse for it.

My god......you're so right. You have shown me the light.

Why can an ideology be repressive if it is founded on the non-agression paradigm?

Luckily there is no umemployment :D

this is an example of a free market, the reason wages are better now is because the workers demanded restrictions to the free market.

Bs. Try refute my question. (there is btw nothing not-libertarian about workers cooperation through a union, the first unions were actually perfect examples of free-market principles)

Misodoctakleidist

4th January 2004, 18:16

Bs. Try refute my question. (there is btw nothing not-libertarian about workers cooperation through a union, the first unions were actually perfect examples of free-market principles)

Libertarianism would have to prevent unions because if it didn't the unions would destroy it, the would demand minimum wage and regulations on working conditions and minimum safesty standards and such.

Bolshevika

4th January 2004, 18:19

Libertarianism is barbaric. I only wish I could see the United States go Libertarian, massive unemployment and low wages tend to make the working class extremely revolutionary, the slightest agitation will set them off. If I'm lucky I'll see Hoppe, who will probably be a rich property owner, hung from a tree with his 300 dollar tie.

Please tell me Hoppe, how there is no unemployment under libertarianism? It seems to scream unemployment, no union rights, no minimum wage and all the other things fascist dictators instate as the law. Without some of these things, even if there is employment, you might as well get a cup and beg on the street because even that would probably get you more cash than working.

The upper class will always need someone to exploit.

If it wasn't for all the regulations (like inspection of consumer products like food, minimum wage, union rights) then the United States would've had a Bolshevik style revolt and Henry Ford, Rockefellar, and all the other rich aristocrats would've been killed on site.

Everyone I speak to always tells me the reason they "love" America, not because of the big capitalism, but because of the extensive social programs.

A Pict

4th January 2004, 19:04

. If I'm lucky I'll see Hoppe, who will probably be a rich property owner, hung from a tree with his 300 dollar tie

Ah. I see. You support lynching of minorities (as the rich are a minority, as you keep on mentioning).

It seems to scream unemployment, no union rights, no minimum wage and all the other things fascist dictators instate as the law

Even though this is a Guilt by Association, it is even more humourous, as it is an incorrectly done Guilt by Association! (I'm sorry, but when you use logical fallacies that even highlight the pit falls of your own beliefs, it is too much).

Fascists believe in state control of privately owned commondoties. You know what this means in practice? REGULATION! hahahahah!

Everyone I speak to always tells me the reason they "love" America, not because of the big capitalism, but because of the extensive social programs

Really? Eveyone i speak to who loves america seems to say because of freedom. In fact, I never heard any say " O yeah, the welfare here is just splendid."

Hoppe

4th January 2004, 20:21

Libertarianism would have to prevent unions because if it didn't the unions would destroy it, the would demand minimum wage and regulations on working conditions and minimum safesty standards and such.

No no no, you again seem to miss my point again. How can I prevent workers from voluntary starting unions? From the company's point of view it is also much more efficient to discuss with some representatives on certain issues than seperately with all workers. The only thing I am against is the government granting all kinds of priviliges to unions.

But I am still interested why present wages are not on the minimum-wage levels.

Libertarianism is barbaric. I only wish I could see the United States go Libertarian, massive unemployment and low wages tend to make the working class extremely revolutionary, the slightest agitation will set them off. If I'm lucky I'll see Hoppe, who will probably be a rich property owner, hung from a tree with his 300 dollar tie

Why should I even considering disputing with you?

Please tell me Hoppe, how there is no unemployment under libertarianism? It seems to scream unemployment, no union rights, no minimum wage and all the other things fascist dictators instate as the law

That wasn't my quote, but from misodoctakleidist.

Ahura Mazda

4th January 2004, 20:56

If I'm lucky I'll see Hoppe, who will probably be a rich property owner, hung from a tree with his 300 dollar tie

You should take that as a compliment, Hoppe. He said you'd end up as a rich business owner :)

Why would the government be banning unions? There is nothing wroing with unions; there is a thing called free association. And if a lot of people are in unions, they will have sway over the business owners, who will be left in the dust if they don't hire unionites. You see, when you follow the Austrian school, you to make sense.

