How important is freedom

[A Free Mind]

How important is freedom in real life?

The question is would you rather greater say in how your country is run or greater wealth ,happyness, comfort and stablity under a dictator

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Individual freedom is less important then freedom of the masses.

[LSD]

There can be no free masses without free individuals.

Putting oneself under a dictator inevitably leads to a removal of both freedoms.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

There can be no individual without the masses.The masses are what makes an individual an individual.

[LSD]

There can be no individual without the masses.The masses are what makes an individual an individual.

What?

So if I'm in a locked room by myself, I'm not an individual?


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Nicolae, because that statement was meaningless.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Argh forget it.One of those things that is too hard to explain over the internet.

[A Free Mind]

I was meaning Is it better to have povety and freedom than weath and comfort under a dictator (who suports the views of the main ethnic group)

[Valishin]

I think Mr. Franklin summed it up a number of times better than any of us can.

Quotes can be found here: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1144

[Don't Change Your Name]

Freedom means safety, autonomy and democracy.

[peaccenicked]

This is as good as any on Marx's concern on human freedom
http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/phil2.html

[shintso]

wow, this question is actually pretty hard to answer.
in order for an individual to act propely in a sociaty, it must have its freedom. but what does that freedom helps him when he has nothing to eat?
i believe that this question shouldnt be asked as a general one, it depends on which kind of country we're talking about. democracy relies on a strong middle class to hold it together, while a dictator takes care of the lower classes. freedom is very important, but not at the cost of starvation. focus your question better, a country for example. i believe that this is quite an interesting topic.

[peaccenicked]

It is very important to regard freedom as the general aspiration for life itself. Ideology gives us nothing but hinderances and obscurantist notions. Poverty is anti freedom, it is indeed economic oppression, it belongs to the idea of State oppression as much as any other. Pollution is anti-freedom, it effects the food and the very air we breathe.
Neither poverty, pollution nor State lies or political falsehoods have any place at all in a free society and no country can be free while there is oppression in another land.
How we value freedom throughout our lives is a matter mostly conditioned by our consciousness, the material conditions of our lives, and in our sick society many have became so demoralised that retreat feels like the only option and leave themselves content with the scraps of social comfort they can muster. Yet this may change, as conditions and general consciousness changes.

[BuyOurEverything]

What kind of 'freedom' are we talking about here? A certain degree of economic wealth is a prerequisite to any sort of 'political freedom.' Freedom of speach, for example, doesn't do any good if you're starving on the street.


democracy relies on a strong middle class to hold it together, while a dictator takes care of the lower classes.

What do you mean by that? Are you talking about dictators in general? If so, you're quite mistaken, the vast majority of dictators take care of the upper class.

[A Free Mind]

Complete and utter freedom (with poverty)
or wealth and comfort under a dictator

[Lardlad95]

I'll need you to give your definition of freedom before I respond

[peaccenicked]

What I said if it was not clear was that poverty precludes freedom,
I would also would add that dictatorship and freedom are incompatible.

[A Free Mind]

Freedom
the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

[BuyOurEverything]

You cannot be free if you are in poverty. Simple as that. Poverty is an externally imposed restraint on your actions. Not being able to eat and living on the streets most definately inhibits your actions. Ask a sick person with no health care how 'free' they are.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by A Free [email protected] 15 2004, 05:16 AM
Freedom
the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
Your definition of Freedom sounds like Anarchy to me, something I can not support.

Even proponents of capitalism believe in the social contract, though there are many forms, which limits freedom. I too agree with the social contract, the population gives up some of it's rights for the protection and benefit of the whole population. Certain freedoms are not more important than the majority of the population.

[A Free Mind]

I got my definition of freedom from the dictonary

[LSD]

I got my definition of freedom from the dictonary

Which dictionary? Mine has 15 different definitions.

I'll assume that you mean either definition 2: Exemption from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic control; independence; civil liberty.
or definition 4: The state of being able to act without hindrance or restraint, liberty of action.



Either way, it is impossible to be truly politically free if one is economically shackled, likewise, one can never truly be "comfortable" or "secure" if one does not have political freedom.

Of course, one can never be entirely free, such a society could not function. But the idea that one must trade one entire genre of freedoms for the "promise" of the other is wishfull thinking at best, dangerous at worst.

Giving away ones political fredoms will lead to a revokation of one's "economic" rights. We can see this in all the despotic nations of history.
Likewise, giving away economic freedoms, leads to the benneficiaries claiming more and more of your political rights. And we can see that all over the world today.


The division between the two sorts of freedoms your making has been a despotic construct for centuries, invented so that we do not realize that either the "leader" or the "market" is robbing us of some of our most fundamental rights.

Don't buy into it.

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2004, 09:07 AM
The division between the two sorts of freedoms your making has been a despotic construct for centuries, invented so that we do not realize that either the "leader" or the "market" is robbing us of some of our most fundamental rights.

That leads us down another road, do people have rights?

[Iepilei]

hrm... interesting economic and political freedoms - which one is more important?

both, i'd say. one must be economically free of restraint and hassle before they can truly be comfortable in their niche (as I've found) - and they must be able to partake upon an active role in society.

[Hoppe]

Making a destinction between the two is fallacious. Freedom is simply the right to not be invaded by someone else, whether he steals your toothbrush or forces you to go into the army.

[Professor Moneybags]

The division between the two sorts of freedoms your making has been a despotic construct for centuries, invented so that we do not realize that either the "leader" or the "market" is robbing us of some of our most fundamental rights.

The market is a process, not a person or a "thing". The market is in itself a freedom- freedom to trade value for value without hindrance. What does your argument that the "market" is robbing us of freedom amount to logically, other than "freedom robs us of freedom" ?

[LSD]

The market is a process, not a person or a "thing". The market is in itself a freedom- freedom to trade value for value without hindrance. What does your argument that the "market" is robbing us of freedom amount to logically, other than "freedom robs us of freedom" ?

The "market" is the behavior of a bunch of people. It is a set of interactions based on rules and constructs set up in advance. It is those underlying rules, and therefore the interactions that naturally spring from them, that is acting to limit freedom.

A man is not "free" to eat, because the "market" has placed a greater "value" on paying baseball players millions. His freedom to live is being restricted because those with economic power have determined that it is better to exchange their "values" in a different way.

Granted, this is to be expected in a faux-communalistic theory such a capitalism, where the rights of the individual are often ignored for the "greater good" of the vaunted "economy", but it does not change the fact that it is happening.

The "market" is not a "freedom" it is a conception. An ideology. It limits the freedoms of many in society by presenting and enforcing the conception that resources in society exist to be divied up, claimed, and then rearranged or reformed by the members of that society in such a way as to try to maximize their eventual possesion of said resources.

Such a conception is by no means neccessary, and by no estimation a "freedom". Rather it is a further limitation on the right of society to take care of itself as it intrinsically argues that society has no right to utilize its own resources, but that such resources must be unequally and uniquely divided up among the various members of society. And that the people who are able to be more attractive or more "useful" get a whole lot extra.


The "market" doesn't give you more "freedom" on the proverbial chessboard, rather it takes the chessboard, chops into little tiny pieces, hands them out to everyone and then gives a big piece to the really popular guy.

[Hoppe]

A man is not "free" to eat, because the "market" has placed a greater "value" on paying baseball players millions. His freedom to live is being restricted because those with economic power have determined that it is better to exchange their "values" in a different way.

