Questions For Any Libertarians [Archive]

Lossenelin

6th October 2004, 02:28

There a few things about the right-wing Libertarian ideoloy I've always wanted to know;

1. Whats your view on patents? are patents a restriction on the Free Market? or is it a case of the individual created something so they should own the rights to it and no one else can produce it?

2. Private Property. Why should people have the right to private property? no one created the land, so why should people be able to excert ownership over it?

3. Trade Unions- I've noticed a lot of Libertarians are for removing restrictions on employment and labour laws (eg abolishing the minimum wage) Are you also for removing restrictions on the rights of workers to organise?

4. What is your view for society? do you think that in a completely "free society" the invisible hand of the market will deliver a high standard of living to everyone, or is it a social Darwinism sort of idea that yes, most people will fail to succeed in the free market, but those people deserve to because they are stupid/lazy/whatever

5. Imigration and free trade; if businesses are allowed to look overseas for cheap labour, do you also support the idea that labourers should be allowed to look overseas for fairer pay and better working conditions? eg, completely open boarders, for business and workers, or just for business?

Professor Moneybags

6th October 2004, 15:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:28 AM
3. Trade Unions- I've noticed a lot of Libertarians are for removing restrictions on employment and labour laws (eg abolishing the minimum wage) Are you also for removing restrictions on the rights of workers to organise?
I'm not a libertarian but this is a consistent problem you people seem to have : The inability to tell positive rights from negative ones, or believing that they are as valid as one another.

The right to a minimum wage (positive right) is not a right any more than the right to steal or murder is. The right to free association (negative right) demands nothing from anyone and does not comprimise the rights of others. Negative rights lead to freedom, postive ones, to slavery.

There is nothing wrong with forming unions (negative right) providing they do not initiate force.

Misodoctakleidist

6th October 2004, 15:55

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2004, 02:14 PM
I'm not a libertarian but this is a consistent problem you people seem to have : The inability to tell positive rights from negative ones, or believing that they are as valid as one another.

The right to a minimum wage (positive right) is not a right any more than the right to steal or murder is. The right to free association (negative right) demands nothing from anyone and does not comprimise the rights of others. Negative rights lead to freedom, postive ones, to slavery.

There is nothing wrong with forming unions (negative right) providing they do not initiate force.
Would you allow companies to fire employees who decide to unionise?

Hoppe

6th October 2004, 16:28

1.

No patents

2.

You can only claim land if you have cultivated it.

4.

Social darwinism is only applicable to democracy. Try to get a law changed in the USA.

5.

Only insofar as they are welcome. Why would I allow anyone on my property?

LSD

7th October 2004, 00:50

Hoppe, I just noticed, I think there's a typo in your signature.

Shouldn't it be Inter pedes puellarum...not peullarum?

EDIT: Also, shouldn't pes be in the ablative when taken with inter instead of the nominative?

So: Inter pedibus puellarum magna voluptas puerorum est

Hoppe

7th October 2004, 16:58

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2004, 11:50 PM
Hoppe, I just noticed, I think there's a typo in your signature.

Shouldn't it be Inter pedes puellarum...not peullarum?

EDIT: Also, shouldn't pes be in the ablative when taken with inter instead of the nominative?

So: Inter pedibus puellarum magna voluptas puerorum est
Thanks, that was a stupid typo.

Inter is always plus accusative as far as I know.

LSD

7th October 2004, 17:57

Inter is always plus accusative as far as I know.

Yeah, you're right, I was thinking "in".

Professor Moneybags

7th October 2004, 19:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:55 PM
Would you allow companies to fire employees who decide to unionise?
Yes, but they wouldn't last long though, would they. Would you trust/work for an employer who refused to allow unions ?

Osman Ghazi

8th October 2004, 03:34

Yes, but they wouldn't last long though, would they. Would you trust/work for an employer who refused to allow unions ?

Yeah, cause no one goes to Wal-Mart. Oh wait... they are one of the single largest grossing companies in the world. Well, more capitalist bullshit I suppose.

The right to a minimum wage (positive right) is not a right any more than the right to steal or murder is

Entirely false. Unlike in your fantasy world wher rights are what you make of tyhem, in human societies, 'rights' (an abstract and indefinable thing anyways) are generally decided upon by majority thought.