Misodoctakleidist

4th January 2004, 21:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:21 PM

Please tell me Hoppe, how there is no unemployment under libertarianism? It seems to scream unemployment, no union rights, no minimum wage and all the other things fascist dictators instate as the law

That wasn't my quote, but from misodoctakleidist.
i never said that. Unemployment is the factor which would cause the downfall of any libertarian state.

redstar2000

5th January 2004, 04:30

Here is a curiosity.

Neither "A Pict" nor Hoppe have disputed my contention that the right to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery is not inconsistent with the "right libertarian" world-outlook.

Am I indeed the first to raise this point?

Don't you guys have an answer for this?

Ahura Mazda says...

There is a big difference between sending a kid to school and selling a kid into slavery. You do not own your children.

So, at least in his view, you could not sell your children into slavery because you do not "own" them.

Very well, if they "own themselves", then would they not have the right to "sell themselves" into slavery just like adults?

Perhaps not; rules are different for children. They may technically "own themselves" but may not be allowed to "dispose of themselves".

But it must be noted that this is a marked inconsistency in the general outlook of "right libertarians".

Are you saying that the bosses own the workers?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that under the "right-libertarian" regime, workers would have the right to form a trade-union (it would be more like a guild, actually) and negotiate a collective contract with a capitalist. But should such a union attempt to strike, the capitalist would be perfectly free to fire all the members of the union and hire scabs...and any attempt by the union to stop scabs from working would be legally considered as "interference with the right of capitalists to use their own property as they see fit". Law enforcement--to the extent it exists--would intervene on the side of the capitalist (and on the side of the scabs).

Of course, if a capitalist freely decided to sign a contract with a labor union and then violated the terms of the contract, the union could sue under "breach of contract" laws. Capitalists would have little incentive to deal with unions as a result...and probably would simply fire summarily any worker who even showed interest in a union.

That was the general practice in the United States from 1830 to 1937.

I think it would make more economic sense for capitalists to "pick and choose" among the youngest, healthiest, and most desperate workers and buy them as slaves...perhaps for ten or twenty-year terms.

Of course, there are a lot of variables in this scenario. The purchase price could be invested by the new slave...so that when his contract expired, he would have the money to live in free retirement (there's no "social security" in the "right libertarian" era). Or, the purchase price could be paid directly to the slave in weekly or monthly installments...and the master could then charge the slave for his "room and board".

When you really start thinking like a "right libertarian", the implications are...staggering.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Sakana

5th January 2004, 05:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:26 PM
i never said that. Unemployment is the factor which would cause the downfall of any libertarian state.
How so? Unemployment is essential for a libertarian state to run. Without it, businesses will be forced to continue upping wages to meet its employee's demands, due to the lack of other people to fill spots left by fired workers. Furthermore, there is no motivation to work hard if there is no threat of being fired. However, unemployment is essentialy created by industries as they work to cut overhead; one of the methods for doing this is to lower the amount of people that they are paying. Now, if this brings about the downfall of the libertarian state, then so be it, but it is an unavoidable consequence of having a libertarian state in the first place.

Sakana

5th January 2004, 05:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:30 AM
Neither "A Pict" nor Hoppe have disputed my contention that the right to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery is not inconsistent with the "right libertarian" world-outlook.

Am I indeed the first to raise this point?

Don't you guys have an answer for this?
Indeed, you have raised the point. However, no one contests it because it is a perfectly valid point. Nothing wrong with selling yourself into slavery as long as it doesn't injure a 3rd party...it is your life, btw.

Ahura Mazda says...

There is a big difference between sending a kid to school and selling a kid into slavery. You do not own your children.

So, at least in his view, you could not sell your children into slavery because you do not "own" them.

Very well, if they "own themselves", then would they not have the right to "sell themselves" into slavery just like adults?

Perhaps not; rules are different for children. They may technically "own themselves" but may not be allowed to "dispose of themselves".

But it must be noted that this is a marked inconsistency in the general outlook of "right libertarians".
Children are a hard issue. They should not be allowed to give consent, but to who the ability to give consent for them is to be given to is not immediately clear. Parents may not be the best choice, for reasons above; giving the gov't at least partial control may ruffle a few feathers as well (not mine, tho).

Are you saying that the bosses own the workers?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that under the "right-libertarian" regime, workers would have the right to form a trade-union (it would be more like a guild, actually) and negotiate a collective contract with a capitalist. But should such a union attempt to strike, the capitalist would be perfectly free to fire all the members of the union and hire scabs...and any attempt by the union to stop scabs from working would be legally considered as "interference with the right of capitalists to use their own property as they see fit". Law enforcement--to the extent it exists--would intervene on the side of the capitalist (and on the side of the scabs).