If I don't feed a hungry man, I am interfering with his freedom? I don't think so.


Granted, this is to be expected in a faux-communalistic theory such a capitalism, where the rights of the individual are often ignored for the "greater good" of the vaunted "economy", but it does not change the fact that it is happening.

Which rights? Surely not the right to education, or to live "free" from want?

You're mixing up freedom and power.

[LSD]

If I don't feed a hungry man, I am interfering with his freedom? I don't think so.

Of course you are, you're "interfereing with his freedom" to take advantage of the resources his society allows. To live off of what is available around him. Now, obviously you specifically are not starving the world, but you are assisting a system which transforms the world and society into "possesions" and "values" which are arbitrarily dolled out and which by their very existence obstruct this hypothetical starving man of his fundamental right to live.


Which rights? Surely not the right to education, or to live "free" from want?

Yes, those, among others.


You're mixing up freedom and power.

No, I'm not. You're just only looking at this from within a capitalist, or at least private property, perspective.

[Hoppe]

Now, obviously you specifically are not starving the world, but you are assisting a system which transforms the world and society into "possesions" and "values" which are arbitrarily dolled out and which by their very existence obstruct this hypothetical starving man of his fundamental right to live

A fundamental right to life is something entirely different than a moral obligation to feed a hungry man.

If it were scientifically possible, should one of my good eyes be transplanted into a blind man because he has a fundamental right to "see"?


Yes, those, among others

But these are not freedoms. These rights implies an action from another human which is in direct conflict with this person's freedom not to be coerced by others.


No, I'm not. You're just only looking at this from within a capitalist, or at least private property, perspective.

So, if I decided to take some clay and make a nice sculpture, I can conclude that this can arbitrarely be taken from me by society (your perspective)?

[Iepilei]

there is a difference between material possessions and private properties (as in lands).

[Rasta Sapian]

This tread does not make much sence to me, it appears a little vaige, but i will take a stab @ it.......

I would choose freedom, ie. freedom to speak, live, worship, work, not to work and be poor, etc.
ie. a modern civilized and just society

I would not choose to live like a wealthy tyrant, ruled by a dictator, unless the dictator was a great philopsoher and nobleman, who could bring a socialist platform to people, abolishing classes and developing a new modern workforce where the planet will be sustained while at the same time supporting people to live a life full of resourses with all the pleasures in which they desire!

[Osman Ghazi]

A fundamental right to life is something entirely different than a moral obligation to feed a hungry man.

If it were scientifically possible, should one of my good eyes be transplanted into a blind man because he has a fundamental right to "see"?

I'm sure you note a slight difference.
Your eye is a part of you and thusly as much much 'yours' as anything could ever be.
You deserve to have an eye.

A slab of meat on the other hand, is not yours to possess, especially if your possession of it denies others the right to life. Even you agree that you should possess all possible rights, except those which infringe upon the rights of others. If your 'right' of ownership infringes on another person's right to life, then you shouldn't have that right. That's whats called logic.

[LSD]

A fundamental right to life is something entirely different than a moral obligation to feed a hungry man.

I'm not talking about your moral obligation.

It isn't about you.

It's about his fundamental right to live.


If it were scientifically possible, should one of my good eyes be transplanted into a blind man because he has a fundamental right to "see"?

No, because that leaves you disabled, much as how I wouldn't advocate removing your healthy organs and giving them to this man.

But the idea that you have a right to "own" property is ludicrous, and comparing it to one's right to security of person is ridiculous.


But these are not freedoms. These rights implies an action from another human which is in direct conflict with this person's freedom not to be coerced by others.

Yes and no.

In modern society it required human action to safeguard them.


In primitive times education and farming could be done individualy, they didn't require others, in the same way one's right to "security" was a personal matter, one defended oneself and one's family.

As society as evolved and become more complex, it has indeed taken others to defend the rights of some, it's called society.

So, yes, others are now needed to provide food and educate, much as how in today's society you see police and security being "coerced" into protecting you.


So, if I decided to take some clay and make a nice sculpture, I can conclude that this can arbitrarely be taken from me by society (your perspective)?

I honestly can say that I have no desire to take your sculptures.

You can put it up on your mantel and have a good old time showing it off, unless it is restricting someone else's freedoms
(I admit that is remarkably unlikely with this example, but it's your example and I'll play with it).

This is comparable to modern society in which you have the freedom" to randomly wave your fists in the air....unless you hit someone.

Your rights stop at the point that they infringe on someone else's.

[Iepilei]

The concept of communal ownership doesn't extend to all parts of society and all aspects of ownership. Hence the comment before, regarding the differences between the two.

Capitalists love to play off this simple notion. As if they honestly believe we want everyone in the same 20 mile radius to share the same toothbrush...

[Professor Moneybags]

The "market" is the behavior of a bunch of people. It is a set of interactions based on rules and constructs set up in advance. It is those underlying rules, and therefore the interactions that naturally spring from them, that is acting to limit freedom.

The only "rule" would surely be the non-initiation of force. Why complain about that unless you want to initiate force ?


Granted, this is to be expected in a faux-communalistic theory such a capitalism, where the rights of the individual are often ignored for the "greater good" of the vaunted "economy", but it does not change the fact that it is happening.

It's happening, but it's not capitalism. It's down to the mixed economy.


The "market" is not a "freedom" it is a conception. An ideology. It limits the freedoms of many in society by presenting and enforcing the conception that resources in society exist to be divied up, claimed, and then rearranged or reformed by the members of that society in such a way as to try to maximize their eventual possesion of said resources

So the fact that you do not have access to your neighbor's bank account, you view as a "limit to your freedom" ? Perhaps rightly so. If he wants to grant you access to it, good for him, but initiating force against him by demanding access to it is limiting his freedom, and makes you no better than a tyrant.


A man is not "free" to eat, because the "market" has placed a greater "value" on paying baseball players millions. His freedom to live is being restricted because those with economic power have determined that it is better to exchange their "values" in a different way.


A man is not free to eat someone else's food, just as is he is not free to loot someone's house. If he did have this freedom, he would simply be a thief laying claim to someone else's labour without their consent. What is that, if not slavery ?

Property is a by-product of freedom, not a pre-requisite to it.


Such a conception is by no means neccessary, and by no estimation a "freedom". Rather it is a further limitation on the right of society to take care of itself as it intrinsically argues that society has no right to utilize its own resources,

You talk of society as if it was a single living organism. It isn't. There's no collective mind and no collective body. Only individuals can have rights, as society consists of individuals, all of their rights can be guaranteed protection. This is not so with "collective rights".



Of course you are, you're "interfereing with his freedom" to take advantage of the resources his society allows.

You seem to view people and their labour as a "resource" to be disposed of and exploited at whim (planned or not makes no difference).


Now, obviously you specifically are not starving the world, but you are assisting a system which transforms the world and society into "possesions" and "values" which are arbitrarily dolled out and which by their very existence obstruct this hypothetical starving man of his fundamental right to live.

They're ownership is no more arbitary than your claim to them. Your view of freedom amounts to living off the unearned; it's easy to see what kind of person advocates from that kind of "freedom".


Your eye is a part of you and thusly as much much 'yours' as anything could ever be.

