Private Property under commu-socialism

[Nyder]

This is something the left truly have to consider when pondering their grand commu-socialist utopia:

To what extent will you abolish private property rights?

It is pretty much a given that people would not be allowed (through the threat of force) to own their own capital as that could be used for (shock! horror!) free enterprise trading in the marketplace - the very essence of what capitalism is.

Therefore I assume in a commu-socialist society no one can claim anything as their own. People's houses, their personal possessions, works of art and even the clothes they wear could never be claimed as being under the title of ownership of anyone.

Therefore if someone steals your jacket, how can you claim that as a crime if property rights do not exist - because you technically did not own the jacket even if you made it yourself ?????

Furthermore, to the very extreme level could you say that people even have the right of ownership over their own bodies? If they did - then they could conduct a capitalist enterprise with prostitution, selling their organs, performing labour, etc. But then again free enterprise is banished under commu-socialism (which again could only occur through the use of a police state), so would people even have the right to own themselves? If this is not the case, imagine the abuse people would suffer if they did not even have the right over their own bodies.

^You may consider that an extreme interpretation of the commu-socialist doctrine - but then again I re-iterate the question: to what extent will a commu-socialist society abolish private property rights?

[Guest1]

heh

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:59 PM
This is something the left truly have to consider when pondering their grand commu-socialist utopia:

To what extent will you abolish private property rights?

It is pretty much a given that people would not be allowed (through the threat of force) to own their own capital as that could be used for (shock! horror!) free enterprise trading in the marketplace - the very essence of what capitalism is.

Therefore I assume in a commu-socialist society no one can claim anything as their own. People's houses, their personal possessions, works of art and even the clothes they wear could never be claimed as being under the title of ownership of anyone.

Therefore if someone steals your jacket, how can you claim that as a crime if property rights do not exist - because you technically did not own the jacket even if you made it yourself ?????

Furthermore, to the very extreme level could you say that people even have the right of ownership over their own bodies? If they did - then they could conduct a capitalist enterprise with prostitution, selling their organs, performing labour, etc. But then again free enterprise is banished under commu-socialism (which again could only occur through the use of a police state), so would people even have the right to own themselves? If this is not the case, imagine the abuse people would suffer if they did not even have the right over their own bodies.

^You may consider that an extreme interpretation of the commu-socialist doctrine - but then again I re-iterate the question: to what extent will a commu-socialist society abolish private property rights?
AS long as there is no private ownership of the means of production I'm cool

[dannie]

Therefore if someone steals your jacket, how can you claim that as a crime if property rights do not exist - because you technically did not own the jacket even if you made it yourself ?????


th ere would be no need for steeling a jacket because everyone would have a jacket

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:20 PM
AS long as there is no private ownership of the means of production I'm cool
Yes, but how would you define 'means of production'? Would it be the means to produce any good and service and under what criteria would you encompass that?

[Don't Change Your Name]

No private property over the means of production and excessive personal one (such as having a mansion the size of China).

You can claim to have a house but not that you own it.

Certain things like different vehicles should be collective property which is lent to you under the condition that you contribute to society.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:22 PM

Therefore if someone steals your jacket, how can you claim that as a crime if property rights do not exist - because you technically did not own the jacket even if you made it yourself ?????


th ere would be no need for steeling a jacket because everyone would have a jacket
Are you naive enough to believe there would be no shortage in the supply of jackets in a commu-socialist society or that theft would not exist somehow?

Furthermore, how are you going to ensure that the jacket is not poor quality if there is only one central producer and no other alternative from where you can get jackets?

[Nyder]

You can claim to have a house but not that you own it.

If you don't own your house, then what is to stop anyone from just taking it over?

Certain things like different vehicles should be collective property which is lent to you under the condition that you contribute to society.

So a commu-socialist economy will be based on empty promises.... (?) :lol:

[Nyder]

Well these are issues you will have to resolve if you are going to create your perfect utopian commu-socialist society! :D

[Vinny Rafarino]

To what extent will you abolish private property rights


I think you have misunderstood what "property rights" mean under socialism. It it not a reference to your son not being able to own his GI Joe with the Kung fu grip.

It's funny that right wing kids still bring this shit up.



If you don't own your house, then what is to stop anyone from just taking it over

Imprisonment or public execution. :lol:



Well these are issues you will have to resolve if you are going to create your perfect utopian commu-socialist society!

Well it's a good thing we have a little thing called socialism yes? :lol: :lol:


So a commu-socialist economy will be based on empty promises

Not exactly son, the promises of execution for the former ruling class will be met with ALL certaintly. :lol: :lol: :lol:



Yes, but how would you define 'means of production'

I did not know there were more than one definition to "the means of production". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Redalias]

Well Nyder, to answer your question, I dont really know but I'm sure we can work something out.

People's bodies, along with their physical and mental integrity should of course be protected but you don't need private property to do that. Infact the notion that such things are safeguarded on the basis of property ownership has got to be the silliest thing I've heard in a long time.

Beyond that, property can be allocated to people. You have the right to use it but its just temporary possession. Why are you so worried anyway? Attachment to material possessions is empty and meaningless. We'd all be better off if we could unlearn it.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Nyder+Mar 7 2004, 06:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nyder @ Mar 7 2004, 06:39 PM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 06:20 PM
AS long as there is no private ownership of the means of production I&#39;m cool
Yes, but how would you define &#39;means of production&#39;? Would it be the means to produce any good and service and under what criteria would you encompass that? [/b]
The means of production being the equipment and capital used to mass produce a good.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don&#39;t understand why folks can&#39;t own everything they&#39;re given except of course the means of production.

You need a house, you get a house, you live in it, you own the house.

If you rent the house or sell it then it becomes bourgeois property and RAF&#39;s terms apply. :lol:

If somebody steals your stuff, then they&#39;ll be dealt with.

As long as you need something, or that thing is in abundance, then you&#39;ll have it with no problem. It will be yours. There is really no problem at all with this, is there?

And I believe few things will have to be shared.

Some things will probably be available for use at public places, such as computers, books, etc.

Other things will be shared in different ways. Cars will probably be used by more then one houselhold and carpooling will be highly encourgaed in certain areas where there are traffic problems are cars are not abundant.

But I don&#39;t see why if a fella needs to have a desk, for example, for a job, why can he only have to keep "under temporary posession". Why can&#39;t a brother have a motherfucking desk of his own, for christ&#39;s sake?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:48 PM
If you don&#39;t own your house, then what is to stop anyone from just taking it over?


Ever heard the word respect??? Maybe it&#39;s because you don&#39;t respect anyone or anybody?


So a commu-socialist economy will be based on empty promises.... (?) :lol:

No, it will be based on working. It&#39;s a bit like those cable/satellite companies that give you the decoder to watch all their channels and blablabla until you decide to stop the service, then you give it back. Not sure how&#39;s the word in english. If you don&#39;t work or do anything productive you have to give it back.

[Lardlad95]

Some things will probably be available for use at public places, such as computers, books, etc.

Your fucking around right? I&#39;m all for public libraries. But my books are my books damn it. Also I don&#39;t&#39; see why every household can&#39;t have a cpu.


Other things will be shared in different ways. Cars will probably be used by more then one houselhold and carpooling will be highly encourgaed in certain areas where there are traffic problems are cars are not abundant.

Or we just increase public transportation and leave buying cars up to individuals.