Of course, if a capitalist freely decided to sign a contract with a labor union and then violated the terms of the contract, the union could sue under "breach of contract" laws. Capitalists would have little incentive to deal with unions as a result...and probably would simply fire summarily any worker who even showed interest in a union.
This is one 'defect' in hardcore libertarianism that I don't like. Low-skill jobs become utterly horrible to work in (the so-called 'Gilded Age' in american history is an adequite example of this). Perhaps the toters of aforementioned ideology could enlighten us. They must have thought it out at some point in time.

I think it would make more economic sense for capitalists to "pick and choose" among the youngest, healthiest, and most desperate workers and buy them as slaves...perhaps for ten or twenty-year terms.

Of course, there are a lot of variables in this scenario. The purchase price could be invested by the new slave...so that when his contract expired, he would have the money to live in free retirement (there's no "social security" in the "right libertarian" era). Or, the purchase price could be paid directly to the slave in weekly or monthly installments...and the master could then charge the slave for his "room and board".
If an individual decides (s)he has found a 'contract' (or whatever) that (s)he is content with (meaning that the "room and board" issue would have been decided upon beforehand), then it's perfectly fine with me if they choose to sell themselves into slavery.

Hoppe

5th January 2004, 09:09

Neither "A Pict" nor Hoppe have disputed my contention that the right to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery is not inconsistent with the "right libertarian" world-outlook.

Am I indeed the first to raise this point?

Don't you guys have an answer for this?

The individual has self-ownership, hence he can sell himself as a slave, though I don't see why you would do it. Technically it wouldn't be slavery since the individual voluntarily sold himself. I don't see any socialist disagreeing with this selfownership.

I lalso agree with the problem with children. There are a lot of views and some have very appaling ones.

redstar2000

5th January 2004, 14:46

The individual has self-ownership, hence he can sell himself as a slave, though I don't see why you would do it.

Well, there might be many practical reasons to take that drastic step.

There's a guy in England who has a daughter suffering from some horrible wasting disease; he's selling one of his kidneys to some rich American to raise the money for the very expensive treatments that his daughter requires (apparently they are not covered by National Health).

There would be no "National Health Service" in the "right libertarian" era, so that's one reason someone might do it.

Technically it wouldn't be slavery since the individual voluntarily sold himself.

Well, I think this is a quibble. Once the "papers are signed" and payment takes place, the new slave must do his master's bidding...no matter what. Otherwise, he's in "breach of contract" and could be fined or even imprisoned, ordered to refund the purchase price (with interest), etc. He could even be flogged...unless he was careful to have a clause inserted in the contract prohibiting that particular form of servile discipline.

As I understand "right libertarian" thought, force is justified to enforce the sanctity of contract.

As I noted earlier, it's possible to construct a lot of different kinds of scenarios for the restoration of slavery under "right libertarian" ideology...after some experimentation, "customary terms" would be gradually established that might be more or less humane as chance would dictate.

Fortunately, the capitalist class itself will never accept "right libertarianism"...for good and sound material reasons. (For one thing it would create or at least threaten to create a "nightmare" of Hobbesian competition between capitalists...and they sure don't want that!)

But it is ironic (and amusing) that those who would provide for the possibility and likely the inevitability of the restoration of slavery would actually call themselves "libertarians".

Another one of history's little jokes, I guess. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Hoppe

5th January 2004, 15:08

There's a guy in England who has a daughter suffering from some horrible wasting disease; he's selling one of his kidneys to some rich American to raise the money for the very expensive treatments that his daughter requires (apparently they are not covered by National Health).

I don't see any problems here. A person can perfectly live with one kidney. Would it be different if he just gave it away?

I expect though you agree on the self-ownership, or else the community has to cast a majority vote on which individual is going to lose his spare kidney.

As I understand "right libertarian" thought, force is justified to enforce the sanctity of contract.

True, but who I am to deny any individual voluntarily entering such a contract?

Honestly Redstar, I am interested how we are going to reinstate slavery. Enlighten me pls.