Then why is my property, bought with my labour, not also mine ? It's not according to you, as anyone claiming to be in need of it should be allowed to simply take it and if I stop him, you will complain that I'm "restricting his freedom". (Yet by turning me into his slave in the process, he is NOT restricting my mine).


Even you agree that you should possess all possible rights, except those which infringe upon the rights of others. If your 'right' of ownership infringes on another person's right to life, then you shouldn't have that right. That's whats called logic.

But what you call rights involve coercion somewhere along the line.

[Hoppe]

@Osman


Your eye is a part of you and thusly as much much 'yours' as anything could ever be.
You deserve to have an eye.

Hmmm, you use the word "deserve" here, doesn't the blind man deserve sight?

Your so called rights are all based on some presumption that human beings "deserve" something.

@Lysergic


It's about his fundamental right to live

This still has to do with me. You are saying that this man has a right to live but in order to claim this right I have to feed him.


No, because that leaves you disabled, much as how I wouldn't advocate removing your healthy organs and giving them to this man

No, because after the surgery I have one eye and this man as well. So we are equal again.


So, yes, others are now needed to provide food and educate, much as how in today's society you see police and security being "coerced" into protecting you.

This has nothing to do with rights.


I honestly can say that I have no desire to take your sculptures

So, why can you take my piece of land which previously was a desert but has now crops growing on it? Something in which I put effort just as I put my effort in transforming a piece of useless clay into a nice sculpture?

[Saint-Just]

The freedom to do what one wants relies on the actions of others. When we talk about freedom the freedoms we want are concerned with interacting with other individuals. As such freedom in any society is largely concerned with collective freedom.

The kind of society you advocate would be a licentious anarchy. Humans who want to live in societies must come to agreements which all accept to live freely. You said: 'A man is not free to eat someone else's food'. However, not all would agree with this. A more likely example is that some individuals would say that people should have the freedom to be naked in public, and others would say they should not. Unless an agreement is reached and enforced (by infringing on various freedoms) then anarchy (in the pegorative sense) will ensue.

[Osman Ghazi]

So, why can you take my piece of land which previously was a desert but has now crops growing on it? Something in which I put effort just as I put my effort in transforming a piece of useless clay into a nice sculpture?


You discovered technology that turns desert into farmland, did you?
Well, let's see. People can't feed themsleves with sculptures for one.

For two, why should you be able to own land? That is one right that you most definately do not have. As for the whole eye thing, well, last time I checked money wasn't part of your body whereas your eye was.

As I said, if your 'right to own' infringes on others right to life, which is universally recognized as more important, then your right to own should be cast down.

Similarly, if your 'right to kill' (which is equally as stupid as the right to own) infringes on others right to live, then your 'right to kill' would be cast down.

You see, the right to life is the most sacred and thusly it should be protected above all others.

[Hoppe]

No, the fact I have created something with my bare hands entitles my to mark it as my possession. There is no difference between a sculpture an my carefully grown appletree.


You see, the right to life is the most sacred and thusly it should be protected above all others

I agree, yet you make a different assumption that the right to life is a positive right meaning that I have an obligation to secure your right. Positive rights are no rights at all, since I already said that positive rights require a forced action from another human being. This always clashes with the right not to be coerced.

If you say that the right not to be coerced is less important than your so called right to life, then it follows that you require some form of slavery for the common good, each man is a slave to the other.

Surely I can act in a social manner out of free will and feed a hungry man, but the hungry man cannot claim any possession over my body to act as he wishes, namely to feed him.

[Professor Moneybags]

As I said, if your 'right to own' infringes on others right to life, which is universally recognized as more important, then your right to own should be cast down.

Your "right to life" not only infringes my "right to own", but MY right to life too as you are demanding the products of my labour. I notice you have evaded the issue of this being nothing more than slavery, but that doesn't come as a surprise.


You see, the right to life is the most sacred and thusly it should be protected above all others.

I have no objection to you having a right to life, I just object to you claiming a right to MY life. I'm sure others would object similarly. We are not your slaves.

[LSD]

Proffessor:


The only "rule" would surely be the non-initiation of force. Why complain about that unless you want to initiate force ?

What about the rule of private property?

Or of value exchange?

Or of personal ownership?


Don't delude yourself, the "market" has a very strong ideological base.


t's happening, but it's not capitalism. It's down to the mixed economy.

No it's a nescessary propagandistic element of capitalism.

No, you can't have a job, we need to reduce inflation, it's better for everyone

Yes, you aren't making much money and your boss is making tripple your salary, but in the end the system is better for everyone


So the fact that you do not have access to your neighbor's bank account, you view as a "limit to your freedom" ? Perhaps rightly so. If he wants to grant you access to it, good for him, but initiating force against him by demanding access to it is limiting his freedom, and makes you no better than a tyrant.

haha, attack a critisism of an ideology from within the ideology??

You'll have to go outside the box for a moment there.


Your same argument could be made in favour of slavery.

How dare you take your neighbor's slave and set him free? If he wants to set gim free, good for him, but initiating force against him by demanding his slave's freedom to it is limiting his freedom, and makes you no better than a tyrant.

Any ideology looks justified when analyzed internally.


A man is not free to eat someone else's food, just as is he is not free to loot someone's house. If he did have this freedom, he would simply be a thief laying claim to someone else's labour without their consent. What is that, if not slavery ?

Freedom.

It is not "someone else's food", it is everyone's food.

It is the food of the entire society.

But what do I mean by "society"?

Well that leads us to:

You talk of society as if it was a single living organism. It isn't. There's no collective mind and no collective body. Only individuals can have rights, as society consists of individuals, all of their rights can be guaranteed protection. This is not so with "collective rights".

By society I, of course, mean the people in it.

The "society" has no rights, but the people of it do. The people have the right to everything that the society produces. Reagardless of who produced it. With every person producing and working, eveyone is bennefiting from everyone else.

The right to live of the individual is protected.


Property is a by-product of freedom, not a pre-requisite to it.

No, property is a restriction of freedom. It's elimination, however, is certainly a "pre-requisite to it".


They're ownership is no more arbitary than your claim to them. Your view of freedom amounts to living off the unearned; it's easy to see what kind of person advocates from that kind of "freedom".

Don't waste both our times with personal attacks.


Then why is my property, bought with my labour, not also mine ? It's not according to you, as anyone claiming to be in need of it should be allowed to simply take it and if I stop him, you will complain that I'm "restricting his freedom". (Yet by turning me into his slave in the process, he is NOT restricting my mine).

Because it isn't "yours", the fact that it was "bought" within a capitalist framework does not in and of itself give you a moral justification to withhold it from others.

Your "property" and everyone's property must be equally divided such that no one is infringing on anyone else's right to live secure and healthy.


Your "right to life" not only infringes my "right to own", but MY right to life too as you are demanding the products of my labour. I notice you have evaded the issue of this being nothing more than slavery, but that doesn't come as a surprise.

I take from you, you take from me.

In the end, most people will end up with far more than they have now.

It is most definitely not slavery. You can choose not to work, you then can't, of course, use the resources of the community, but you're welcome to go off and sustain yourself.


I have no objection to you having a right to life, I just object to you claiming a right to MY life. I'm sure others would object similarly. We are not your slaves.

I most certainly agree....but it has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

I am not claiming "owenership" of your life, I am saying that you may not claim "ownership" of anything because nothing "belongs" to you.