[STI]

Your fucking around right? I&#39;m all for public libraries. But my books are my books damn it. Also I don&#39;t&#39; see why every household can&#39;t have a cpu.


What&#39;s the point in hogging information you&#39;re not even using? You&#39;d have no real motivation to, unless the person who&#39;s asking to borrow your book has a bad habit of using them as toilet paper or something.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Computers are expensive and not everyone can afford one.
Just because it&#39;s socialism doesn&#39;t mean that computers won&#39;t be expensive to make.
And if you think about it, if everyone is paid exactly as much as everyone else (not that this will necessarily be true), it would be impossible for anyone at all to afford a computer because of the number of people involved in engineering a computer who also have to be paid as much as everyone else.

Maybe I&#39;m mistaken and a hundred people with the proper machinery can construct thousands of cumputers a day.

But whether or not it&#39;s so, I imagine public computers should be available.

What if a fella will only need to a use a computer 3 times in his life?
Why buy one?

I totally agree that pubic transportation is necessary.
But in modern American cities where most residents live far from the downtown where the jobs are, then public transportation might be a bit tricky.

How are you gonna put subway stops in a suburb? Only about 10 homes can be acomodated per block in a suburb. For one stop to acomodate, say 100 passangers each rush hour, there would be about 1 stop for hundreds of blocks of suburb. It would be kinda silly, wouldn&#39;t it?

Public transportation is more efficient in densely populated cities which stopped developing in the United States several decades ago when suburbs began to appear.

And not everyone who would need a car will be able to afford one... probably. Especialy outside the US.

And I&#39;m not suggetsing that your books be reposessed by the governemnt. :lol:

[Hiero]

Nyder your such a fucking idiot, your so dumb i cant believe it. Where the fuck did you get the idea that under socialism it would be acceptable to steal people&#39;s "jackets "houses" and hurt people. The whole idea of socialism is to protect people from expliotation and give all people a comftable living regadless of class. Although houses may be owned by the state or in extreme poltical system owned be all, taking someones house is denying them the right to have comftable living so is punishable same as a jacket etc ok get the idea Nyder. Now go read some infomation on communism and you will realise that it is a thought through political ideaology and people like you cant compete with your stupid philosophy. Nyder i fucking hate you and all your kind and i hope you die.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There may still be inequality, at least at first, in terms of what is owned. However it is the status attatched to such items that will be removed. In other words there may be a slight practical benifit to owning a faster car, but having to use more fuel is a downside, the fact it is some supercharged piece of engineered sex on wheels is not relevant anymore as it is only a car.

Adam Smith recognised that humans seek status not wealth. Wealth is a westernised method of obtaining status through status enhancing goods.

I do however think that the situation you described, where theft must be reported is thought provoking. This is because under the current definition it would be an impossible situation, surely a re-wording of laws could fix this.

Of course it is easy to say that "all property is theft" but I guess new ways of working are needed for a new world.

[lucid]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 8 2004, 09:31 AM
Now go read some infomation on communism and you will realise that it is a thought through political ideaology and people like you cant compete with your stupid philosophy.
Yeah Nyder,

Communism cannot be challenged&#33; It&#39;s perfection is the reason it has been so successful in the past and also the reason that there are so many communist societies out there.

You must start believing in it now or our peaceful comrades with have you killed&#33;

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:55 PM
Well Nyder, to answer your question, I dont really know but I&#39;m sure we can work something out.

People&#39;s bodies, along with their physical and mental integrity should of course be protected but you don&#39;t need private property to do that. Infact the notion that such things are safeguarded on the basis of property ownership has got to be the silliest thing I&#39;ve heard in a long time.

Beyond that, property can be allocated to people. You have the right to use it but its just temporary possession. Why are you so worried anyway? Attachment to material possessions is empty and meaningless. We&#39;d all be better off if we could unlearn it.
I don&#39;t think anyone here has really thought about what they mean when they refer to "private property". Private property can be any item/object, an idea or set of ideas (ie. intellectual property) and can even extend to your own person.

"Means of production", which would be owned collectively under socialism, includes either the capital, labour, technology used in producing a good and/or service. As you all know this is an extremely diverse range of things.

Yes, people&#39;s bodies are privately owned by themselves and historically they&#39;ve had to defend it from others (ie. murderers/rapists/slave masters/thugs) seeking to undermine their property.

You say that under your system property will be allocated to people on a temporary basis. However, that is not ownership and if you have nothing to defend your right of ownership over your property - then really it is up for the taking.

History is detailed with the struggle to defend property rights. In the beginning property was claimed using force but after that people found that it was much more effective to trade in their property rather then steal it or try and take it by force. Still, the notion was that property could be taken at any time unless there was a way to defend it - which is why the police and courts were established, to protect people&#39;s property and person.

If property is allocated, then who does the allocating? Wouldn&#39;t these people be inclined to give themselves a greater share of the allocation if they had this sort of power?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"Means of production", which would be owned collectively under socialism, includes either the capital, labour, technology used in producing a good and/or service. As you all know this is an extremely diverse range of things.

No, actualy it&#39;s quite simple. Farmland, factories, etc. are the means of production. The products or what they&#39;re worth is capital. The two are totally different. And property that is traded is bourgeois property and can go into the same category as the means of production.

These things will not be permited to be ownded by individuals.

The business of allocating propety will be administered by public organizations under the oversight of governemnt. Individuals will no longer do this for private gain, obviously.


If property is allocated, then who does the allocating? Wouldn&#39;t these people be inclined to give themselves a greater share of the allocation if they had this sort of power?

Comittees consisting of all citizens of a block, for example, could allocate the property of that block with regards to their own needs. Such comittees whose jurisdiction is only a single block exist today in Cuba.

Goods can be distributed by larger governing bodies depedning on how abundant they are and the demand.
Remember, governments will be directly directly linked to local workers&#39; comittees so corruption can be avoided.

All goods and property may be under the ownership of individuals. These goods and property will be allocated according to the independant or collective needs of these individuals. And the governemnt will protect peoples&#39; rights to own these things. The government, however, will not accept that individuals attempt to concentrate capital in their owns hands by producing or trading goods or property independantly of the public. If someone wishes to provide their society with something, they may do so according to public policies and by sharing the capital with his comrades. Capital is a social product. It can only exist if all workers contribute. It doesn&#39;t make sense to allow this to be under the control of one individual. Society is a group of people who produce and consume goods in order to survive. They produce goods whether or not there is a man who claims the means of production or not. The owner of the means of production cannot claim all the credit for the production that he controls. It is a social product. He is there for collecting the capital and nothing more. If he were not there it isn&#39;t as if nobody would have a job.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by lucid+Mar 8 2004, 04:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lucid @ Mar 8 2004, 04:09 PM)
comrade [email protected] 8 2004, 09:31 AM
Now go read some infomation on communism and you will realise that it is a thought through political ideaology and people like you cant compete with your stupid philosophy.
Yeah Nyder,

Communism cannot be challenged&#33; It&#39;s perfection is the reason it has been so successful in the past and also the reason that there are so many communist societies out there.

You must start believing in it now or our peaceful comrades with have you killed&#33; [/b]
All that i ask for is for people to reallise that communism was built up over a time by great economist.

[Hoppe]

great economist

Who Marx, Lange?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:09 AM

great economist

Who Marx, Lange?
I think we can assume he meant Marx...although Lange has raised good points before.