I'd just like to point out that the right to a minimum wage, which according to you is on par with the right to murder and steal has been guaranteed by every 'civilized' county for the past 150 years. But 150+ years of human existence is nothing compared to the almighty logic of the professor, eh?

Lossenelin

8th October 2004, 09:23

Excellent to get some answers, I don't spend a lot of time in the Oposing Ideologys forum (my ex-girlfriend was a free-market anarchist so I'm already famillar with a lot of the views of the economic-far-right) but those questions had been buging me for ages.

I like the answer about only being able to claim land if you cultivate it, I thought about that one for ages and couldn't think of a justifiable reason to be able to say "this land is mine" your answer makes a lot of sense.
I still think that people should share the land though.

Professor Moneybags

8th October 2004, 20:48

Entirely false. Unlike in your fantasy world wher rights are what you make of tyhem,

If you are implying that they are subjective, then I am telling you they are not.

in human societies, 'rights' (an abstract and indefinable thing anyways)

Just because something is abstract does not make it undefinable. This is incommunicable to concrete-bound types like yourself, but we'll leave that topic for another day.

are generally decided upon by majority thought.

Generally wrong. If the majority is the standard that judges what rights are or are not then they could as easily install a legal right to enslave/murder as easily they could a right to life.

I'd just like to point out that the right to a minimum wage, which according to you is on par with the right to murder and steal has been guaranteed by every 'civilized' county for the past 150 years. But 150+ years of human existence is nothing compared to the almighty logic of the professor, eh?

You're not capable of understanding logic, as your contintual appeals to popularity (http://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.html#adpop) prove.

LSD

8th October 2004, 21:22

Generally wrong. If the majority is the standard that judges what rights are or are not then they could as easily install a legal right to enslave/murder as easily they could a right to life.

But they would never do such a thing as they themselves would be hurt by this.

When the people actually choose what is and what isn't a "right" they do so knowing that these restrictions and freedoms will apply to themselves as well. It is a safeguard far more powerful than any enlightened despot or "religious" moralism.

Believe it or not, the concept that "the majority is the standard that judges what rights are or are not" actually already has a name.

It starts with a "d" and ends with "emocracy".

You can fill in the rest.

T_SP

9th October 2004, 09:11

Prof moneybags
I'm not a libertarian but this is a consistent problem you people seem to have : The inability to tell positive rights from negative ones, or believing that they are as valid as one another.
Explain why they are not

The right to a minimum wage (positive right) is not a right any more than the right to steal or murder is.
So the right to have a decent living wage so people can afford the basics in life, because that is just about what you can afford on min. wage, is crap in your opinion
the european decentcy threashold is way above what the minimum wage but due to big business pressure and Government cooperation here in the UK that threshold will not be met pushing more and more workers below the poverty line.

The right to free association (negative right) demands nothing from anyone and does not comprimise the rights of others.
Accept those it oppresses!!

Negative rights lead to freedom, postive ones, to slavery.
Define freedom.

There is nothing wrong with forming unions (negative right) providing they do not initiate force.
So they have no function then, what is the point in a union that will not enforce workers rights? Ultimately if there was a one day general strike the country would fall to it's knees, the workers provide the services and yet the bosses reap all the benefits!! Why should huge corporation bosses net salaries above 6 figures whilst the workers, those who earn that money, dangle just below the poverty line. Workers make things they can't even afford!!

h&s

9th October 2004, 09:34

Would you allow companies to fire employees who decide to unionise?

Yes, but they wouldn't last long though, would they. Would you trust/work for an employer who refused to allow unions ?
You're living in a complete dreamworld. Do you really think that unskilled workers living in an area with massive unemployment have a choice who they work for? People don't work in factories for the fun of it, they sell their labour to live. Are you telling me that people are going to turn down a wage, however pitiful it may be, because they can't form a union?
Your world just leads to bosses using workers as an exploitable resource, not people.
Unions are needed so that these people can force their oppressive employers to pay them a decent, living wage, only you don't want that do you?

Professor Moneybags

10th October 2004, 16:17

You're living in a complete dreamworld. Do you really think that unskilled workers living in an area with massive unemployment have a choice who they work for? People don't work in factories for the fun of it, they sell their labour to live. Are you telling me that people are going to turn down a wage, however pitiful it may be, because they can't form a union?
Your world just leads to bosses using workers as an exploitable resource, not people.