Fortunately, the capitalist class itself will never accept "right libertarianism"...for good and sound material reasons. (For one thing it would create or at least threaten to create a "nightmare" of Hobbesian competition between capitalists...and they sure don't want that!)

Oh yes, and Hobbes is nowhere to be seen in the communist society......... <_<

Anyhow, what is the big deal with Hobbes, could you even consider that maybe he's wrong?

You should take that as a compliment, Hoppe. He said you'd end up as a rich business owner

Yes, but he won't be allowed to work at my company. My drones might get some crazy ideas about exploitation. Maybe my dogs, Adolf and Benito , can chase him because they need exercise. :)

But I am still interested why present wages are not on the minimum-wage levels.

Will someone give me an answer..

Pete

5th January 2004, 15:22

But I am still interested why present wages are not on the minimum-wage levels.

Unions for the most part. In some fields it costs so much to get qualified to work that all those qualified demand a higher pay than the 7 bucks an hour they must get atleast, reason number two. And of course their could be 'bevenolent management' somewhere who is seeking a large pool of candidates to pick from, so they up the pay, reason number three. Some people set their own wages as well (such as MP's) or like to give their friends a pat on the back (such as MP's aides), for reason number 4.

Hoppe

5th January 2004, 16:00

In some fields it costs so much to get qualified to work that all those qualified demand a higher pay than the 7 bucks an hour they must get atleast,

Oh no, crazypete, you're on the slippery slope of pro free-market arguments.

And of course their could be 'bevenolent management' somewhere who is seeking a large pool of candidates to pick from, so they up the pay,

Oh no, crazypete, you're on the slippery slope of pro free-market arguments.

reason number three. Some people set their own wages as well (such as MP's) or like to give their friends a pat on the back (such as MP's aides),

Hmm, this has nothing to do with it. The only people who can do this are the owners of the company. Most of them are honest.

But somehow I don't see how miraculously the minimum-wage made this possible. pls elaborate a bit more.

Lardlad95

5th January 2004, 16:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:00 PM

In some fields it costs so much to get qualified to work that all those qualified demand a higher pay than the 7 bucks an hour they must get atleast,

Oh no, crazypete, you're on the slippery slope of pro free-market arguments.

However that doesn't give the "qualified" person the right to be paid disperportionally

419 times the average worker's pay is ridiculous especailly since it was only 20 times it 28 years ago.

I don't care how many times you went to buisness school, you don't need 600 dollar curtains....the 200 dollar ones are just as good :D

Hoppe

5th January 2004, 17:03

What is disproportionally? Could you pls give me a formula how we can derive a proportional income.

Nevertheless, here in Holland we have seen exceptionally nice free-market solutions for overpaid ceo's, namely consumer boycots.

redstar2000

5th January 2004, 17:37

Honestly Redstar, I am interested how we are going to reinstate slavery.

You're not, of course. I already explained your practical difficulty--real capitalists will flatly refuse to take the risks that your ideology threatens.

My point is rather an intellectual one: that were your system to come into existence, the restoration of slavery would logically follow from your concept of each human "owning himself" as a form of property that can be alienated--leased, rented, or sold.

Consider the practical example from my previous post. You might want to sell a one of your "spare" organs (kidney, lung, testicle...) but unfortunately there are no buyers currently in the market for your tissue-type. Thus you must contemplate the grim alternatives--selling yourself into slavery or watching your daughter die.

Each capitalist would also be choosing the "best option"--hire wage labor or purchase slaves. If wages were very low, there might be only a few slaves; if wages started to rise, then purchasing slaves might be the better choice.

But unless government "stepped in" and said flat out "you cannot sell yourself into slavery"--and thus violated your ideological premise of self-ownership--then slavery would exist.

Q.E.D.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Misodoctakleidist

5th January 2004, 17:47

The reason all jobs aren't minimum wage is because of unions, in a libertarian society the unions would be powerless.

An interesting thing about libertariansism is that when asked how inheritance could be justified as fair, they say it's the right of the person who "worked so hard" to do what they want with their property, when you mention that the property was origionaly stolen at some point in history they see this as irrelivant. This would suggest that if someone captures some slaves then society becomes libertarian it is perfevtly fine for this person to pass on their 'property'.

Hoppe

5th January 2004, 19:01

I already explained your practical difficulty--real capitalists will flatly refuse to take the risks that your ideology threatens.