Lucid I think your ideas of a system are scarier than anything Bush could dream up. I would rather have my balls cut off, than stop questioning a system.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Mar 9 2004, 02:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hegemonicretribution @ Mar 9 2004, 02:29 PM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 11:09 AM

great economist

Who Marx, Lange?
I think we can assume he meant Marx...although Lange has raised good points before.

Lucid I think your ideas of a system are scarier than anything Bush could dream up. I would rather have my balls cut off, than stop questioning a system. [/b]
Who said that I never question the "system"? I just don&#39;t sit around screaming about all of the negatives while ignoring all of the positives of the US "system". This "system" has worked well for me and my family and the is no other "system" that I would rather live under. You can call it exploiting other people or whatever else you want to. I worked my way up starting at McDonalds and have been shit on by plenty of people. I just don&#39;t sit around and cry about it like others do.


BTW My post about communism was meant to be pure sarcasm.

[Hoppe]

I think we can assume he meant Marx...although Lange has raised good points before.

Ah well, different people have different preferences. But Marx a great economist? If he was then Lange wasn&#39;t needed.

[Nyder]

No, actualy it&#39;s quite simple. Farmland, factories, etc. are the means of production. The products or what they&#39;re worth is capital. The two are totally different. And property that is traded is bourgeois property and can go into the same category as the means of production.

I think you are confused. Capital IS a means of production. Such as factories, machines, computers, tractors - anything that goes into the making of a product or service can be considered capital. Labour is also a means of production and is the work put in by an individual or groups of individuals. Technology is what is used to make the means of production work more efficiently (ie. more cost effective, more productive - such as greater output from fewer inputs).

One reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was that they kept adding to much capital to production without updating technology at the same pace (technological advances are inherently superior in free market economies). Thus with one tractor you can perform the job quite well but with 20 tractors the same job becomes quite burdened and costly.


These things will not be permited to be ownded by individuals.

Then you have to admit that a police state must exist to enforce this.


The business of allocating propety will be administered by public organizations under the oversight of governemnt. Individuals will no longer do this for private gain, obviously.

You do realise how inefficient a multi-level administrative bureacracy would be in instituting these tasks? Clear cut decision making will be almost impossible. Add to that there will only be one monopoly organisation and corruption would be hard to control.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think you are confused. Capital IS a means of production. Such as factories, machines, computers, tractors - anything that goes into the making of a product or service can be considered capital.

No.
You are very mistaken.
Yes, capital is used to begin companies, but the result is also capital.
Capital is money that is used to make more money through the appropritation of collective labor or is the money made from the appropriation of collective labor. That is why we say that capital is a social good. It can only exist if many workers collectively contribute their labor to society, which is why it is wrong to employ these people to instead contribute to one man.
The means of production is the goods taht are used such as farmland, facory machinery, etc that is vital for the accumulation of capital. In capitalism this is owned by capitalists, or the owners of capital.
Capital can only be earned if one has capital to begin with. Wage laborers cannot amass capital.


Then you have to admit that a police state must exist to enforce this.

No.
We will only be protecting people who collectively and productively contribute to society from being employed to contribute only to capitalists. We will be enforcing basic rights.
An amployee-employer relation in capitalism benefits nobody but the employer. The worker is never entitttled to what he produces. The fact is that a society produces goods to survive whether or not there are bastards to claim the means of production and become to sole profiter.


You do realise how inefficient a multi-level administrative bureacracy would be in instituting these tasks? Clear cut decision making will be almost impossible. Add to that there will only be one monopoly organisation and corruption would be hard to control.

Corruption will not be likely because the central governemnt will merely be a political arm of the local comittees which will receive participation from all citizens. The central governemnt will serve to work in the collective good of all localities, it will work under the watchful eye of the workers. It will be an organization of the workers.

And efficiency is not the number one goal, but I imagine that it will be hugely more efficiemt in carrying out the needs of its citizens than, say, the US government.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:30 AM
Computers are expensive and not everyone can afford one.
Just because it&#39;s socialism doesn&#39;t mean that computers won&#39;t be expensive to make.
And if you think about it, if everyone is paid exactly as much as everyone else (not that this will necessarily be true), it would be impossible for anyone at all to afford a computer because of the number of people involved in engineering a computer who also have to be paid as much as everyone else.

Maybe I&#39;m mistaken and a hundred people with the proper machinery can construct thousands of cumputers a day.

But whether or not it&#39;s so, I imagine public computers should be available.

What if a fella will only need to a use a computer 3 times in his life?
Why buy one?
I&#39;d say we have enough technology for computers so improving them is secondary. So it would be better to produce them according to the needs. If someone uses computers from time to time but not enough as to own one it would be better for them to use public ones, while if someone likes them a lot, and use them to work at home then they need a good one. What we need in place of markets is researching what every individual wants and needs to establish an accurate view of how resources should be distributed.


I totally agree that pubic transportation is necessary.
But in modern American cities where most residents live far from the downtown where the jobs are, then public transportation might be a bit tricky.

Good point. Honestly I think we need mass production of small, simple, confortable and non-polluting cars for the cities together with some public transportation. I mean, I know that for most people the dream of having a BMW M3 or a Porsche Boxster is a good thing, but why do we need such cars for things like taking children to school, going get food and going to work??? If you like cars so much go to a circuit and use the "fast" cars there, plus it will stop many accidents.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I&#39;d say we have enough technology for computers so improving them is secondary. So it would be better to produce them according to the needs. If someone uses computers from time to time but not enough as to own one it would be better for them to use public ones, while if someone likes them a lot, and use them to work at home then they need a good one. What we need in place of markets is researching what every individual wants and needs to establish an accurate view of how resources should be distributed.

Agreed&#33;


Good point. Honestly I think we need mass production of small, simple, confortable and non-polluting cars for the cities together with some public transportation. I mean, I know that for most people the dream of having a BMW M3 or a Porsche Boxster is a good thing, but why do we need such cars for things like taking children to school, going get food and going to work??? If you like cars so much go to a circuit and use the "fast" cars there, plus it will stop many accidents.

American cities were designed for cars... the modern ones, not New York and such. But most other ones. The best way to go about improving transportation would probably be to push economical and efficient cars, as opposed to huge full-size sadans with V-8s for some elderly couple. I&#39;d say such cars that are so big yet only acomodate the same number of people as a small 4-door compact car is totally useless. And SUVs can also be phased out completely, for private use, at least. Large families can opt for a nice economical van. I strongly suggest there be a 20 miles/per gallon minimum for privately used vehicles.

In such cities where cars are necessary, development projects can be done to try to place more workers closer to jobs without having to demolish too much. And carpool incentives are also a very, very good idea. Buses may even be an option.

[Redalias]

Nyder, as I said an individual&#39;s body, person and dignity are not things. That line of reasoning is totally devoid common sense and I daresay humanity (though I&#39;m certain your just trying to strengthen your case by clutching at straws).

If anything it is Capitalist apologists, like your self, that objectify the Human Person and his dignity by making him a commodity to be exploited. We, on the other hand, want to protect people, and ourselves, from abuse. We want to stop not only the sexual rape of people but also the economic one.

Who would allocate goods? Wouldn&#39;t they get corrupted? Who would pick up the garbage?

Why do you want to suffocate us with these petty administrative questions?

1. People appointed to that effect.

2. If they do we&#39;ll need to kick them out, won&#39;t we?

3. Everybody&#33;

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Let&#39;s have a reply here, Nyder. Or are you gonna be a coward?