It is your emancipation that I am advocating, not your enslaving. Instead of your labour going to pay the salaries of others it will go to eveyone equally, including you. Along with the labour of everyone else.

[LSD]

Hoppe:


This still has to do with me. You are saying that this man has a right to live but in order to claim this right I have to feed him.

Much as for a man to be free from harm, someone must defend them.


You don't have to feed him, you just have to work. And your labour helps eveyone including him and including you.

If you don't want to be a part of it, go live on a farm by yourself, sustain yourself and be happy.

But to take advantage of the opportunities that community life offers, you must be willing to sustain that community.



No, because after the surgery I have one eye and this man as well. So we are equal again.

Yes, but absolute equality is never possible, and forcing a man to sacrifice part of his body is intrinsically wrong.

Property is an artifical contruct and has no intrinsic moral validity.

Your "claim" to something is an entirely illusionary thing, and is therefore quite easily discarded.


This has nothing to do with rights.

The point is that sometimes it takes others to defend our rights.



So, why can you take my piece of land which previously was a desert but has now crops growing on it? Something in which I put effort just as I put my effort in transforming a piece of useless clay into a nice sculpture?

Because your "owning" that land is hurting others. The fact that you put labour into it does not make it "yours" anymore than the fact that I put labour into my daughter makes her "mine"..

The labour you put in does help you in the end, but the land is everyone's and your labour must help everyone. Your refusal to aid those in need of what you hoard is, indeed, oppressing their rights.

As to your sculpture, your keeping it is harming no one, so no one gives a damn about it.


No, the fact I have created something with my bare hands entitles my to mark it as my possession.

Why?


I agree, yet you make a different assumption that the right to life is a positive right meaning that I have an obligation to secure your right. Positive rights are no rights at all, since I already said that positive rights require a forced action from another human being. This always clashes with the right not to be coerced.

Positive rights are some of the most important, and most fundamental to society.

Besides, all proection of any right requires societal coercion of some sort. No society allows unregulated action and that very act of restriction is, itself, implicitly coercive.


If you say that the right not to be coerced is less important than your so called right to life, then it follows that you require some form of slavery for the common good, each man is a slave to the other.

Again, coercion is the basis for every society.

Why do you pay taxes?
Why do get a driving liscense?
Why do you sit on a jury?

Society can not function without coercion, but that does not make us all "slaves", it just means we can not always be absolutely free.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2004, 08:07 AM
There can be no individual without the masses.The masses are what makes an individual an individual.
:lol: :lol: :lol: , I had to stop reading the rest of the replies, I have to respond to this and say WHAT?
there are no individuals without the masses?

Just one question, what makes up the masses? answer: Individuals.

[Iepilei]

But an individual can't do much without the mass.

[Professor Moneybags]

What about the rule of private property?

Or of value exchange?

Or of personal ownership?


Don't delude yourself, the "market" has a very strong ideological base.

Same difference. Non-initiation of force applies to all of those.


No it's a nescessary propagandistic element of capitalism.

No, you can't have a job, we need to reduce inflation, it's better for everyone

Yes, you aren't making much money and your boss is making tripple your salary, but in the end the system is better for everyone

Which part of laissez faire (the government shouldn't meddle in the economy) don't you inderstand ?


Your same argument could be made in favour of slavery.

How dare you take your neighbor's slave and set him free?

Enslaving anyone would be in breach of their individual rights.


Freedom.

It is not "someone else's food", it is everyone's food.

No, it's not "everyone's", as "everyone" didn't take part in its creation.


It is the food of the entire society.

But what do I mean by "society"?

Let me guess : Everyone who isn't you and no one in partucular.


The "society" has no rights, but the people of it do. The people have the right to everything that the society produces. Reagardless of who produced it.

"Regardless of who produced it." is an admission that "society" doesn't produce anything; it's down to individuals.


With every person producing and working, eveyone is bennefiting from everyone else.

The right to live of the individual is protected.

Everyone ? Nobody will be working. Nobody will bother and even if they do it will be at the bare minimum level, as any benefit from working hard will be practically non-existent.


No, property is a restriction of freedom. It's elimination, however, is certainly a "pre-requisite to it".

Just like a law against murder or rape is a restiction of freedom. Righty so too.


Don't waste both our times with personal attacks.

It's no personal attack; any freedom to live of the unearned is only advocated by those who want the goods but don't want to work for it.


Because it isn't "yours", the fact that it was "bought" within a capitalist framework does not in and of itself give you a moral justification to withhold it from others.

So it belongs to everyone who had nothing to do with it's production ?


Your "property" and everyone's property must be equally divided such that no one is infringing on anyone else's right to live secure and healthy.

The act of redistributing is already infringing on my rights. As I have said before, these are all positive rights and are thus invalid.


I take from you, you take from me.

In the end, most people will end up with far more than they have now.

Lol. Yeah, right. Got any figures to prove this ?


It is most definitely not slavery. You can choose not to work, you then can't, of course, use the resources of the community, but you're welcome to go off and sustain yourself.

There isn't a problem then, just so long as you don't thing you are going to keep any property of the people who chose to leave.


I am not claiming "owenership" of your life, I am saying that you may not claim "ownership" of anything because nothing "belongs" to you.

If you are claming the fruits of my labour without my consent, then you are claiming ownership of my life.


Your "claim" to something is an entirely illusionary thing, and is therefore quite easily discarded

I trust that society's claim to my labour can be treated similarly.


Positive rights are some of the most important, and most fundamental to society.

Besides, all proection of any right requires societal coercion of some sort. No society allows unregulated action and that very act of restriction is, itself, implicitly coercive.

This is equivocation. The idea that because law doesn't allow you commit murder, it can therefore restict as much of your freedom as it pleases is false. I think what Hoppe means is that the right not to be murdered is a negative right (thou shalt nots) whereas your positive rights (thou shalts) demand unearned goods and services (that require slavery of some sort in order to be achieved). A "right to an education" means a teacher must be enslaved. He doesn't want to teach you ? Tough. He has no choice because everyone now has a "right to an education" and force will be bought against him if he doesn't provide them with one.


Again, coercion is the basis for every society.

Why do you pay taxes?
Why do get a driving liscense?
Why do you sit on a jury?

Society can not function without coercion, but that does not make us all "slaves", it just means we can not always be absolutely free.

Taxation is immoral as it is an indirect form of slavery. Yes, coercion does make us slaves and is unnecessary.


But an individual can't do much without the mass.

That's besides the point.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 07:30 AM
But an individual can't do much without the mass.
:blink: , Individuals make up the masses, that is it, end of the argument , who the hell makes up the masses. Besides who has more power bill gates or the "masses" take the microsoft union if there is one. I know, Bill gates. If Bill gates want he can close microsoft and the "masses" are fucked and left without a job.

Who had more power stalin or the masses of the USSR? stalin

There are many more examples where one person has more influence than the "masses"

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 11:03 PM

As I said, if your 'right to own' infringes on others right to life, which is universally recognized as more important, then your right to own should be cast down.

Your "right to life" not only infringes my "right to own", but MY right to life too as you are demanding the products of my labour. I notice you have evaded the issue of this being nothing more than slavery, but that doesn't come as a surprise.
In capitalism we do not receive the product of our labour in its entirity. Is this slavery? perhaps. And, you could also say that in socialism where we do not receive the product of our labour in full this is also slavery. The difference in the two systems comes down to who chooses what to do with the produce of one's labour, I would prefer the state does since the state represents us where as any private individual does not.