Yes, true. There are demons amongst us who keep brainwashing us to hail government omnipotence.

It is true that you have lot have a much easier task with a bloody revolution, at least some of you, whereas I have to be part of the ruling class to get something changed. Or for that part what untill the status-quo collapses.

Consider the practical example from my previous post. You might want to sell a one of your "spare" organs (kidney, lung, testicle...) but unfortunately there are no buyers currently in the market for your tissue-type. Thus you must contemplate the grim alternatives--selling yourself into slavery or watching your daughter die.

Each capitalist would also be choosing the "best option"--hire wage labor or purchase slaves. If wages were very low, there might be only a few slaves; if wages started to rise, then purchasing slaves might be the better choice.

But unless government "stepped in" and said flat out "you cannot sell yourself into slavery"--and thus violated your ideological premise of self-ownership--then slavery would exist.

I am not afraid of an intellectual battle. But again I am always surprised at the examples. Yet I suspect that your premise is that workers are exploited this means that thus they are enslaved. So it will be just a change of view.

But, what's your view on the self-ownership issue? I know there are some socialist intellectuals who have seen the light and embraced it.

in a libertarian society the unions would be powerless.

No. not really.

An interesting thing about libertariansism is that when asked how inheritance could be justified as fair, they say it's the right of the person who "worked so hard" to do what they want with their property, when you mention that the property was origionaly stolen at some point in history they see this as irrelivant. This would suggest that if someone captures some slaves then society becomes libertarian it is perfevtly fine for this person to pass on their 'property'

Inheritance is indeed fair for the reason you have given. Nevertheless if wealth is obtained by using slaves (not in the aforementioned sense, but actual slaves) then the victims should be paid damages.

Lardlad95

6th January 2004, 01:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:03 PM
What is disproportionally? Could you pls give me a formula how we can derive a proportional income.

Nevertheless, here in Holland we have seen exceptionally nice free-market solutions for overpaid ceo's, namely consumer boycots.
By disproportionally I meant in relation to the rise of worker pay. Going from 20 times to 419 times is an increase of around 2000%..where as worker pay hasn't increased nearly as much

dancingoutlaw

6th January 2004, 02:25

The reason all jobs aren't minimum wage is because of unions, in a libertarian society the unions would be powerless

Misodoctakleidist, I have worked both union and non- union. Under non- union I get paid more, I answer to noone but myself, in essence I am my own shop steward.

Have you ever worked a minimum wage job? I have. I remained at minimum wage for a total of three weeks in one instance and one month in another before getting a raise. Along with the minimum wage I had health benefits. This was all non-union by the way. From day one I had benefits.

In another industry under a union contract I had to meet certain criteria before I was even enrolled in the plan... some 6 months later. After 3 years of working steadily under the same union local I was not allowed to become a card carrying member. In the same industry under a non- union situation I get paid twice as much and provide for my own health care. I no longer chase the benefits and am much happier.

An interesting thing about libertariansism is that when asked how inheritance could be justified as fair, they say it's the right of the person who "worked so hard" to do what they want with their property, when you mention that the property was origionaly stolen at some point in history they see this as irrelivant. This would suggest that if someone captures some slaves then society becomes libertarian it is perfevtly fine for this person to pass on their 'property'.

My family arrived in the U.S. a little befor the revolutionary war. They fought on both sides of the civil war. They were really a bunch of backwater hicks who were nothing but dirt farmers for nine generations until my grandmother, the middle of thirteen children, scrapped up enough cash to open a country store in the 40's from insurance money from their house burning down. She made her money from selling to blacks in the south when it was not okay for a woman to own a business and sell to "the other color." She worked hard and she squeezed every penny so that her son, my dad, who was the first in my family to go to college, could have more than she. My family has worked it's way after 300 years in this country to middle class. Did we steal property? No. It was bought outright. Have we profited off of our own labor? Yes. This is why inheritance is important. It is only the uber rich inheritance that people are worried about. Not the ones like my family that have toiled to give their children's children a better life. This is the everyday inheritence. Not the one you see along with a green lit sex tape on TV.

Peace

redstar2000

6th January 2004, 04:31

I am not afraid of an intellectual battle. But again I am always surprised at the examples. Yet I suspect that your premise is that workers are exploited this means that thus they are enslaved. So it will be just a change of view.