Your world just leads to workers using bosses as an exploitable resource, not people. The consequences of that have been well documented.

Unions are needed so that these people can force their oppressive employers to pay them a decent, living wage, only you don't want that do you?

Tell me what exactly what a "living wage" is (using objective criterion) and then we'll talk.

Professor Moneybags

10th October 2004, 16:24

But they would never do such a thing as they themselves would be hurt by this.

Rubbish. They're doing it right now.

Believe it or not, the concept that "the majority is the standard that judges what rights are or are not" actually already has a name.

It starts with a "d" and ends with "emocracy".

It's still mob rule without constraints, though, isn't ?

Professor Moneybags

10th October 2004, 16:45

Explain why they are not

I just have.

So the right to have a decent living wage

Which is what ?

so people can afford the basics in life,

Which are what ?

the european decentcy threashold

The what ?

UK that threshold will not be met pushing more and more workers below the poverty line.

Relative poverty is not real poverty, not that it's caused by that anyway.

Accept those it oppresses!!

How are their rights being violated ? If I refuse to hand over my wallet to a mugger, am I violating his rights ?

Define freedom.

The ability to make voluntary actions (without coercion). Let's hear yours.

So they have no function then, what is the point in a union that will not enforce workers rights?

Collective bargaining is their legitimate function, not bullying people.

Why should huge corporation bosses net salaries above 6 figures whilst the workers, those who earn that money, dangle just below the poverty line. Workers make things they can't even afford!!

I'll be sure to spare a thought for all those poor opressed workers at NASA who cannot afford a space shuttle as well as the shipbuilders who cannot afford an aircraft carrier.

LSD

10th October 2004, 17:33

Rubbish. They're doing it right now.

Who are?

And what specifically are "they" doing?

It's still mob rule without constraints, though, isn't ?

Precisely what "constraints" would you like on the right of the people to govern themselves?

Can I take it then that you do not favour democracy as a form of political government?

What is your "flavour"? Aristocracy? Pornocracy? Kakistocracy??

The ability to make voluntary actions (without coercion).

"without coercion"

If I cannot excersize my right to speak because I can't afford the equipment to broadcast, am I "coerced"?

If I cannot excersize my right to live because I can't afford the food to sustain me, am I "coerced"?

"Market" economics is intrinsically coercive. It nescessitates inequalities and by doing so ensures that some are more able to excersize their rights (even their negative rights) than others. Because someone may be better at "playing the stock market" or was born into the "right family", they are accorded greater freedoms. They are free from hunger, free from worry, often even free from work.

These individuals are able to devote their time, their effort, and their resources into taking advantage of the negative rights you fiercely claim is all they possess. Whereas the starving worker who must labour most of his day and for whom food is a constant struggle...he's not devoting much of his time to such things. He certainly has no resources to commit. He can't buy a radio station. He can't buy land or property or labour like his wealthy counterpart can.

You see, negative rights are as complex as possitve rights. They are layered. The right to security is greater for those who can afford protection. Sure, a poor man is ostensibly granted "security", but capitalism ensures that because of his financian status, he is far more likely to be attacked then a rich man. Is that "fair"? Is that "right"?

Shouldn't the application of "negative rights" be equal?

"voluntary actions"

The basis of any action is the ability to make such an action. I can't "be secure" if I'm starving. I can't speak if I can't be heard. Capitalistic inequalities ensure that some are able to make "vountary actions" and others are not.

Your primary contention is that any right which requires in its excersize the action of others is an invalid one, and is instead a form of slavery, correct?

Therefore while compelled inaction is legitimate, compelled action is not. The problem with this paradigm is that you just previously defined freedom as "the ability to make voluntary actions (without coercion)." This definition said nothing about inaction, but spoke solely of the ability to make selective actions. Your refusal to accept positive rights, however, indicates that in your ideal society, only "voluntary actions" would be opposed! That is while you define freedom as making direct action, you also define freedom as necessitating control over the direct action of others!