[Nyder]

No.
You are very mistaken.
Yes, capital is used to begin companies, but the result is also capital.
Capital is money that is used to make more money through the appropritation of collective labor or is the money made from the appropriation of collective labor. That is why we say that capital is a social good. It can only exist if many workers collectively contribute their labor to society, which is why it is wrong to employ these people to instead contribute to one man.

I am not mistaken, I was using the economic definition of capital. You must be thinking of it as a common term which is used to refer to financial capital. Financial capital can come in the form of value assets such as shares. Physical capital more relates to what I&#39;m talking about (which is basically an asset that produces value).

Your contention that labour is the only thing that produces value is wrong.


The means of production is the goods taht are used such as farmland, facory machinery, etc that is vital for the accumulation of capital. In capitalism this is owned by capitalists, or the owners of capital.
Capital can only be earned if one has capital to begin with. Wage laborers cannot amass capital.

Bullshit.

Anyone can amass capital. For example, inventory for a business is capital. So if you buy materials to produce a good, you have capital. You don&#39;t need masses of financial assets to buy capital. Even your computer can be considered capital if you used it to write a novel which you sold on the market or something.


Corruption will not be likely because the central governemnt will merely be a political arm of the local comittees which will receive participation from all citizens. The central governemnt will serve to work in the collective good of all localities, it will work under the watchful eye of the workers. It will be an organization of the workers.

If everything is to be run under committees how will any decision get made? As I said, the larger the level of management, the more inefficient the decision making becomes. To put it simply - nothing will ever get done. That&#39;s why every communist country was/is a dictatorship. Management is best done with a top down, small number of managers approach. For example, if you work in a company - imagine how bad it would be if every decision was to be debated by all the workers acting as managers (all of which have different goals).


And efficiency is not the number one goal, but I imagine that it will be hugely more efficiemt in carrying out the needs of its citizens than, say, the US government.

Last I heard the US government wasn&#39;t a free trading, private company. :rolleyes:

[Nyder]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 10 2004, 01:01 AM



I&#39;d say we have enough technology for computers so improving them is secondary. So it would be better to produce them according to the needs. If someone uses computers from time to time but not enough as to own one it would be better for them to use public ones, while if someone likes them a lot, and use them to work at home then they need a good one. What we need in place of markets is researching what every individual wants and needs to establish an accurate view of how resources should be distributed.

That statement is so stupid I don&#39;t know where to begin. You really are not a good spokesperson for communism.

&#39;Researching what every individual wants and needs&#39;? Do you even realise how slow, time consuming, wasteful and unproductive that would be?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:04 PM






Nyder, as I said an individual&#39;s body, person and dignity are not things. That line of reasoning is totally devoid common sense and I daresay humanity (though I&#39;m certain your just trying to strengthen your case by clutching at straws).

Then you concede that private ownership must exist for some things?


If anything it is Capitalist apologists, like your self, that objectify the Human Person and his dignity by making him a commodity to be exploited. We, on the other hand, want to protect people, and ourselves, from abuse. We want to stop not only the sexual rape of people but also the economic one.

Define exploitation. If entering a contract to voluntary provide your labour services with an agreed upon fee is exploitation - then you must be Santa Claus. However, if there is only one organisation to provide your labour services then it could be called exploitation because you are forced to work for a sole monopoly to survive (communism, anyone?).

Basically it is not exploitation if no force or coercion is involved.


Who would allocate goods? Wouldn&#39;t they get corrupted? Who would pick up the garbage?

Why do you want to suffocate us with these petty administrative questions?

1. People appointed to that effect.

2. If they do we&#39;ll need to kick them out, won&#39;t we?

3. Everybody&#33;

Oh so simple, isn&#39;t it. :rolleyes:

And you can&#39;t say that everybody will pick up the garbage because if you force everybody to do a particular task they will not be able to concentrate on other tasks. It is much better if you hire someone to perform a service of taking care of the garbage problem (which is why we have a garbage service and contract people to do the job). Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone had to make the trip to the landfill? It would utter chaos.

[Hiero]

Then you concede that private ownership must exist for some things?

Yes but only things that make a capital thats what people have been trying to get throught to you.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:15 PM
That statement is so stupid I don&#39;t know where to begin. You really are not a good spokesperson for communism.

&#39;Researching what every individual wants and needs&#39;? Do you even realise how slow, time consuming, wasteful and unproductive that would be?
Who said I was a "spokesperson for communism"??? And by the way, someone who just says "That statement is so stupid I don&#39;t know where to begin" because he just wants to make someone he disagrees with as an idiot is not a good spokesperson for capitalism.

Guess what idiot, nowadays there are many ways for corporations to study the people&#39;s need to make the largest profit on the market. It won&#39;t be such a different or complicated thing because it should be done on a local level. Then we will see what happens.
It might be slow but that&#39;s not a big problem, and i don&#39;t get how that&#39;s wasteful and unproductive. You seem to believe that only one person will go around all houses of the whole world asking every individual exactly what he wants, completely forgetting that technology, communication, federated power, people writing down what they need instead of spending 1 hour in a supermarket searching for the best prices nad the products they need. And you seem to believe that for some reason, knowing approximate amounts of what should be produced to satisfy the needs of a certain region is unproductive. At least we won&#39;t be wasting resources as it happens in capitalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I am not mistaken, I was using the economic definition of capital. You must be thinking of it as a common term which is used to refer to financial capital. Financial capital can come in the form of value assets such as shares. Physical capital more relates to what I&#39;m talking about (which is basically an asset that produces value).

Your contention that labour is the only thing that produces value is wrong.

Assets that produce value, at some point, depend on labour.
Even a computer cannot print out millions of books, deliver them, and accomplish retail work.
Yes, you can write a book with a computer, but capital cannot be created solely from the computer.


If everything is to be run under committees how will any decision get made? As I said, the larger the level of management, the more inefficient the decision making becomes. To put it simply - nothing will ever get done. That&#39;s why every communist country was/is a dictatorship. Management is best done with a top down, small number of managers approach. For example, if you work in a company - imagine how bad it would be if every decision was to be debated by all the workers acting as managers (all of which have different goals).

Most decisions will be made centraly, I predict, so that higher and more equal standards of education, healthcare, sanitation, pollution control, living conditions, etc., can be achieved. Local committees will merely allow workers to oversee and maintain checks on the central governemnt. Control of the economy may even be local, which would certainly prevent corruption.

[Redalias]

From Nyder

Then you concede that private ownership must exist for some things?

I concede no such thing. I don&#39;t think you understood a word I wrote, I suggest you go back and read it again.

For the third time, a person&#39;s physical/mental integrity should not and is not protected on the bassis of any property ownership. Instead, the aforementioned things should and are protected on the bassis of a little thing called human rights, maybe you&#39;ve heard of it.

I hope I get through to you this time.


Define exploitation.

3 entries found for exploitation.
ex·ploi·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn)
n.

1-The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.

2-Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.

3-An advertising or a publicity program.

Straight from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com). Its by no means an extensive definition but it will do. Obviously the economic rape/exploitation of workers under Capitalism fits under points 1 & 2, even a blind man can see that. As Chomsky says "its takes a big education to miss that".


If entering a contract to voluntary provide your labour services with an agreed upon fee is exploitation - then you must be Santa Claus. (...) Basically it is not exploitation if no force or coercion is involved.

So, as long as the victim "agrees" to be victimized its ok. The only thing that matters is that there is an agreement, even if that agreement is clearly unjust.