My entire previous post was also largely ignored:

The freedom to do what one wants relies on the actions of others. When we talk about freedom the freedoms we want are concerned with interacting with other individuals. As such freedom in any society is largely concerned with collective freedom.

The kind of society you advocate would be a licentious anarchy. Humans who want to live in societies must come to agreements which all accept to live freely. You said: 'A man is not free to eat someone else's food'. However, not all would agree with this. A more likely example is that some individuals would say that people should have the freedom to be naked in public, and others would say they should not. Unless an agreement is reached and enforced (by infringing on various freedoms) then anarchy (in the pegorative sense) will ensue.

[Iepilei]

A king is nothing with out peasants to tax. Likewise with any corporation and any movement. If you don't have the masses behind the individual, the individual is some guy with a vision. A leader is nothing without a band to follow.

The masses are everything when it comes to the advancement and construction of society. Individuals form this masses and, using their abilities, work to reach any desired task.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that there is no "I" in "TEAM?"

[Hoppe]

@lysergic


Much as for a man to be free from harm, someone must defend them.

Why, for heaven's sake? I can defend myself and otherwise I will hire someone to do it.


You don't have to feed him, you just have to work. And your labour helps eveyone including him and including you.

And in a capitalist society my labour only helps myself? Come on.


If you don't want to be a part of it, go live on a farm by yourself, sustain yourself and be happy.

Non-sequitur. But if the government would allow me to secede, I would be very happy.


But to take advantage of the opportunities that community life offers, you must be willing to sustain that community.

If man is a social animal, why would this only happen in your society?


Your "claim" to something is an entirely illusionary thing, and is therefore quite easily discarded

Hmm, prof Moneybags already took care of this one.


The labour you put in does help you in the end, but the land is everyone's and your labour must help everyone. Your refusal to aid those in need of what you hoard is, indeed, oppressing their rights.

It does. My skills at farming my land does help others. Since I own this land the output will increase (proven in real life!) and others will benefit because they can do something which they are good at. This helps society as a whole.



Positive rights are some of the most important, and most fundamental to society.

Besides, all proection of any right requires societal coercion of some sort. No society allows unregulated action and that very act of restriction is, itself, implicitly coercive

Positive rights cannot be defined as rights.

Again you mix power with rights.

[Valishin]

You seem to view people and their labour as a "resource" to be disposed of and exploited at whim (planned or not makes no difference).
My labor is most certainly a resource for me to exploit at my whim. When someone else has something I want and I trade my labor for that item then I am most certainly doing so. This is a good thing, so long as both parties inter into this agreement of their own free will.


It is not "someone else's food", it is everyone's food.
It is the product of said someone's labor. Isn't that the big complaint about capitalism that the owners of production are claiming the product of someone else's labor? What makes this any more right when it is done with force by a group of individuals calling themselves society instead of being done via a volunteery agreement between employeer and employee.


The people have the right to everything that the society produces
Society doesn't produce anything, individuals produce. And one individual has no right to what is produced by another individual regardless of they group themselves in a common organization called society.


It is most definitely not slavery. You can choose not to work, you then can't, of course, use the resources of the community, but you're welcome to go off and sustain yourself
ahhh, but under communism at that point that he is producing the sustain himself then society comes and takes what he is creating. The going off and sustaining yourself is exactly what capitalism is all about. Let's say you have 100 people in your society and 50 of them realize they are loosing out on the deal and leave. They then start sustaining themselves without being part of said society. They then decide to form their own collective based on principles of trade. And we have capitialism.

As I have said before, as long long as no one is being forced to participate then communism is perfectly acceptable. The problem comes when the "society" decides that they are going to force their sharing practice upon the trade collective.

[LSD]

Well.... this is going to be a long one...

I guess I'll do this chronologically....

Professor Moneybags:


Same difference. Non-initiation of force applies to all of those.

My point is that the "market" must function according to a set of rules.

Every interaction between peoples follows a set of rules.

Pretending that the "market" somehow transcends this is naive.


Enslaving anyone would be in breach of their individual rights.

You're missing the point.

"individual rights" exist only so far as the prevalent ideology at the time allows.

200 years ago, there were lots of clever and logical reasons why slaves shouldn't have individual rights.

Thereby, if you want to defend capitalism you cannot do it from within capitalism, to do so is utteryl meaningless.

Every system makes sense if you accept its fundamental premises.


No, it's not "everyone's", as "everyone" didn't take part in its creation.

So...your standard of ownership is predicated on "creation"?
Therefore, the worker who makes a running shoe has owenership of it?

It's an interesting model you're advocating, but it isn't capitalism
Capitalism is about "exchange of value", about accumulation. It has very little to do with creation.

...and well it shouldn't. It doesn't matter who "created" something. In fact, often, one cannot even determine who did the creation. "Creation" is such a nebulous and interconnected process, that one cannot reasonably expect a moral system to flow from it.


"Regardless of who produced it." is an admission that "society" doesn't produce anything; it's down to individuals.


As I've said, society is obviously composed of individuals. But very rarely does one person alone create anything. Rather, see above, creation is an intricate and complex process in any system.


Everyone ? Nobody will be working. Nobody will bother and even if they do it will be at the bare minimum level, as any benefit from working hard will be practically non-existent.

uh huh...
This has been addressed so many times....

Read up on some earlier threads, please!


So it belongs to everyone who had nothing to do with it's production ?

Yes!

Because "having to do with...production" is unimportant. It's unimportant under capitalism and equally so under communism.


The act of redistributing is already infringing on my rights. As I have said before, these are all positive rights and are thus invalid.

Positive rights are as real as negative ones.
Of what value is "security" if one is starving?

and which rights is it infringing on?

Your right to "own"? To "possess"?

These are, again, constructs designes to preserve the present order. Constructs which do not help the average person, but which merely bennifit those who invented them and their desendents and their successors.

A right must a fundamental human freedom, an intrinsic value of humanity.

Security, speech, thought, life.

But Ownership???



Lol. Yeah, right. Got any figures to prove this ?

Are you honestly denying that if the present wealth of the rich were to be equally distributed among all people that the average person would not have more than they presently do?


There isn't a problem then, just so long as you don't thing you are going to keep any property of the people who chose to leave.

There will be no property.


If you are claming the fruits of my labour without my consent, then you are claiming ownership of my life.

Doesn't that occur under capitalism?

In that, the fruits of people's labour is taken and they recieve compensation not of equal value, thereby taking the fruits of their labour. As to "consent", what "consent" does a worker have if their only other choice is starvation.

In a communist world, on the other hand, one recieves compensation of greater value than their work, namely all that society can produce.

But one's life is not "owned" for one is able to choose one's industry, and regulate one's industry, and run one's industry. One's freedom is not tied to one's "possessions" or "wealth".

And to claim that the sum of one's life is merely what one "produces" is ludicrous.


I trust that society's claim to my labour can be treated similarly.

It is as much of a construct as any social relation.

It is, however, a preferable construct to the present one.