You see, in any society, complete freedom as you describe it is impossible. When people live together they sacrice the kind of independence and "freedom" of which you speak. In exchange, they receive the bennefits of living in a community, be it a communist or capitalist one. For even in this society, people are prevented from any "voluntary action" they want and are compelled to make some actions they might not want to.

We have to pay taxes.
We have to take care of our children.
We have to acquire a liscense to drive or fly or shoot.

This conception you have of "freedom" is nice, but inpractical. In a community in which many interact and live together, "coercion" is inevitable and nescessary.

If you want to live without the influence of others, find a cave and sit in it alone. If you want to build a society, you need other people.

h&s

11th October 2004, 14:03

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Oct 10 2004, 03:17 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Oct 10 2004, 03:17 PM)Your world just leads to workers using bosses as an exploitable resource, not people. The consequences of that have been well documented.

[/b]
No, our world leads to bosses becoming obsolete. Why have a boss living like a parasite off your hard work, when you can just get rid of him?

Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 03:17 PM
Tell me what exactly what a "living wage" is (using objective criterion) and then we'll talk.
A living wage is a wage that pays for you to have a decent life with no serious money problems (unless of course you are foolish with it), as opposed to the current slave-wages you people like to pay to "maximise profit." (That may not be objective criterion, but does it look like I give a shit?)

Professor Moneybags

11th October 2004, 14:45

No, our world leads to bosses becoming obsolete. Why have a boss living like a parasite off your hard work, when you can just get rid of him?

Because you're working in his factory. It's his property, just like your house/car is yours.

Why should I bother buying my own car when I can just steal yours ?

A living wage is a wage that pays for you to have a decent life with no serious money problems (unless of course you are foolish with it), as opposed to the current slave-wages you people like to pay to "maximise profit." (That may not be objective criterion, but does it look like I give a shit?)

No, it doesn't, funnily enough. What's a "decent" life ? By what standard are we judging it by ?

DaCuBaN

11th October 2004, 14:48

Why should I bother buying my own car when I can just steal yours ?

Why should I bother driving my car, when I've got the power to starve you to death if you don't do it for me?

Professor Moneybags

11th October 2004, 15:21

Who are?

And what specifically are "they" doing?

Ordinary people, just like you or me. What are they doing ? Voting themselves a share of other people's money.

Precisely what "constraints" would you like on the right of the people to govern themselves?

Just the non-initiation of force. That is all that is necessary.

Can I take it then that you do not favour democracy as a form of political government?

What is your "flavour"? Aristocracy? Pornocracy? Kakistocracy??

Democracy, in a limited sense, when properly constrained by the correct constitution. Very different from the unlimited majority rule you are advocating.

If I cannot excersize my right to speak because I can't afford the equipment to broadcast, am I "coerced"?

No.

If I cannot excersize my right to live because I can't afford the food to sustain me, am I "coerced"?

No.

"Market" economics is intrinsically coercive.

Can I add one more to your list ?

"If I cannot excersize my right to rape you because you do not want me to, am I "coerced"?"

According to the logic you apply above, yes it does.

It nescessitates inequalities and by doing so ensures that some are more able to excersize their rights (even their negative rights) than others.

The right to freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to demand a multi-million dollar election campaign, funded by taxpayers (regardless of whether or not they share your views). It does not mean you can force you way onto the nearest TV station and take over broadcasting because you feel they have more "freedom of speech" than you. Likewise, the right to life does not mean you have the right to ransack your neighbours house if you're short of cash, nor does it entitle your neighbour to do the same to you.

It means the right to your life, not someone else's. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that someone has to provide you with a microphone and a soap box. Freedom of speech does not come at the expense of anyone else, nor do any other negative rights. That is the reason they are legitmate.

The basis of any action is the ability to make such an action. I can't "be secure" if I'm starving.

Oh I get it..."A hunrgy man is not free" ? I can't be "secure" either if my property can be confiscated to feed the starving. I can't be "free" if I'm forced to produce food to feed the starving either.

I can't speak if I can't be heard.

Rubbish. See above.

You see, in any society, complete freedom as you describe it is impossible. When people live together they sacrice the kind of independence and "freedom" of which you speak.

I'm telling you that it is not necessary for them to do so.

In exchange, they receive the bennefits of living in a community, be it a communist or capitalist one.

Why is there a dichotomy being formed here between living in a community and respecting one another's rights ?