According to that rationale, a pimp is not exploiting his prostitutes because they "agree" to the terms of their arrangement and we dont have the right, much less the duty, to intervene in order to protect the part that is being clearly abused. The same is true for workers that live and work under subhuman conditions for symbolic wages. As long as they agree.

If you want my advice Nyder, you&#39;ll take a moment to think long and hard about your political and moral convictions.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Mar 13 2004, 02:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Mar 13 2004, 02:46 AM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 06:15 PM
That statement is so stupid I don&#39;t know where to begin. You really are not a good spokesperson for communism.

&#39;Researching what every individual wants and needs&#39;? Do you even realise how slow, time consuming, wasteful and unproductive that would be?
Who said I was a "spokesperson for communism"??? And by the way, someone who just says "That statement is so stupid I don&#39;t know where to begin" because he just wants to make someone he disagrees with as an idiot is not a good spokesperson for capitalism.

Guess what idiot, nowadays there are many ways for corporations to study the people&#39;s need to make the largest profit on the market. It won&#39;t be such a different or complicated thing because it should be done on a local level. Then we will see what happens.
It might be slow but that&#39;s not a big problem, and i don&#39;t get how that&#39;s wasteful and unproductive. You seem to believe that only one person will go around all houses of the whole world asking every individual exactly what he wants, completely forgetting that technology, communication, federated power, people writing down what they need instead of spending 1 hour in a supermarket searching for the best prices nad the products they need. And you seem to believe that for some reason, knowing approximate amounts of what should be produced to satisfy the needs of a certain region is unproductive. At least we won&#39;t be wasting resources as it happens in capitalism. [/b]
Yes, corporations conduct study into their markets, they don&#39;t study into every single market for every single item. To have one organisation to be responsible for these tasks is completely ludicrous.

And how are you going to sift through long lists of what people &#39;want&#39; and &#39;need&#39;, because since there is absolutely no cost at all to them to request these goods, people will be asking for a myriad of things that will be impossible to deliver.

If we do end up in a communist state I hope that you don&#39;t get promoted as a manager. :rolleyes:

[Nyder]

To Redalias


I concede no such thing. I don&#39;t think you understood a word I wrote, I suggest you go back and read it again.

For the third time, a person&#39;s physical/mental integrity should not and is not protected on the bassis of any property ownership. Instead, the aforementioned things should and are protected on the bassis of a little thing called human rights, maybe you&#39;ve heard of it.

I hope I get through to you this time.

That&#39;s just fudging the definition. If someone defends themself against an attacker they are defending their property - their ownership over themselves. If a person does not exercise their private ownership to own themselves then they can be enslaved by others.

If what you mean by &#39;human right&#39; is the right (or freedom) for people to defend their private ownership over themselves then you must agree with me.


3 entries found for exploitation.
ex·ploi·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn)
n.

1-The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.

2-Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.

3-An advertising or a publicity program.

Straight from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com). Its by no means an extensive definition but it will do. Obviously the economic rape/exploitation of workers under Capitalism fits under points 1 & 2, even a blind man can see that. As Chomsky says "its takes a big education to miss that".

All you have done is taken the word and definition of &#39;exploitation&#39; and given it negative connotations. For example, &#39;good&#39; exploitation would be &#39;employing to the greatest possible advantage&#39; - there is nothing inherently wrong with that. &#39;Utilisation of another group for selfish purposes&#39; - again that can be misconstrued and given a negative connotation. For example; employers utilise workers for their own selfish purposes (otherwise they wouldn&#39;t hire them) to assist in their production. However workers are also motivated by their selfish motives to work in order to earn money.

Therefore by this definition exploitation is fine. The only time it should be interpreted as &#39;negative exploitation is when there is force or fraud involved.


So, as long as the victim "agrees" to be victimized its ok. The only thing that matters is that there is an agreement, even if that agreement is clearly unjust.

Unjust? - by what criteria?

A victim? How is that person a victim if they voluntarily (without force) agreed to the contract?


According to that rationale, a pimp is not exploiting his prostitutes because they "agree" to the terms of their arrangement and we dont have the right, much less the duty, to intervene in order to protect the part that is being clearly abused. The same is true for workers that live and work under subhuman conditions for symbolic wages. As long as they agree.

NO - you certainly do not have the &#39;right&#39; to intervene. You can persuade the person to leave prositution but ultimately what they do with their life is their choice - and you certainly do not have the right to force him/her to do otherwise.

If workers want to live under certain conditions that is their choice - not yours. You have no right to tell other people how to live.

[Redalias]

From Nyder


That&#39;s just fudging the definition.

"Fudging the definition" of what?

What I wrote is very simple and very clear. Here I&#39;ll go over it with you:

"a person&#39;s physical/mental integrity should not and is not protected on the bassis of any property ownership. Instead, the aforementioned things should and are protected on the bassis of a little thing called human rights"

One concept, then two others and relations between them. There is no "definition" at work here because no concept is being defined or re-defined as it were. In other words, Nyder, Private property is not synonymous with Human rights. The only thing that is fudged is your reasoning.


If someone defends themself against an attacker they are defending their property - their ownership over themselves.

No. If a person defends himself against an attack they are defending themselves. Not "their property" because they are not property, not even their own property. People don&#39;t own themselves they are themselves. You might think it all amounts to the same thing but then formal logic is lost on you.


If a person does not exercise their private ownership to own themselves then they can be enslaved by others.

Indeed. One of the consequences of your way of thinking about people as property is that they can therefore be sold. If I "own" myself then I can sell myself.

So in other words, folks, Nyder supports slavery. He doesn&#39;t consider a person&#39;s dignity, freedom, rights, free will as inherent and un-subtract-able qualities of the human condition but rather as things that you "own" as you would own a pair of socks.


If what you mean by &#39;human right&#39; is the right (or freedom) for people to defend their private ownership over themselves then you must agree with me.

No I don&#39;t agree with you because people have no "property ownership over themselves", consequently your entire statement is nonsense.


All you have done is taken the word and definition of &#39;exploitation&#39; and given it negative connotations. For example, &#39;good&#39; exploitation would be &#39;employing to the greatest possible advantage&#39; - there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Nothing is inherently wrong. Least thats my take on it. What I said is that I think you need to reconsider what you think is wrong.

Nyder doesn&#39;t believe "employing" a person in such a manner as to take the "greatest possible advantage" of them, or out of them as it were, is wrong, I do.


For example; employers utilise workers for their own selfish purposes (otherwise they wouldn&#39;t hire them) to assist in their production. However workers are also motivated by their selfish motives to work in order to earn money.

Motives aren&#39;t the issue, my friend. The issue is what is actually going on and what is actaully going on is that someone is being raped.


Unjust? - by what criteria?

Its a hypothesis.


A victim? How is that person a victim if they voluntarily (without force) agreed to the contract?

He is not according to your standards, I think we&#39;ve established that.


NO - you certainly do not have the &#39;right&#39; to intervene. You can persuade the person to leave prositution but ultimately what they do with their life is their choice - and you certainly do not have the right to force him/her to do otherwise.

NO - I, we, have the duty to intervene, stop the abuse and jail the abuser.


If workers want to live under certain conditions that is their choice - not yours. You have no right to tell other people how to live.

They don&#39;t want to, you nitwit. They, like all oppressed, are forced to "accept" the terms of their oppression by the circumstances of life. Circumstances which were deliberately put in place exactly to perpetuate that same oppression.

The end.