No, this leaves completely aside the matter of workers being employed by capitalists as they are now. Whether this is "wage-slavery" or simply a "free & unforced contract" is irrelevant.

I showed that logically the concept of "self-ownership" leads to the restoration of slavery. It wouldn't be a matter of "capturing slaves" or anything like that; it would be someone disposing of their property (themselves) in a voluntary act with no coercion of any kind except perceived economic advantage.

Under "right libertarianism", slavery would exist.

But, what's your view on the self-ownership issue?

I think it's metaphysical nonsense, of course. There are three collections of my posts on my site under the title People Are Not Property. They cannot be "owned"...by themselves or anyone else.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Sakana

6th January 2004, 06:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 05:31 AM
Under "right libertarianism", slavery would exist.
A form of slavery would exist. The soon to be slave would be able to make sure his contract was sutible to his terms. I really can't see what kind of problem you have with this. As long as the person may review the terms of his servitude and is not coherced into them, then so be it.

dancingoutlaw

6th January 2004, 06:17

Redstar2000, any libertariam would condemn slavery as an abomination. Slavery is as old as time but western civ has abandoned it. A war was fought on it's behalf. You are talking of indentured servitude which has also been abandonded by western civ. I understand that you (and I hope not to put words in your mouth) are making a correllation between indentured servitude and wage slavery and that in a libertarian world one would replace the other. I am a libertarian that would tell you that the true ideal of libertarianism will never exsist.

The Libertarian party( who I vote for ) exsists soley as a provocation to the other two parties. Do I think the libertarian ideal will become the mainstream for the U.S. government? As much as I believe marxism will take hold. I vote what I believe in and I argue for the same. I do not however have any misconceptions about how the world works and what people are willing as whole will beieve in.

peace

A Pict

6th January 2004, 09:44

Frankly, I don't see why there would be a demand for slave labor, as it is rather shitty...

kylie

6th January 2004, 11:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:47 PM
The reason all jobs aren't minimum wage is because of unions, in a libertarian society the unions would be powerless.

An interesting thing about libertariansism is that when asked how inheritance could be justified as fair, they say it's the right of the person who "worked so hard" to do what they want with their property, when you mention that the property was origionaly stolen at some point in history they see this as irrelivant. This would suggest that if someone captures some slaves then society becomes libertarian it is perfevtly fine for this person to pass on their 'property'.
The power of the unions is now is minimal. As such they have very little effect, and recieve hardly any media coverage. 20 years ago the annual union conferance in the UK would have made the headlines, now it is not even mentioned. This being due to how I think the number unionised is at around 30 percent.
The reason why they are payed more than the minimum wage is due to the supply and demand way that the labour market operates. If an occupation has only a small amount of workers suitable for it, then they will be able to attain a higher wage, due to their scarcity. Hence low-skill jobs pay less, as the supply of workers is high.

redstar2000

6th January 2004, 13:17

A form of slavery would exist...so be it.

That concedes the point I was making. The details would be a product of complex historical factors, as I suggested earlier.

You are talking of indentured servitude which has also been abandoned by western civ.

Well, there certainly are some obvious parallels...limitation of term being the most obvious.

But, as I understand it, indentured servitude was primarily a form of apprenticeship for the young--the young guy agreed to "serve his master" for a fixed period of time (7 years?) in return for room, board, and training in the master's area of expertise. (Actually, the young guy "agreed" to no such thing...parents made these arrangements for their sons.)

I also recall that poor young women agreed to indentured servitude as a means of immigrating to the English colonies in North America...though what they did after their 7 years was up, I have no idea. Married, I guess...there being a great shortage of women in the colonies.

I suppose one "dividing line" might be that of sale to a third party. An "indentured servant" cannot be "sold"--s/he is not property. A slave can be sold--though in "right libertarianism", the prospective slave could attempt to negotiate a clause in his contract of sale to the effect that he has the right to approve/veto his sale to any particular new master.

Professional athletes at the highest level have that clause in present-day contracts.

Whether an "ordinary slave" would be able to successfully negotiate that is questionable.

I am a libertarian that would tell you that the true ideal of libertarianism will never exist.

Yes, I said as much myself. There are too many and too wealthy "vested interests" in the existing kleptocracy-oligopoly to make the kinds of risks you would want to take acceptable.