For even in this society, people are prevented from any "voluntary action" they want and are compelled to make some actions they might not want to.

That's precisely what's wrong with it.

We have to pay taxes.
We have to take care of our children.
We have to acquire a liscense to drive or fly or shoot.

Had we been living a few hundred years ago, you'd have probably put "We have to have slaves" too.

These are completely different phenomenon as well as appeals to convention.

"All societies require military service. We are a society. Therefore we should require military service."

This conception you have of "freedom" is nice, but inpractical. In a community in which many interact and live together, "coercion" is inevitable and nescessary.

Thank you for making your position quite clear : Freedom is impractical, coercion is necessary. Hitler and Stalin couldn't have phrased it better- you do share the same philosophy after all.

Professor Moneybags

11th October 2004, 15:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:48 PM

Why should I bother driving my car, when I've got the power to starve you to death if you don't do it for me?
You don't have the power to starve me to death. I can work for someone else or myself.

Thanks for evading the main issue.

DaCuBaN

11th October 2004, 15:29

Thanks for evading the main issue.

This thread is marked 'questions for any libertarians'.

"Sorry" :rolleyes:

Professor Moneybags

11th October 2004, 15:32

I mean the issue of my post, smartarse. <_<

DaCuBaN

11th October 2004, 15:42

I mean the issue of my post, smartarse.
:D
I haven't bothered to read the thread, sorry. I'm just being a 'smartarse', and it's the end of the work day. Keep this thread active, and I'll read it tomorrow.

I'm assuming, judging by the posts at the moment, that you're stuck on 'private property'

Briefly:

It's his property, just like your house/car is yours.

Ever heard the phrase "My home is your home; my fire is your fire; my food is your food" ?

Professor Moneybags

11th October 2004, 15:55

my food is your food" ?

Eugh...

h&s

12th October 2004, 15:24

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Oct 11 2004, 01:45 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Oct 11 2004, 01:45 PM)
Because you're working in his factory. It's his property, just like your house/car is yours.[/b]

No, there is no such thing as private property, just theft in that case. Why should one person own the work and profits of the people, when it has been proven that the people can do it better by themselves with no bosses?

Professor [email protected] 11 2004, 01:45 PM
What's a "decent" life ? By what standard are we judging it by ?
A decent life is one far better than the 17% / 10,000,000 British people living in poverty live.

Marvs Cicero

12th October 2004, 21:41

No, there is no such thing as private property, just theft in that case. Why should one person own the work and profits of the people, when it has been proven that the people can do it better by themselves with no bosses?

You are confusing the origin of the wealth. Wealth is not made from mindless brutes manipulating matter, it comes from man's mind. Objects have no intrinsic value, they have value because they add to man's lives. If man did not exsist there would be no wealth.

Building a factory and employing hundereds or thousands of peoples is far more productive then what a "worker" does. Of course workers are required but the fact remains workers are no the origin of wealth.

A decent life is one far better than the 17% / 10,000,000 British people living in poverty live.

That is an arbitrary definition. I could declare that a decent life is one better then the richest 1% that does that mean it is true? Of course not!

What is a "decent life" according to you, has no bearing on the people you claim to not be having a decent life.

Dr. Rosenpenis

12th October 2004, 22:18

You are confusing the origin of the wealth. Wealth is not made from mindless brutes manipulating matter, it comes from man's mind. Objects have no intrinsic value, they have value because they add to man's lives. If man did not exsist there would be no wealth.

Building a factory and employing hundereds or thousands of peoples is far more productive then what a "worker" does. Of course workers are required but the fact remains workers are no the origin of wealth.

All capital is derived from the collective labor of the public. That one man couldn't do much without thousands below him to make products and thus money. Capital belongs to society and in capitalism it is wrongfully claimed by the ruling class. Whatever money was used to begin that factory and employ thousands of workers had to have come from somewhere. Not everyone is born with enough dough to build a factory and potentially make billions. Capital can only come from the ownership of the means of production. A wage slave cannot have capital. One man cannot make capital. Capital is set in motion by the labor of all members of society. Not one guy.