This is equivocation. The idea that because law doesn't allow you commit murder, it can therefore restict as much of your freedom as it pleases is false. I think what Hoppe means is that the right not to be murdered is a negative right (thou shalt nots) whereas your positive rights (thou shalts) demand unearned goods and services (that require slavery of some sort in order to be achieved). A "right to an education" means a teacher must be enslaved. He doesn't want to teach you ? Tough. He has no choice because everyone now has a "right to an education" and force will be bought against him if he doesn't provide them with one.

What if a teacher doesn't want to teach today? They'll be fired, no?

So... what's the difference?


Taxation is immoral as it is an indirect form of slavery. Yes, coercion does make us slaves and is unnecessary.

Naivité.

Every society relies on coercion to a degree. It is the fundamental basis for every civilization ever.

[LSD]

Onewards....

Hoppe:


Why, for heaven's sake? I can defend myself and otherwise I will hire someone to do it.

Yes... that's why we don't have police....

It takes many people do defend your rights. It has often taken entire government bureaus just to attempt it.


And in a capitalist society my labour only helps myself? Come on.

Well, depends on who you are.

Mostly, you're right, you're labour will go to mostly help people who aren't you.

But that wasn't my point. I was just demonstrating that in a communist society your labour would help you and others equally. Something which certainly isn't the case under capitalism.


If man is a social animal, why would this only happen in your society?

What? (clarify please)


It does. My skills at farming my land does help others. Since I own this land the output will increase (proven in real life!) and others will benefit because they can do something which they are good at. This helps society as a whole.

That's a rather idealistic world you're living in.

And while that certainly does occur to a degree, it would occur to a greater degree in an acapitalistic environment. The skills would remain and the land would remain, what would change would be the distribution of the rewards of all this labour. Instead of it going to those who happen to own or "invest" it would go to everyone, it would go equally to the people who did the "farming" and not the conglomorate that happened to buy the land.



Positive rights cannot be defined as rights.

Well, just watch me. :lol:

[LSD]

..and finally...

Valishin:



My labor is most certainly a resource for me to exploit at my whim. When someone else has something I want and I trade my labor for that item then I am most certainly doing so. This is a good thing, so long as both parties inter into this agreement of their own free will.


There are a couple of fundamental assertions in that paragraph, so let's go through them.

"free will" is a rather nebulous concept, but if one is starving and their only method of sustaining themselves is to "sell" their labour, is that really "free"?

Furthermore, wouldn't it be preferable if instead of these complex glorified barter exchanges, people had access to the labour of everyone? Not only does it eliminate the neccessities for "value exchange" (and the class structures that go with it) but it equalises society and ensures life and freedom of all. And that is a "good thing".



It is the product of said someone's labor. Isn't that the big complaint about capitalism that the owners of production are claiming the product of someone else's labor? What makes this any more right when it is done with force by a group of individuals calling themselves society instead of being done via a volunteery agreement between employeer and employee.


The complaint is that the value of one's labour is going to help a rich white-collar criminal while the worker who made the damn thing is living under the poverty line.

The "difference" is that in communism, the workers do just compensation, and that is a fair distribution of what society has, an amount far greater than they get now.



Society doesn't produce anything, individuals produce. And one individual has no right to what is produced by another individual regardless of they group themselves in a common organization called society.

um...doesn't capitalism take "what is produced by another individual" and give it to others?

Besides, this is no fundamental freedom. What, the right to "own"?


I don't understand the system you're advocating...

everyone specializes in some area, produces something...and then keeps it???


In communism one would voluntarily "give up" what they produce to the collective, because what they get back would be greater and because they would be serving their family and their friends and their neighbours.



ahhh, but under communism at that point that he is producing the sustain himself then society comes and takes what he is creating. The going off and sustaining yourself is exactly what capitalism is all about. Let's say you have 100 people in your society and 50 of them realize they are loosing out on the deal and leave. They then start sustaining themselves without being part of said society. They then decide to form their own collective based on principles of trade. And we have capitialism.

As I have said before, as long long as no one is being forced to participate then communism is perfectly acceptable. The problem comes when the "society" decides that they are going to force their sharing practice upon the trade collective.

If one wants to sustain themselves that is fine. If one wants to exploit others (via wage-slavery or classic slavery) they certainly cannot do it within the bounds of the collective.

If you mean what if a bunch of people go to some island and start their own little capitalist world??

I say fine, let them.

But I think you will find that far fewer would chose to do so then you imagine. Do not think that capitalism is so popular because it works, it is popular because it is all that is available, because people are content enough not to be willing to really fight against it. In a communist world there will be even more available and so even less motivation to want to leave.

Will there be a few idealists and fanatics? sure.

But, honestly, it won't matter.

[Hoppe]

It takes many people do defend your rights. It has often taken entire government bureaus just to attempt it.

Not really. This government is necessary to enforce all the positive rights you're claiming people have.


The complaint is that the value of one's labour is going to help a rich white-collar criminal while the worker who made the damn thing is living under the poverty line.

The "difference" is that in communism, the workers do just compensation, and that is a fair distribution of what society has, an amount far greater than they get now.

The capitalist is stealing something from the worker by claiming the surplus value of the worker, which the worker created and thus is his property. If the same worker created crops on a previously deserted piece of land, he is stealing from society. Can you get even more contradictory?

[LSD]

Not really. This government is necessary to enforce all the positive rights you're claiming people have.

In today's world, yes.

But also the negative ones.

How about police protecting your security?
How about police protecting your right to assemble? Or to Speak? Or to protest?


The capitalist is stealing something from the worker by claiming the surplus value of the worker, which the worker created and thus is his property. If the same worker created crops on a previously deserted piece of land, he is stealing from society. Can you get in more contradictory?

Incorrect on many levels.

The capitalist is not "stealing" he is exploiting. The worker is working, and the value of his work goes to help the capitalist and not himself. It isn't about "property" or "theft" it's about exploitation.

Equally, the second worker is not "stealing" either. In this case however, it depends on the situation as to whether it is exploitation.

If the workers does find an unused deserted land, and wishes to support himself with no aid from the community he is free to do so and has not done anything wrong.

If instead he wishes to take advantage of the considerable bennifits of the collective and live more comfortable and well, then he must share what he has. If were to take from the collective and not contribute than that would be wrong.

Understand?

[Hoppe]

How about police protecting your security?
How about police protecting your right to assemble? Or to Speak? Or to protest?


You don't need a government for that.


The capitalist is not "stealing" he is exploiting. The worker is working, and the value of his work goes to help the capitalist and not himself. It isn't about "property" or "theft" it's about exploitation.

Ah yes, he is exploiting......these are word games. The capitalist is reaping the benefits of the worker's labour, which would be stealing to me.


If the workers does find an unused deserted land, and wishes to support himself with no aid from the community he is free to do so and has not done anything wrong.

Then you can have no objection to capitalism my friend.


f instead he wishes to take advantage of the considerable bennifits of the collective and live more comfortable and well, then he must share what he has. If were to take from the collective and not contribute than that would be wrong.


We do that as well, it is called trading. Only we use the advantages of clever individials.

[LSD]

You don't need a government for that.

I didn't say you need a government, I said you need other people.


Then you can have no objection to capitalism my friend.

I have no objection to sbsistance; to individual choosing to sustain themselves and live independently. But this condition is not capitalist, it is not communist either, but it is certainly not capitalist. In fact, I would argue that such an independent self-sustaining life is intrinsically aideological as it exists outside the bounds of social interaction. As a nonsocial way of life, it can hardly fall into a social category.