[Hoppe]

Ah, mr Redalias considers himself above such men as Kant, Locke, Mill, Gauthier, Nozick etc.

Self-ownership simply says that we own ourselves. To say that person A "owns" X is to say that A is morally permitted to do whatever he wishes with X, within the limits imposed by the rights of others: no other person may do anything to or with X without A&#39;s permission, or more precisely, without being sure of A&#39;s permission, even if not actually secured at the time. So, the claim of "self-ownership" is that A is morally permitted to do with A whatever A wishes. I don&#39;t see this as an axiom but as a moral principle, and has certainly nothing to do with supporting slavery.

In another thread I have already said that your rights are positive rights which forces other individuals to do something. Therefor they cannot be called rights at all, as rights are defined as entailed duties to others. My negative right to freedom (which is I and probably Nyder see as most fundamental right) always clashes with your so called positive human rights. So whatever coercion you see in the capitalistic world, it will certainly exist in your world.


Motives aren&#39;t the issue, my friend. The issue is what is actually going on and what is actaully going on is that someone is being raped

Motives are certainly the case, or do you simply deny that different individuals have different preferences?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yet another disply of capitalist cowardice.
running away from arguments you cannot beat, are you Nyder? :lol:

[Nyder]

"Fudging the definition" of what?

It&#39;s fudging the definition of what you mean in relation to people&#39;s sovereign ownership over themselves. Either you agree with me that individuals should be recognised as having sovereign ownership over themselves or that this ownership is to be &#39;granted&#39; as a &#39;right&#39; only through the approval of others (ie. Government).

For example, if someone wishes to smoke, get tattoos, harm themselves or even kill themselves that is their perogative as it is their own private property and they can utilise it however they wish. Anything less amounts to someone&#39;s elses ownership over a person&#39;s life and liberty - which is the same as slavery.

What I&#39;m saying is don&#39;t fudge the definition by referring to &#39;human rights&#39;. Either say whether or not you think that individuals should have private ownership over themselves or not.


One concept, then two others and relations between them. There is no "definition" at work here because no concept is being defined or re-defined as it were. In other words, Nyder, Private property is not synonymous with Human rights. The only thing that is fudged is your reasoning.

Then I will re-word it. Do you think that it should be a human right for an individual to have self-ownership over themselves?


No. If a person defends himself against an attack they are defending themselves. Not "their property" because they are not property, not even their own property. People don&#39;t own themselves they are themselves. You might think it all amounts to the same thing but then formal logic is lost on you.

Then please tell me the difference.

As for formal logic - if a person does not own themselves then who does?


Indeed. One of the consequences of your way of thinking about people as property is that they can therefore be sold. If I "own" myself then I can sell myself.

That is correct, but remember you would have entered into the trade voluntarily otherwise it wouldn&#39;t be considered a legitimate case of exercising property ownership.


So in other words, folks, Nyder supports slavery. He doesn&#39;t consider a person&#39;s dignity, freedom, rights, free will as inherent and un-subtract-able qualities of the human condition but rather as things that you "own" as you would own a pair of socks.

So by saying I support an individual&#39;s private ownership over themselves is tantamount to supporting slavery according to you?&#33; :blink:

Yes - self-ownership also means the freedom to transfer ownership. However, I highly doubt that anyone is going to voluntarily agree to be my slave for an indefinite period of time.

Again - if a person does not own themselves then who does? Under communism it is the collective which is completely synonymous with the definition of slavery.

slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

IE: Slaveholders do not recognise private ownership of people to themselves.


For example; employers utilise workers for their own selfish purposes (otherwise they wouldn&#39;t hire them) to assist in their production. However workers are also motivated by their selfish motives to work in order to earn money.

Motives aren&#39;t the issue, my friend. The issue is what is actually going on and what is actaully going on is that someone is being raped.

Raped? You can&#39;t tell the difference between voluntarily agreeing to something and rape? Rape requires force or threat of force. NO ONE is forcing anyone to offer their labour services to a particular employer.


Nyder doesn&#39;t believe "employing" a person in such a manner as to take the "greatest possible advantage" of them, or out of them as it were, is wrong, I do.

No I don&#39;t think it&#39;s wrong as long as the employee voluntarily agreed to it.


NO - I, we, have the duty to intervene, stop the abuse and jail the abuser.

Then you are the one who wants to use force, you are the one who wants to abuse just because you think that individuals cannot act and think for themselves.

In China many people actually leave their public service jobs to work with the multinational corporations that have positively boosted China&#39;s once ailing socialist style economy. Are you going to force these people to return to the jobs they didn&#39;t want to do? Are you going to lock people up for the &#39;crime&#39; of giving people jobs?


They don&#39;t want to, you nitwit. They, like all oppressed, are forced to "accept" the terms of their oppression by the circumstances of life. Circumstances which were deliberately put in place exactly to perpetuate that same oppression.

Oppressed? C&#39;mon. Who is oppressing them? They went to the job interview because they want the job. How is that oppression?

And in a capitalist society they have the choice to get better jobs, or invest their money. However some choose to do nothing or just work menial jobs. Again, it is up to an individual what they do with their life.

[synthesis]

As for formal logic - if a person does not own themselves then who does?

People should never be "owned", period.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:30 PM

As for formal logic - if a person does not own themselves then who does?

People should never be "owned", period.
Then how are you ever going to defend that all individuals should reap the rewards of their labour? Certainly there must be some moral justification for this?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nyder I thought we had a pretty good argument going. So reply already&#33;

[Redalias]

From Nyder

people&#39;s sovereign ownership over themselves.

Lets ponder this concept for a moment. Silly isn&#39;t it?

People don&#39;t own themselves any more than you "own" your arms or your legs. Nyder, and Hoppe over there, own their hair, hands and feet. They "own" their free will, their capacity for rational thought, etc... Silly isn&#39;t it? So, why this insistence on the term own that is so awkwardly out of place? Because this is a thread about private property.

The contention seems to be that if you take away the right to own property you take away all forms of possession of all things, namely people&#39;s rights but it is not said like this (because said in this way the baselessness of the statement is self evident). Instead, you are dubbed property and your rights (specifically the right to mental & physical integrity, or in other words Hoppe the "negative" contention that other people do not have the right to harm you) are supposedly enshrined in the fact that you own your self. LOL. If you understand what they are saying its hard not laugh at this example of sophistry at its worse. Sorry guys, your bullshit wont stick.

Here&#39;s a news flash guys: Without the many rights, the ones that truly defend the human person from many forms of abuse, awarded to you in law you&#39;d be screwed. If I kidnaped you, instead of being prosecuted for kidnaping, I&#39;d be prosecuted for theft. LOL. If I killed you I could be prosecuted for destruction of property :blink:.

No, Nyder. Your right to be free from harm does not stem from your ownership of anything. It stems from the social consensus on the matter that is written into law. Consensus that need not disapear with the disappearance of private property since there is no conection between the two.

If you are honest you will recognize that you are wrong and I am right but to do that you must forget ego and be rational. Not that I care. I&#39;m confident I exposed the fallacy of your argument and I wont drag this discussion into absurdity. The prosecution rests.


Either you agree with me that individuals should be recognised as having sovereign ownership over themselves or that this ownership is to be &#39;granted&#39; as a &#39;right&#39; only through the approval of others (ie. Government).


See, that makes no sense. The first option is the same as the second, only worded differently. There is no "either" because there is no dichotomy, opposition or contradiction between the statements.