Vinny Rafarino

12th October 2004, 22:19

tcip

12th October 2004, 22:57

[QUOTE]You are confusing the origin of the wealth. Wealth is not made from mindless brutes manipulating matter, it comes from man's mind. Objects have no intrinsic value, they have value because they add to man's lives. If man did not exsist there would be no wealth.
QUOTE]

Cite your sources, randroid:).

BTW, hoppe is not a libertarian. Its a traditional plank of the party to include intellectual property, ie patents.

Marvs Cicero

12th October 2004, 23:22

A very flash definition, unfortuantely it lacks any practical substance.

Very typical behaviour from new capitalist members.

Let me guess, first year University student?

Actually I'm a Junior in High School. So no. Your post has no substance what so ever. Not only does it have nothing to do with my post but in fact lhas nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cite your sources, randroid:).

It took me hours of scouring through Capitalism: The Unknown I deal, but I found it;) (Just kidding of course).

Actually I havn't read any of Ayn Rands books, I just started reading Anthem. Most books I read are about the Classics (mostly Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic).

Hoppe

13th October 2004, 16:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:57 PM
BTW, hoppe is not a libertarian. Its a traditional plank of the party to include intellectual property, ie patents.
No it isn't.

Patents might be usefull in the utopic world of perfect competition etc but in real life the facts point in the opposite direction, as many "libertarian" economist have already pointed out. (which you might have know had you actually read something on libertarianism). Furthermore, you will not find many libertarians cheering for government granted monopoly rights, ie patents.

Professor Moneybags

13th October 2004, 19:14

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 12 2004, 02:24 PM

No, there is no such thing as private property, just theft in that case.

Without provate property, there would be no such concept "theft".

A decent life is one far better than the 17% / 10,000,000 British people living in poverty live.

I seriously doubt they are living in a real state of poverty.

LSD

13th October 2004, 20:19

Oh I get it..."A hunrgy man is not free" ? I can't be "secure" either if my property can be confiscated to feed the starving.

Without provate property, there would be no such concept "theft".

Good!

So if we abolish private property we aren't stealing?!?

Wow, that...makes sense!

I can't be "free" if I'm forced to produce food to feed the starving either.

But you're forced to do that anyway!

In this society you're forced to work to provide food for yourself, albeit usually indirectly.

Either way you have to work!

Somehow you've gotten it into your head that "private property" is an essential part of life, but you provided no evidence.

You equate the loss of "property" with rape! And yet nowhere have you justified this bizarre contention that owenership of oneself "naturally" extends to ownership of "things".

Let's try to "figure this thing out":

WOOOOSHH!!!!

OK, so now we're in some theoretical archetypal "white space". This is a hypothetical world in which there is no government, no economy. Now, let's explore your "rights" on this imaginary island.

So...you find a nice piece of land, and given your right to "property", you claim it. Now it's yours, you own it. Now, there are about 50 farmers who live nearby and their farm just dried out. Whether conditions, blah, blah, blah...basically, they can't farm there anymore. This is a very small island, only a part of it is still usable and you own the only remaining arable land.

Lucky you!

So, your "owenership" of land is preventing them from farming anywhere, after all you're farming "your" land. If they try to farm on your land, you will actively prevent them from doing so. And in fact, you believe that any legiminate government would do the same.

But...now you come up with a business idea. You can "hire" these farmers to work on your land! They do the work, you get a percentage of the food, they keep the rest, you don't have to work! It's brilliant!

So, now these farmers are going better, but so are you. You are doing nothing, but through your "ownership" of the land they work, you claim part of the results of that work.

Now, let's say the workers were to tire of this arrangement and rise up? Instead of working for you, they say let's divide the work between all of us and share the food with all of us!. This includes you.

So now you're working again, but you're working less than you were intially.

You're not starving, you're not hurt.

Everyone is doing better.

Now...where was direct or coercive action taken?

You acted directly to prevent farmers from acquiring the food needed to sustain them. This was a direct and coercive measure to prevent them from living.

You acted directly to take from the work that the farmers did and to coerce them to sacrifice the fruits of their labour.

The farmers acted directly to provide food for everyone and to require work from everyone.

Both sides acted "coercively", but which of you acted worse?

Your actions were based on the assumption of a nebulous right of "private property", but this right infringed on their right to live...certainly a better defined right and obviously a more important one.