We do that as well, it is called trading. Only we use the advantages of clever individials.

What do you mean "we", white man?

I'm not talking about trade. I'm not talking about anything resembling trade. I've put it as simply as possible, and I'm not sure how to qualify any further, but what I'm describing is not a "value exchange" or "trade" model but one in which property is abolished and a person is equally compensated as they will have all that their society can provide. What people have will not be determined on the "market" or other instruments of "trade, fluctuating "supply or "demand", or on social-darwinesque conceptions such as talent, skill, or ability. Everyone will contribute, but they will not be punished or rewarded based on arbitrary analyses of their abilities or their results.

That system is a lot of things, but it definetly isn't trade.

[Hoppe]

I have no objection to sbsistance; to individual choosing to sustain themselves and live independently. But this condition is not capitalist, it is not communist either, but it is certainly not capitalist. In fact, I would argue that such an independent self-sustaining life is intrinsically aideological as it exists outside the bounds of social interaction. As a nonsocial way of life, it can hardly fall into a social category.


I was not referring to that. What if the farmer wants to trade his excess crops to the excess fish of the fisherman, is he then stealing from society?


What do you mean "we", white man?

The people living in the real world as opposed to fairytaleland


What people have will not be determined on the "market" or other instruments of "trade, fluctuating "supply or "demand", or on social-darwinesque conceptions such as talent, skill, or ability.

Ah yes, there is no room for subjectivity in your world and there shall be abundance.

Yet, what people will have will be arbitrarily set by the majority. Of course this would be completely objective....... <_<

[LSD]

Ah yes, there is no room for subjectivity in your world and there shall be abundance.

Yet, what people will have will be arbitrarily set by the majority. Of course this would be completely objective.......

What people will have will be an equal distribution of what is abavailable. It will be distributed in an open manner and, yes, the majority will ultimately decide, but no, it will not be arbitrary.


I was not referring to that. What if the farmer wants to trade his excess crops to the excess fish of the fisherman, is he then stealing from society?

The fisherman will already have enough crops as will the farmer have enough fish within the society. They will both be provided with all that they need. The barter arrangement you suggest would not be "illegal", there wouldn&#39;t be "secret police" hunting down trade, there will simply be enough available such that neither party will need or want to trade.


The people living in the real world as opposed to fairytaleland

Clearly you&#39;ve missed the idea that we aim to change society. Once you realize this it therefore logically flows that I do not accept the present "real world" as immutable.

[Hoppe]

What people will have will be an equal distribution of what is abavailable. It will be distributed in an open manner and, yes, the majority will ultimately decide, but no, it will not be arbitrary.

How come, what set of rules will you have to objectively know what is most rational to decide?


The barter arrangement you suggest would not be "illegal", there wouldn&#39;t be "secret police" hunting down trade, there will simply be enough available such that neither party will need or want to trade.

:lol:

So we have seen. I understand that all your attempts didn&#39;t resemple the textbook theory of communism, but so far as I know either a planned economy nor collective ownership have proved rather disastruous and in no case made goods abundant.

So do you mind if I doubt your claim?

[LSD]

So we have seen. I understand that all your attempts didn&#39;t resemple the textbook theory of communism, but so far as I know either a planned economy nor collective ownership have proved rather disastruous and in no case made goods abundant.

I&#39;m not suggesting that it would neccessarily increase "abundance", in fact the present level of "abundance" is plenty. It would merely change distribution such that good are equally distributed.


How come, what set of rules will you have to objectively know what is most rational to decide?

Well, based on what the collective decides&#33;

Based on what is available, what is needed, what can be created, what can be extracted, and of course, what ever else the collective decides. The beauty of the system is that every different community can choose for themselves, thereby ensuring that the members of the society get what they need and want.


So do you mind if I doubt your claim?

Have fun.

[cubist]

It is more important to ALLOW THE PROLETERIAT A CHANCE TO BECOME BETTER AND EQUAL. that isn&#39;t freedom thats distribution of wealth. will you be freer when your rich no. you will still have to do everything you just won&#39;t have to worry about whats paying the rent or whats providing the meal.

[Hoppe]

I&#39;m not suggesting that it would neccessarily increase "abundance", in fact the present level of "abundance" is plenty. It would merely change distribution such that good are equally distributed.

Hmm, as far as I know socialists economists can only hope that collective ownership in practice can be as efficient as capitalism. But maybe that issue has been solved.


Well, based on what the collective decides&#33;

And you call that objective?


Based on what is available, what is needed, what can be created, what can be extracted, and of course, what ever else the collective decides. The beauty of the system is that every different community can choose for themselves, thereby ensuring that the members of the society get what they need and want

Unless they have to argue who is going to use a specific resource.


Have fun.

Indeed I will, so long as you don&#39;t want to change my society.

[LSD]

Hmm, as far as I know socialists economists can only hope that collective ownership in practice can be as efficient as capitalism. But maybe that issue has been solved.

I doesn&#39;t need to be as effiecient as capitalism, it merely needs to be effecient enough to provide for the people. Seeking efficiency as an end in itself is akin to idolotry.

Of what value is "efficiency" if it only bennefits the few?


And you call that objective?

I never said it was objective. I said it wasn&#39;t arbitrary.


Unless they have to argue who is going to use a specific resource.

Please clarify.
Unless the different collectives argue, or unless members of the same collective argue?


Indeed I will, so long as you don&#39;t want to change my society.

I&#39;ll keep fighting for change, you keep fighting for the status quo.

Ultimately, neither of us will decide.

[Hoppe]

I doesn&#39;t need to be as effiecient as capitalism, it merely needs to be effecient enough to provide for the people. Seeking efficiency as an end in itself is akin to idolotry

Another way to put it. I always thought the objective was to create the same level of wealth but to have a world without "oppression".

Yet this assumes that all people have similar preferences which is highly doubtful.


I never said it was objective. I said it wasn&#39;t arbitrary

Since it clearly undermines any prefences the minority might have it is definately arbitrary.


Unless the different collectives argue, or unless members of the same collective argue?


Different. As you assume they will all be selfsufficient there is bound to be trouble in paradise if both need a resource.


I&#39;ll keep fighting for change, you keep fighting for the status quo

Oh no, you clearly see me for something which I am not.

[LSD]

Another way to put it. I always thought the objective was to create the same level of wealth but to have a world without "oppression".

It is.

But the priority is eliminating oppression, if the same "level of wealth" can be maintained, all the better, but it is more important to distribute the wealth than simply produce more of it, more that only the rich can enjoy.


Since it clearly undermines any prefences the minority might have it is definately arbitrary.

Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.


Different. As you assume they will all be selfsufficient there is bound to be trouble in paradise if both need a resource.

Of what resources were you thinking?

The idea is indeed that collectives would be self-sustaining. Most needed resources are plentiful enough, if they aren&#39;t then, usually, a substitute can be found. Of course some some collectives are simply geographically located such that they have greater access to certain things, and less to others. These collectives will simply have more working in such areas and hence have a surplus which they are able to export. Similarly they can import a needed amount of locally rare resources from collectives that have such materials

This is not trade. Collectives will not tit-for-tat exchange but will rather learn what the other collective needs and send them that amount, they will in turn request what they need (this is all, of course, subject to what either collective can reasonably provide, but neither is left utterly lacking).


Oh no, you clearly see me for something which I am not.

Really?
Interesting.... I&#39;m curious then, what sort of world are you envisioning?

[Hoppe]

But the priority is eliminating oppression, if the same "level of wealth" can be maintained, all the better, but it is more important to distribute the wealth than simply produce more of it, more that only the rich can enjoy.

Fifty years ago not many people could own a tv or car, look what happened now........

Ow yes, people in the third world......... <_<


Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Look at the presidential election coming november and see how rational people are.


Really?
Interesting.... I&#39;m curious then, what sort of world are you envisioning?

Hmm, I thought I&#39;d told it somewhere on this forum.

Ideally there would be some sort of anarcho pluralist world with different "states" where people could live as they please.

There are also rightwingers who condemn the status-quo.

[Individual]

How important is freedom, how important is it in real life...

Real life: Very important

Internet Life (particular, Che Lives): Doesn&#39;t seem to important if you question someone&#39;s authority.

[LSD]

Look at the presidential election coming november and see how rational people are.

...um....are you suggesting that we abandon democracy?


Fifty years ago not many people could own a tv or car, look what happened now........

What&#39;s your point??


Ow yes, people in the third world.........

Oh yes, you do like ignoring that portion of the world.....




Internet Life (particular, Che Lives): Doesn&#39;t seem to important if you question someone&#39;s authority.

Stop *****ing.

[Jesus Sanchez]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2004, 07:07 PM
There can be no individual without the masses.The masses are what makes an individual an individual.
If your on your own, you can&#39;t be different from everyone else, because there&#39;s no one to be differnt from. You can only be different if there is a group of people.

[SittingBull47]

Freedom is the most important thing in the world. Freedom for the masses starts with freedom for the individual. The question should not be can total freedom lead to immorality, as the conservatives argue with the homosexual marriage issue, the question should be why doesn&#39;t everybody have total freedom?

[A Free Mind]

Total Freedom?
With total freedom The Conservitives could kill all the homosexuals :) think about it

[A Free Mind]

Oh and I dissagre that land that you have cultivated is not yours for you had to invest time, labour and capital to turn the desert in to a farm thus while the land may not belong to you the crops do as dose the water used to irigate the land just as the clay is not yours but the sculpture is.

ps: I know its a bit late

[Individual]

Stop *****ing.

*****ing? I&#39;m sorry, I am not longer restricted. Why exactly would I be &#39;*****ing&#39; over being a &#39;member&#39;?

I am stating fact, to put out the knowledge. Disagree, it&#39;s your opinion. Do not say that I am *****ing. I have nothing to ***** about. Expressing opinion, yes.

[LSD]

I&#39;m sorry, was "*****ing" too difficult for you?

You&#39;re furstrated, angry, and feel betrayed about your earlier restriction. You are therefore using whatever opportunities come upon you to either comment on it or make unsubtle passive aggressive remarks on the subject. (e.g., the comment in quesion, your signature change, etc...)

"*****ing" doesn&#39;t need to have a present cause, often, such as in this case, it&#39;s resididual. However such emotional outbursts help no one. My imperative statement "stop *****ing" was as much for your bennfit as anyones, although I do admit a selfish element in that I grow tired of your incessant tantrums. But for the most part, I am simply informing you that if you continue such behaviour it will just piss off more and more people, and that that most certainly is not in your best interest.


Sorry if there was any confusion.

[LSD]

Oh and I dissagre that land that you have cultivated is not yours for you had to invest time, labour and capital to turn the desert in to a farm thus while the land may not belong to you the crops do as dose the water used to irigate the land just as the clay is not yours but the sculpture is.

Your making a fundamental assumption there that ownership is a natural function and that it naturally flows from labour. There is no reason why something must "belong" to you because you put work into it. As far as I know, no economic theories advocate that.
Certainly not capitalism&#33;

Instead, the priority must be the actual fundamental rights, such as life and security. These rights are best secured by eliminating conceptions of "property" and "owenership" not by expanding them.

[Individual]

Considering you do not know the situation. Considering you do not know everything that takes place. I think you should consider taking into consideration that many things could be classified as &#39;*****ing&#39;.

If you take that as *****ing, that is you. I took my own words as an opinion.

I&#39;m sorry, I am not on here trying to earn respect, and imply my impression on others. I have life outside of Che-Lives. What I am here for, is what many are, for a learning experience and to try and have healthy discussions concerning topics that I cannot conversate on in my personal life. Whatever your opinion is of me, I am not here to win it over. Take this as bluntly as you wish, however realize my point. Have a life=Not completely what others impressions of me on the internet, for we all cannot express our true selves in words.

I truly do not wish to pick fights, and really wonder why you can not see where I am coming from.

You say that I come out with &#39;emotional outbursts&#39;. I am trying to point out what goes on here on Che-Lives. Whether you disagree with what I have to say on the rights of our opinions, you do not need to come back with a comment &#39;stop *****ing&#39;. That would be *****ing itself. Instead, why don&#39;t you come back and attempt to prove me wrong on the things I have to say.

I shall admit that particular comment contained little intellect. However it fit the title of the topic. You should realize that approxiametely 95% of my posts have logic and arguements in them. You should personally realize that I am here for a knowledge and discussion aspect, not to develop social life. And I think you can probably respect that.

[cubist]

**applauds AQ**

LAD you have grabbed the stick at the wrong end and run round the track backwards,

AQ, i agree, i like to learn the fact i have disagreeing opinions is purely becuase i am a human being and i see through my own eyes as everyone else does,

why do people assume they understand the thinking of the person who posted, if you can understand the psycology of someone through plain text your a fucking genius, seeing as most people can&#39;t understand sarcasm in plain text.

[LSD]

OK, fine, it was an oppinion, but it was an opinion that was very disconnected from the subject at hand and that had more to do with yourself than it did with the philisohpical issue being discussed. Maybe "*****ing" was the wrong word and I&#39;m sorry if it offended you. But honestly, I can&#39;t see how you expected that comment to be treated as an intelligent argument&#33; As you said yourself "that particular comment contained little intellect", therefore how did you expect people to respond?

Look, I wasn&#39;t refering to your posts in general, I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve made some very useful and intelligent ones, but, again, "that particular comment contained little intellect" so I responded to it in turn. It wasn&#39;t a judgment of you, it wasn&#39;t an attack, it was merely a reaction to the inflamatory nature of the post:

Internet Life (particular, Che Lives): Doesn&#39;t seem to important if you question someone&#39;s authority.

Finally, in terms of "trying to point out what goes on here on Che-Lives", this thread was hardly the place to do it. If you have a complaint make it, but not in the midst of an entirely unrelated topic&#33;


Cephas, that&#39;s a very strange analogy you&#39;ve got there....

[cubist]

strange? would you care to extrapolate such a comment?

[LSD]

Oh, I just meant I&#39;ve never heard it before and it&#39;s a bizarre image, running backwards.

[cubist]

it means you got the wronge end and your going against the implied direction of thought,

[shyguywannadie]

Originally posted by A Free [email protected] 15 2004, 05:16 AM
Freedom
the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
Non of us are free then. Can we all go where we want?

travel bans, lack of money etc etc

Non of us are free, governments must be removed for true freedom.

Free to take drugs?
Free to have sex with any consenting person?


We are all slaves, we have no freedom, we must kill our oppressors.