"Recognizing the ownership of people over themselves" (lol) is the same thing as "granting ownership as right through the approval of others". You don&#39;t even make any goddamn sense anymore&#33; ha&#33; I think you need a vacation.


That is correct, but remember you would have entered into the trade voluntarily otherwise it wouldn&#39;t be considered a legitimate case of exercising property ownership.

Lets be clear here. "the trade" In question is slavery. Just to outline that, things get lost in the incessant quoting.

And yes I understood your view that slavery is only legitimate if we enter into it voluntarily. The end result is the same, though. You support the right of a person to own another.

Don&#39;t mind me but if you go around saying stuff like that noone will take you seriously.


Raped? You can&#39;t tell the difference between voluntarily agreeing to something and rape? Rape requires force or threat of force. NO ONE is forcing anyone to offer their labour services to a particular employer.

"Raped" is just a figure of speech. The point is that the capitalist is living on the back of the worker and its about time we put an end to that. To that you say nothing. The only thing you keep repeating like a parrot is that the worker "agrees" to be exploited. Me, my comrades on this site and alot of other people all around the world (not necessarily communists) don&#39;t think that makes it right. Lets hope our day will come.

The rest of your post is just rehashing the "they agree so that makes it all right" line so see above.

[synthesis]

Then how are you ever going to defend that all individuals should reap the rewards of their labour? Certainly there must be some moral justification for this?

Moral justification? Who bothers with those any more?

We see it as a fundamental &#39;right&#39;. This right infringes upon private property rights. The worker produces an item, but does not recieve the benefits of producing this item because the property-owner controls the means of producing the object. When the worker seizes the means of production, he is infringing upon the private property rights of the property-owner.

This can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with my earlier statement. I apologize.

[Hoppe]

Silly isn&#39;t it? So, why this insistence on the term own that is so awkwardly out of place?

Not really. The word own is highly relevant, as in collective ownership vs private ownership, or who controls what. Maybe you have little notion of the concept of self-ownership, other socialists however do.


We see it as a fundamental &#39;right&#39;. This right infringes upon private property rights. The worker produces an item, but does not recieve the benefits of producing this item because the property-owner controls the means of producing the object. When the worker seizes the means of production, he is infringing upon the private property rights of the property-owner.


Yes fine, by why is this right fundamental?

[Osman Ghazi]

Yes fine, by why is this right fundamental?

You have got to be kidding me.
You cappies are always screaming that people should be able to whatever they want with the fruits of their labour. I couldn&#39;t agree more. The worker makes the product with his labour so he should be able to do with it what he pleases.

[Hoppe]

I am not kidding you. What capitalists mean with that phrase is totally opposite of your claim.

[Osman Ghazi]

So what you mean is that the &#39;owner&#39; should be able to do whatever he wants with the fruits of the worker&#39;s labour?

If that&#39;s what you mean then start saying that instead of &#39;a person should be able to do what they want with the product of their labour&#39;, which you have to agree is quite a different statement.

[Ahura Mazda]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 8 2004, 09:31 AM
Nyder your such a fucking idiot, your so dumb i cant believe it. Where the fuck did you get the idea that under socialism it would be acceptable to steal people&#39;s "jackets "houses" and hurt people. The whole idea of socialism is to protect people from expliotation and give all people a comftable living regadless of class. Although houses may be owned by the state or in extreme poltical system owned be all, taking someones house is denying them the right to have comftable living so is punishable same as a jacket etc ok get the idea Nyder. Now go read some infomation on communism and you will realise that it is a thought through political ideaology and people like you cant compete with your stupid philosophy. Nyder i fucking hate you and all your kind and i hope you die.
I&#39;d hate to be your brother, man.

What makes you think some people aren&#39;t that cruel as to steal someone&#39;s jacket for the sole reason of seeing them suffer?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 06:33 PM
So what you mean is that the &#39;owner&#39; should be able to do whatever he wants with the fruits of the worker&#39;s labour?

If that&#39;s what you mean then start saying that instead of &#39;a person should be able to do what they want with the product of their labour&#39;, which you have to agree is quite a different statement.
If someone exchanges his labour for money then he doesn&#39;t own anything. The fruits of his labour is the money paid to him and no one but him has any right to it.

[synthesis]

If someone exchanges his labour for money then he doesn&#39;t own anything. The fruits of his labour is the money paid to him and no one but him has any right to it.

But the money paid to the worker is completely discrete from the amount and intensity of his labor. The wage is whatever the bourgeois feels fit to pay the worker, which is generally not very much.

Paying workers &#39;wages&#39; is essentially equivalent to laundering stolen money.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:46 PM
Yes, corporations conduct study into their markets, they don&#39;t study into every single market for every single item. To have one organisation to be responsible for these tasks is completely ludicrous.
Sorry that I didn&#39;t answer before (I was without internet for some days).

Anyway, I don&#39;t think there will be one organization doing that alone; instead a local "office" should exist to cover a certain area.


And how are you going to sift through long lists of what people &#39;want&#39; and &#39;need&#39;, because since there is absolutely no cost at all to them to request these goods, people will be asking for a myriad of things that will be impossible to deliver.

I get what you believe I mean: you think I want one individual to go around a city like New York and ask every single person stupid things like "what colour would you prefer your shampoo to have?". No no and NO. This can easily be done by a computer program were you enter approximate preferences of a certain product (like "which of this products would like to consume most days?", then you pick between the options). You could update this in any moment, and this goes to a database which indicates local producers an approximate ammount of X product/s to produce to supply the area, between other useful functions. Of course this options would be limited, in fact it would be better to use this with some products, especially those which refer to important things.
The good thing about this is that you could, for example, have 1000 "credits" to "spend" over some products, so you leave those you dislike in 0, and bring those you like to, let&#39;s say, 20. The only problem with this is that it won&#39;t be useful for most things, and it will take a while to implement and establish how the system will look like. But I think we can go through that.


If we do end up in a communist state I hope that you don&#39;t get promoted as a manager. :rolleyes:

For the reasons I gave above I think i would be pretty efficient and innovative. At least more than those Lenin wannabes and many of the modern greedy bosses.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 02:56 PM

Yes fine, by why is this right fundamental?

You have got to be kidding me.
You cappies are always screaming that people should be able to whatever they want with the fruits of their labour. I couldn&#39;t agree more. The worker makes the product with his labour so he should be able to do with it what he pleases.
Again you forget that not only the worker contributes to making the product. It is the investment made by the owner of the business which goes into capital (to produce the goods and/or services). The business is also their intellectual property, and they can exercise any right as to how they run their business. If they offer low wages though, it is unlikely they will attract the kind of labour they are looking for in a competitive job market.

Also again I re-iterate that the value of the product depends on it&#39;s success on the market, not on the input of labour.

Most minimum wages are set by Governments. This has the effect of making labour more expensive, so firms have a dis-incentive to hire labour and those struggling to enter the job market will not get what they most desperately need - experience in paid employment so that they can be more attractive to other potential employers.

Furthermore, selling your labour is not an end in itself. Entrepreneurs realise this and decide that instead of concentrating solely on selling yourself in the labour market, that instead you can produce other goods and/or services - ie. become an independent firm.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 11:30 PM







Here&#39;s a news flash guys: Without the many rights, the ones that truly defend the human person from many forms of abuse, awarded to you in law you&#39;d be screwed. If I kidnaped you, instead of being prosecuted for kidnaping, I&#39;d be prosecuted for theft. LOL. If I killed you I could be prosecuted for destruction of property :blink:.

You are just basing all this on an assumption of what the law should or would be.

Under something like Posner&#39;s version of the economics of law; law would be approached as to how a market works. Essentially, what would the costs charged to a criminal be if the victim allowed for the kidnapping to happen? That is what would be decided in a Posnerian law court.

The current system of law in most countries is just about &#39;dis-incentive&#39; penalties which often have absolutely no bearing on the loss that the crime has contributed.


No, Nyder. Your right to be free from harm does not stem from your ownership of anything. It stems from the social consensus on the matter that is written into law. Consensus that need not disapear with the disappearance of private property since there is no conection between the two.

So you think that a communist mandate against private property will be inseperable from law? Law is exactly what collectivists like to dish out. Taking away people&#39;s &#39;ownership&#39; of things by banning private property is a very extreme law and needs incredible enforcement, terror and slavery to bring about.

Now rights don&#39;t really exist except under man-made systems. And the best way to ensure them is to not enshrine anything that would go against those rights.

And what I am arguing &#39;works&#39; is the recognition of a person&#39;s ownership over their life, liberty and property and to do with that what they please. Any attempt to intervene in this ownership is criminal.


If you are honest you will recognize that you are wrong and I am right but to do that you must forget ego and be rational. Not that I care. I&#39;m confident I exposed the fallacy of your argument and I wont drag this discussion into absurdity. The prosecution rests.

Who has the ego? :rolleyes:


Lets be clear here. "the trade" In question is slavery. Just to outline that, things get lost in the incessant quoting.

And yes I understood your view that slavery is only legitimate if we enter into it voluntarily. The end result is the same, though. You support the right of a person to own another.

Don&#39;t mind me but if you go around saying stuff like that noone will take you seriously.

Wrong. I do not support the right of a person to own someone else. I support the right of a person to own themselves and that means that they can transfer that ownership to someone else voluntarily. Ownership of something includes the ability to transfer it.

Obviously they are not one and the same thing.

I said: Either you agree with me that individuals should be recognised as having sovereign ownership over themselves or that this ownership is to be &#39;granted&#39; as a &#39;right&#39; only through the approval of others (ie. Government).

You replied:
See, that makes no sense. The first option is the same as the second, only worded differently. There is no "either" because there is no dichotomy, opposition or contradiction between the statements.

"Recognizing the ownership of people over themselves" (lol) is the same thing as "granting ownership as right through the approval of others". You don&#39;t even make any goddamn sense anymore&#33; ha&#33; I think you need a vacation.

Oh no, &#39;recognising&#39; rights is very different from &#39;granting&#39; rights. Rights that are granted can be taken away but rights that are universally recognised cannot. For example, private property rights has never been fully recognised, only granted in various forms to various entities at varying levels (which is not true property rights). IE: I don&#39;t have full ownership over my salary because the Government takes some of it away, the same with Government regulation of business such as licensing.


"Raped" is just a figure of speech.

No, it is not a figure of speech it has a very clear cut definition and your use of it for political reasons is typical lefty dramatics. To suggest that rape is equivalent to voluntary actions totally demeans what rape actually is.


The point is that the capitalist is living on the back of the worker and its about time we put an end to that.

That is a load of bullshit. Entrepreneurs have made their successful living out of their hard work, achievement and success in the marketplace. It is the drive of the capitalist that produces success on the market, not the labour that he/she hires. For example, if you hired a technician to fix your computer would it be logical for you to be forced to pay him/her for the increase in value that the computer gained from being in working order? Of course not, because the entire concept is ridiculous. Workers offer their services to an employer, and the payment is decided upon mutual agreement, based on a myriad of factors. That is how it works - now how is that exploitation or &#39;the capitalist living off the back of the worker&#39;?


To that you say nothing. The only thing you keep repeating like a parrot is that the worker "agrees" to be exploited. Me, my comrades on this site and alot of other people all around the world (not necessarily communists) don&#39;t think that makes it right. Lets hope our day will come.

Make sure to tell all the people who&#39;s wages on average are actually rising (indexed for inflation) in &#39;liberated&#39; economies even in poorer nations.


The rest of your post is just rehashing the "they agree so that makes it all right" line so see above.

Well it wouldn&#39;t be right if there was only one organisation to work for and you could only accept one wage (IE: =communism).

[Yazman]

I&#39;ve said it before, and I&#39;ll say it again.


I&#39;m sick of you fucking ignorant right wing morons calling us "utopians."

Socialism is not utopia. Communism is not utopia.

Neither of these is attempting to create one. Everybody, no matter WHAT their political beliefs are, is always striving towards a utopia.

But nobody is actively attempting to create one.

Stop being so ignorant. Every system has its problems. Communism is not utopia. Anarchism is not utopia. Anybody can take the utopian argument and use it. "oh my god you cappies think you&#39;ll have a free market utopia."

Shut up and think up some decent arguments for once, instead of using the same old utopia crap.


*edit*



Make sure to tell all the people who&#39;s wages on average are actually rising (indexed for inflation) in &#39;liberated&#39; economies even in poorer nations.

I notice that you say this, Nyder. OBVIOUSLY if you&#39;re "liberating" a country from a dictatorship such as that of the Ba&#39;ath party in Iraq, the wages will rise. But the US occupational government in Iraq for example, will not increase wages enough to equalise quality of life with bourgeoisie or the rich. While the workers wages are "rising", they aren&#39;t REALLY rising at all if you compare it to the wages of the bourgeoisie and the rich which are ALSO rising.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:07 AM
I&#39;ve said it before, and I&#39;ll say it again.


I&#39;m sick of you fucking ignorant right wing morons calling us "utopians."

Socialism is not utopia. Communism is not utopia.

Neither of these is attempting to create one. Everybody, no matter WHAT their political beliefs are, is always striving towards a utopia.

But nobody is actively attempting to create one.

Stop being so ignorant. Every system has its problems. Communism is not utopia. Anarchism is not utopia. Anybody can take the utopian argument and use it. "oh my god you cappies think you&#39;ll have a free market utopia."

Shut up and think up some decent arguments for once, instead of using the same old utopia crap.


*edit*



Make sure to tell all the people who&#39;s wages on average are actually rising (indexed for inflation) in &#39;liberated&#39; economies even in poorer nations.


First of all, the Government setting wages is not an example of the free market at work.

Secondly, many naive left-whingers obviously believe that communism or socialism would be some kind of utopia, but in practice it is a nightmare. And don&#39;t tell me that communism or socialism hasn&#39;t existed yet because many countries have tried it and it has failed every single time.


I notice that you say this, Nyder. OBVIOUSLY if you&#39;re "liberating" a country from a dictatorship such as that of the Ba&#39;ath party in Iraq, the wages will rise. But the US occupational government in Iraq for example, will not increase wages enough to equalise quality of life with bourgeoisie or the rich. While the workers wages are "rising", they aren&#39;t REALLY rising at all if you compare it to the wages of the bourgeoisie and the rich which are ALSO rising.

Their wages are still rising. That means they will be much wealthier and have a higher standard of living then their ancestors. You can&#39;t expect everyone to have an equal income because not everyone is exactly the same - some people have the ambition to become CEO&#39;s or owners of business enterprises, some people are content just to work a normal job. Just because you have problems with envy doesn&#39;t negate the fact that in countries that have undertaken free market reforms, wages are indeed rising which means a better quality of life for the poorest.