Frankly, I don't see why there would be a demand for slave labor, as it is rather shitty...

There might not be, as such. Slaves might be seen as "status goods" by the rich rather than instruments of labor. Thus a libertarian version of "Bill Gates" might seek to purchase a dozen very attractive dancing girls rather than an ancient manuscript or a famous painting.

But don't let those "old plantations" fool you; there were indeed many "industrial slaves" in the old South (their "wages" were paid to their masters)...and presumably they were sufficiently productive as to justify the practice.

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

I am gratified that "right libertarians" seem willing to admit that their ideology--if it could ever be implemented--would indeed result in the restoration of slavery.

But why do you then call yourselves "libertarian"?

And, just out of curiosity, do you guys read a lot from the works of John C. Calhoun? If not, I think you'd like him.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Sakana

7th January 2004, 05:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:17 PM
I am gratified that "right libertarians" seem willing to admit that their ideology--if it could ever be implemented--would indeed result in the restoration of slavery.

But why do you then call yourselves "libertarian"?
Indeed. But the phrase "restoration of slavery" is misleading. As has been mentioned, it is closer to indentured servitude in that it is enacted via a contract. Thus it would be fully negotiably for the soon-to-be slave. I don't understand why this is not libertarian, because it is allowing individuals to do something that suits their needs/desires without external interference.

Personaly, I guess I have a few leftist leanings (well, maybe more than a few), but I like to argue both sides. So this isn't keeping me from calling myself a libertarian.

Hoppe

7th January 2004, 09:10

I think it's metaphysical nonsense, of course. There are three collections of my posts on my site under the title People Are Not Property. They cannot be "owned"...by themselves or anyone else.

I couldn't find them on your site, except for one which seems to deal with only children. Children are always cause of much dispute. In which archive can I find them?

Of course if you wish calling voluntarily entering a contract slavery, I don't mind. I will get back to you on this. I have somewhere an interesting article of the marxist thinker Cohen to whom this concept was very appealing. Furthermore I seem to remember that not applying this rule would lead to serious troubles in your doctrine.

pedro san pedro

7th January 2004, 09:35

i'm a little surprised that noone has mentioned sweatshops thus far....

they tend to back up redstars ideas, abiet not to the extent that he imagines (yet?)

they also feel like a fairly reasonable means of answering hoppe's question re: rising wages.
wages have risen in the west as we have learnt to exploit the labour of the third world.

Hoppe

7th January 2004, 13:40

Pls stop with this nonsense. I finally hoped we could have a discussion without it being crippled by the neverending litany on sweatshops and exploitation of third-world countries. :angry:

redstar2000

7th January 2004, 16:54

I couldn't find them on your site...

Sorry...one of these days I've got to make up a complete index so I can post specific links. ;)

Here they are...

People Are Not Property Part 1 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1054140620&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

People Are Not Property Part 2 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1055654443&archive=1057041165&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

People Are Not Property Part 3 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1065354786&archive=1067850372&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Hoppe

7th January 2004, 20:51

I have to read it a bit more carefully but on the first hand I am a bit disappointed. I expected some theoretical refutation of the premise that an individual does not own himself, however most of the posts are on abortion and consentual sex with 8year olds.

redstar2000

8th January 2004, 03:17

I am a bit disappointed. I expected some theoretical refutation of the premise that an individual does not own himself...

Well, perhaps I thought the notion too elementary to even mention. When I say that "people are not property", I mean that the idea of property is not a meaningful designation when applied to people.

To say that "you own yourself" is just as false as to say "you own someone else"...people can't be owned--they are not "property".

This is a very difficult concept to get across to people in class society...where the idea of "owning people" is (at least implicitly) still quite common and "acceptable". The ownership of people goes back as far as recorded history does...and is deeply rooted in many of the "common sense" assumptions that we "take for granted".

When couples with children divorce, the "fight over the kids" has the character of a "dispute over property".

When some guy says "I won't let my wife do that"...that is an implied assertion of the right to dispose of one's property as one sees fit.

And so on.

As noted, even limiting it to the individual--"every person owns himself/herself"--leads inevitably to the restoration of slavery if the logic of the proposition is followed through consistently.

The application of the qualities of property to human beings--like "ownership"--inevitably leads to tyranny, slavery, and injustice.

No matter how you try to do it, you land in the shit. People are not property, period!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas