The principles of Libertarian Capitalism

[Howard Roark]

From John Locke's 'Two Treatises of Government':


"To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."


"From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others."


"Thus we are born free as we are born rational;"


"As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."


"The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting."




John Locke and Adam Smith are two of the greatest figures of western intellectual tradition. No doubt about it. The works of Karl Marx ultimately belong in the trash can of history.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Howard [email protected] 10 2004, 05:55 PM
"Thus we are born free as we are born rational;"

Really? Then why the establishment tries to brainwash us? Then it becomes clear that you don't care of people's free minds, but you clearly want to enslave them.

[SDSJap]

youre not forced to watch or listen to anything, you can only be brainwashed if you original convictions are so weak that you willingly(although subcontiously) accept new ones, if you dont want your convictions challenged(and want to remain an uniformed pimple of society) change the channel or lsiten to some music

[Pete]

The problem with that arguement, SDSJap, is that we are bombarded by these 'brainwashing forces' every day regardless of what we do. Ever walk down town in a city? Or into a mall to get groceries or new socks? Or drive to see family a few cities over? You can't hide from it. We have the illusion of choice, but the reality is that it is near impossible to block out all of the incoming 'propaganda' as there is so much of it, and the only real choice is between which you look at. So what will it be? Nike, Reebok, or Adidas?

[monkeydust]

Well copied there, now lets actually simplify what this guy's said into something less misleading.


"To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

'People are all free to make others less free by abusing any basic human rights. It doesn't matter if they don't like it as long as it doesn't conflict with nature.'

What a load of poo. How can we all be free if others allowed to make us less so, this seems like a classic 19th century political idea.

"From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others."

'Man is able to accumulate massive wealth or property by any means so its Ok. What you get is fairly yours even if you get it through unfair means.'

I can kill someone so is that Ok as well? This guy is really good at making something dumb sound fairly clever. That paragraph has no real substance.

"Thus we are born free as we are born rational;"

'We're born free'

Sure, but you just explained how it's OK to violate the freedom of others to pursue your own personal freedom. If anyone could do anything then how could everyone be free.



"As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."


'Tyranny is bad, it merely is a means to benefit those with the capability to enforce it, not those, the majority who it affects.'

I agree, but how does this make communism so bad, isn't Marx opposed to tyranny as well.?



"The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting."

'I only like government to preserve my stuff'

Great.......for you maybe.


'John Locke and Adam Smith are two of the greatest figures of western intellectual tradition. No doubt about it. The works of Karl Marx ultimately belong in the trash can of history'


'I don't actually understand all these quotes and fail to realise how shoddy they are. However, this guy can use some big words so he must be right. If he says Marx is trash then I believe him because I don't feel like formulating my own objective opinion on the matter. I am a hardcore laissez faire capitalist because it's so fair....on me.'



I disagree.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:40 PM
youre not forced to watch or listen to anything, you can only be brainwashed if you original convictions are so weak that you willingly(although subcontiously) accept new ones, if you dont want your convictions challenged(and want to remain an uniformed pimple of society) change the channel or lsiten to some music
No. You start ebing brainwashed when you havent completely developed your brain, that means when you are a little kid that doesnt know what the hell many things mean. So, then you are weak and your brain absorbs anything. Later, when you are older, you start juding the world on a different way. How many times does a kid with less than 13 years old judge if what they are been told by their parents and teachers and the tv is correct? That's called indoctrination. When most people grow up they do not think about that, they just follow the principles they learnt. A minority, people like me, does judge things. But most people only want a "normal life".

[Howard Roark]

"To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

'People are all free to make others less free by abusing any basic human rights. It doesn't matter if they don't like it as long as it doesn't conflict with nature.'

What a load of poo. How can we all be free if others allowed to make us less so, this seems like a classic 19th century political idea.

No, it is saying that people can do as they please with "their possessions and persons" without others having a right to interfere. It doesn't say anything about doing anything to other people.




"From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others."

'Man is able to accumulate massive wealth or property by any means so its Ok. What you get is fairly yours even if you get it through unfair means.'

I can kill someone so is that Ok as well? This guy is really good at making something dumb sound fairly clever. That paragraph has no real substance.

No, it is: "What you get is fairly yours" as long as "you get it through" fair "means."

Killing is obviously not ok because it would a violation of anothers right to their own person as defined in the first quote.




"Thus we are born free as we are born rational;"

'We're born free'

Sure, but you just explained how it's OK to violate the freedom of others to pursue your own personal freedom. If anyone could do anything then how could everyone be free.

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills and biased mind told you that. Locke is very definitely not saying that anyone can do "anything" to anyone else. He is only saying that everyone has a right to "dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." Your inability to understand that simple phrase does not, in any way, reflect on Locke's ideas.




"As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."


'Tyranny is bad, it merely is a means to benefit those with the capability to enforce it, not those, the majority who it affects.'

I agree, but how does this make communism so bad, isn't Marx opposed to tyranny as well.?

Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea...




"The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting."

'I only like government to preserve my stuff'

Great.......for you maybe.

It is great. It is one of the few legitimate roles of a proper government.




John Locke and Adam Smith are two of the greatest figures of western intellectual tradition. No doubt about it. The works of Karl Marx ultimately belong in the trash can of history'


'I don't actually understand all these quotes and fail to realise how shoddy they are. However, this guy can use some big words so he must be right. If he says Marx is trash then I believe him because I don't feel like formulating my own objective opinion on the matter. I am a hardcore laissez faire capitalist because it's so fair....on me.'

Considering the fact that both John Locke and Adam Smith died long before Marx was even born (more than 200 years in Locke's case) neither one of them could possibly have said that "Marx is trash".

[Bradyman]

Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea...


I get really fed up with the fact that all the people with opposing views do not realize that these countries are not communist or even marxist. They might have a few things similiar, but are not even close to Marx's complete ideals.


Considering the fact that both John Locke and Adam Smith died long before Marx was even born (more than 200 years in Locke's case) neither one of them could possibly have said that "Marx is trash".

I hope you are kidding or made a mistake. Locke died in 1704, Marx was born in 1818, if you know anything about math, you would realize that it was closer to 100 years than 200 years.

That, though, is beside the point. Locke's views did a very good job at understanding the world at the time he lived in. One good look at history and you will realize that times change. Every since the industrial revolution, the whole aspect of "freedom" changed. Sure you have the freedom to quit your job, to do whatever you want, but in reality you don't have that option. You need a job, you need food on the table, you need a shelter over your head. So, you really don't have the freedom to do what you want, you must adhere to your boss, the person who gives you money.

Locke's views about personal liberties are nice and grand, but do not neccessarily apply in the world we live in today. With the advent of factories, mass labor and mass poverty, we can finally understand that many economic "freedoms" take away the freedom of others, mainly the working class.

Locke did not realize, mainly because it happened after he died, that when wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, those few dominate and are no different from a king or a dictator. Take a look at the late 1800s and early 1900s in American history. Wealth was completely concentrated in an elite set of people who had all the power. The Senate was known as the "millionaires club" because those with money could have a seat or simply sway all votes. During that time of "liberty" there were masses of poor, most of which had no chance whatsoever of becoming wealthy despite long grueling work days. Sounds like freedom huh?

Surely if Locke was alive during the height of the industrial revolution, he would have thought twice about the idea of property, because, as it appeared in late 1800s, the "commonwealth" of man was really a way to protect the property of the rich and wealthy.

[Howard Roark]

I hope you are kidding or made a mistake. Locke died in 1704, Marx was born in 1818, if you know anything about math, you would realize that it was closer to 100 years than 200 years.

My bad. Got different dates mixed up in my head.



That, though, is beside the point. Locke's views did a very good job at understanding the world at the time he lived in. One good look at history and you will realize that times change.

To me it seems that his ideas are far more applicable today than they were in his time. It is only the socialist indoctrination of the 19th and 20th century that makes people think otherwise today.



Every since the industrial revolution, the whole aspect of "freedom" changed.

How so? His principles seem quite universal to me.



Sure you have the freedom to quit your job, to do whatever you want, but in reality you don't have that option. You need a job, you need food on the table, you need a shelter over your head."

Are you saying people in his day did not need food on the table and shelter over their head? Or are you saying that they didn't have to work for it? I would think most people had to work a lot harder for it before the industrial revolution.



So, you really don't have the freedom to do what you want, you must adhere to your boss, the person who gives you money.


And people in Locke's time did not? I would think that they did, and in fact that they had a lot less of a choice than we do today since their economies were smaller.



With the advent of factories, mass labor and mass poverty

I'm sorry, but there was poverty (and worse poverty) before the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution simply brought it out of the rural areas and into the towns, in large numbers, for all those would-be intellectuals to see. To say that there wasn't great poverty (even in the towns really) in Locke's time is ignorant.



we can finally understand that many economic "freedoms" take away the freedom of others, mainly the working class.

How does not automatically being provided for take away your essential freedoms (as Locke defined it)? Nowhere did he say anything about anyone having a right to food or shelter or anything of that kind. He started with the Natural State, and in that state nature gives you the possibility of providing for yourself, but it does not do it for you. And it's clear that Locke did not think that anyone had any kind of duty to provide for anyone else (unless they wanted to do it voluntarily of course). So, in my opinion, Locke would not agree with Marx that the workers had any of their rights infringed upon. (Except in some of the tactics used back then against the unions. That was the governments' fault though. They should have defended their citizens', even the workers', essential rights, but that's a different matter.)



Locke did not realize, mainly because it happened after he died, that when wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, those few dominate and are no different from a king or a dictator.

First of all, there were rich people in his day as well. Secondly, it is different because rich people can't enforce their will by force. Other people will deal with them only to the extent that it benefits those people. They can't force someone to work for them for free, or force them to work for them for $5/hour when someone else is offering $10. If you follow Locke's basic principles then curbing "economic power" (he only talks about political power) is wrong because it interferes with people's right to "dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man" as they can do in the natural state.



Wealth was completely concentrated in an elite set of people who had all the power.

It was in his time as well. Only then it was mostly the people who had political power that concentrated it in their own hands. Saying the rich had "all the power" though is wrong (the middle classes grew dramatically the more the industrial revolution developed), and at the very least misleading. You are talking about "economic power" of individual citizens. It has nothing to do with political power as Locke saw it.



During that time of "liberty" there were masses of poor, most of which had no chance whatsoever of becoming wealthy despite long grueling work days. Sounds like freedom huh?

That's an economical condition. The way to solve it is economical growth. It has nothing to do with freedom in the political sense.



Surely if Locke was alive during the height of the industrial revolution, he would have thought twice about the idea of property,

Why so? Societies that have respected property rights to a larger degree (relatively) over the last century have had more economical success, more political freedom and less poverty overall than countries who haven't.



because, as it appeared in late 1800s, the "commonwealth" of man was really a way to protect the property of the rich and wealthy.

To protect the life, freedom and property of everyone. The rich just had more property. That's the only difference.

[monkeydust]

No, it is saying that people can do as they please with "their possessions and persons" without others having a right to interfere. It doesn't say anything about doing anything to other people.

Yes I know however it it was implied rather than what is said here that seems to me to indicate a level of lack of care towards the fate of others in favour of doing 'what one wishes'.



No, it is: "What you get is fairly yours" as long as "you get it through" fair "means."

Killing is obviously not ok because it would a violation of anothers right to their own person as defined in the first quote.

Killing was an extreme example not to be taken literally. Locke's definition of fair is usually anything that doesn't directly harm anybody else. Earning more money by paying low wages is not directly harming someone in the way that a punch to the face would, but I still wouldn't say it's fair.



Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea...


I said Marx, not Stalin or Castro.



It is great. It is one of the few legitimate roles of a proper government.


You seem to be one of those kind of capitalists which I thought died out 80 years ago. The kind that still believes an utter lack of governmental interference to be fair on all.



Considering the fact that both John Locke and Adam Smith died long before Marx was even born (more than 200 years in Locke's case) neither one of them could possibly have said that "Marx is trash".


I was actually quoting you, not Locke or Smith

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:40 PM
youre not forced to watch or listen to anything, you can only be brainwashed if you original convictions are so weak that you willingly(although subcontiously) accept new ones, if you dont want your convictions challenged(and want to remain an uniformed pimple of society) change the channel or lsiten to some music
Brainwashing doesn't just entail listening or watching. When you are a child you are subject to what your parents think and believe, when you are in society you are subject to societal opinion, especially majority opinion. Basically you are subjecct to enviroment. The older you get the harder it is for you to change your views on society. You are brainwashed from birth. When you are 3 you can't turn the channel if your parent is watching Fox News (we destort you comply), and you certainly can't tell your parent to shut up. So you listen to your parent and their opinion. ANd this is regardless of whether or not you are from a liberal or conservative family. You get fed all these ideas from an early age and that becomes part of what you believe...most of the time. Do you think all those children at church on sunday went there because they personally found JEsus? No, they are there because their parents forced them, and the more time they spend there the more likely they are too believe it.

Brainwashing isn't something that happens to you after you already have your convictions, it occurs before you have them.

Also John Stuart Mill was ten times the philosopher Locke was...Kant was better too.

[redstar2000]

In the centuries prior to Marx, it was intellectually respectable to argue "from first principles". By "pure reason" we could understand what was both "rational" and "moral". Abstractions like "freedom" and "justice" could be clearly articulated and made obvious to all.

One of the crucial contributions of Marx was the discovery that this "pure reason" was not "pure" at all...it was and has always been rooted in the material conditions of the society that has produced it.

There was never any such thing as "man in a state of nature"...there have always been actual living people in specific situations. People with a particular technology, living in a particular place, living within particular relations with each other.

John Locke lived in a particular time, the 17th century, and in a particular place, England. He represented the views of the rising merchant class in that country; a class that was very resentful of aristocratic privilege and extravagance...and the high taxes required to pay for that extravagance.

Thus his preference for a "cheap government" that would exist only for the purpose of "protecting property".

Locke was waging ideological struggle on behalf of his class and against the ideas that supported the old landed oligarchs. And he fought well.

But that was all a long time ago...and the class struggle is of a very different nature now than it was then.

Locke's class won and eventually became the capitalist oligarchy that oppresses and exploits us today.

That's why we read Marx; while Locke is of interest only to historians.

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

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

[A Pict]

One of the crucial contributions of Marx was the discovery that this "pure reason" was not "pure" at all...it was and has always been rooted in the material conditions of the society that has produced it

Funny that marxisms concept of Polylogicism (multiple logics) is only applied to capitalist economics, not evil capitalist science, or math...



Locke was waging ideological struggle on behalf of his class and against the ideas that supported the old landed oligarchs. And he fought well.

But that was all a long time ago...and the class struggle is of a very different nature now than it was then.

Locke's class won and eventually became the capitalist oligarchy that oppresses and exploits us today.

That's why we read Marx; while Locke is of interest only to historians.

Poisioning the well.

Doesn't refute.

[Pete]

Funny that marxisms concept of Polylogicism (multiple logics) is only applied to capitalist economics, not evil capitalist science, or math...

Science and math are universals.


Poisioning the well.

Doesn't refute.

Or is it a unarguable refution?

[redstar2000]

Funny that Marxism's concept of Polylogicism (multiple logics) is only applied to capitalist economics, not evil capitalist science, or math...

No, it can be applied to lots of different areas...though religion, political philosophy, and economic theory are the areas in which the effects are most obvious.

Mathematics, after all, didn't originate as a product of "pure reason"...it was the division of land and the construction of large structures that forced humans to learn the rudiments of geometry. It was the desire to find a better way to "divine the future" that lay behind astrology.

And yes, science can be heavily influenced for a time by class considerations.

Do you not recall "social Darwinism", replaced by "racial science", replaced by "socio-biology", and now its latest incarnation "evolutionary psychology"? Each "new & improved" version of this pseudo-scientific scam has and has always had a single purpose: to "prove" with "biological evidence" that the ruling class "really is superior" and "deserves" its powers and privileges.

Science is unique in that sooner or later, the scam is exposed and the fraudulent rejected. But it can take a while. Scientists are part of class society and their views on matters are influenced by that fact...whether they are aware of it or not.

It's kind of amusing that westerners like to poke fun at the Stalinist fraud Lysenko (even though it's quite possible that Lysenko was entirely sincere in his convictions). The English psychologist Cyril Burt spent a whole "scientific" lifetime making up numbers to "prove" the stupidity of the working class...and received a knighthood for his pains. He even went so far as to make up "research assistants" that didn't exist!

It is always well to cast a critical (Marxist) eye...even at science.

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

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