Their actions were based on the assumption that they had a right to live and that they should be be equally fed for equal work, this inpinged on your assumption of a right to "own". A right which you have never justified or provided an explanation for.

So again, which of you acted worse?

One we eliminate this "moralism" of a "right" to "own", we can examine the two possible scenarios. The one which you sit back and "own" and they work for you,
The one in which everyone works and everyone eats equally.

Which is a better society?

You see coersion is inevitable, you just choose to ignore coersion in support of what you deem a "negative right", what you fail to realize is that "property" is not an axiomatic or intrinsic right. If we can show that society would be better off without it...let it go.

Guest1

13th October 2004, 22:47

It should be said that the abolition of private property does not mean "sharing" your clothes, and personal belongings. When radical socialists speak of private property they mostly mean ownership of the means of production, like the land in the post above, and factories, etc...

h&s

14th October 2004, 13:00

I seriously doubt they are living in a real state of poverty.
You seriously doubt the under-exaggerated figures of the capitalist arse-licking CIA?

Professor Moneybags

14th October 2004, 14:24

Good!

So if we abolish private property we aren't stealing?!?

Wow, that...makes sense!

Not quite. If we abolish murder, does that mean it'll cease to happen ? I don't think so. We'll just ignore the fact that this contradicts what you've already said.

But you're forced to do that anyway!

In this society you're forced to work to provide food for yourself, albeit usually indirectly.

Either way you have to work!

This is a blatant misuse of the term "force"- an equivocation. Trust you to think that being "forced to work as a slave" is a phenomenon of the same order as being "forced to eat to stay alive". I don't any rational debate is possible.

You equate the loss of "property" with rape!

If taken by force, yes. It's the same in principle; an initiation of force.

And yet nowhere have you justified this bizarre contention that owenership of oneself "naturally" extends to ownership of "things".

Please stop reading Redstar's drivel for a moment and try thinking for yourself. If you own yourself, you own your labour and thus the productd of your labour. If someone else claims them without your consent, then they are claiming your labour, thus they claiming ownership of you. There are no collective minds, there is no collective body.

Somehow you've gotten it into your head that "private property" is an essential part of life, but you provided no evidence.

Well gee, if someone steals everything I own then my life will be come somewhat difficult, don't you agree ?

So, your "owenership" of land is preventing them from farming anywhere, after all you're farming "your" land. If they try to farm on your land, you will actively prevent them from doing so. And in fact, you believe that any legiminate government would do the same.

This is a frozen abstraction, but the fact that they have fallen under hard times does not mean that they have a right to confiscate my property and use me as their slave.

So now you're working again, but you're working less than you were intially.

You're not starving, you're not hurt.

Everyone is doing better.

Now...where was direct or coercive action taken ?

If it was against my will then it was coercive, but unfortunately, this is all a con, isn't it ? You couldn't care less whether or not coercion is used because you've said so yourself (immoralized in my signature).

You acted directly to prevent farmers from acquiring the food needed to sustain them. This was a direct and coercive measure to prevent them from living.

You acted directly to take from the work that the farmers did and to coerce them to sacrifice the fruits of their labour.

The farmers acted directly to provide food for everyone and to require work from everyone.

Both sides acted "coercively", but which of you acted worse?

You have not shown how this is coercion. I am just sitting there, literally minding my own business until these people walk up to me and demand my farm...oops, sorry, "rise up" and take it. I have not used force against anyone, not until these others use force to steal the farm that I built with my labour. It is these others who who have initiated force and thus it is they who have used coercion against me. You're trying to tell me that because I want to prevent others from initiating force against me, that you consider that to be coercion ?

So by your logic, a rape victim is employing coercion if she "deprives" anyone of her body (which everyone has a "right" to, according to need) and so everyone who wants to is justified in gang-raping her (democracy). According to you, they are not coercing her, they are merely acting in self-defense against this "capitalist" who claimed a "nebulous right to property" (which somehow "coerced" them).

Professor Moneybags

14th October 2004, 14:26

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 14 2004, 12:00 PM
You seriously doubt the under-exaggerated figures of the capitalist arse-licking CIA?
What's the CIA got to do with poverty in Britain ?

DaCuBaN

14th October 2004, 14:47

What's the CIA got to do with poverty in Britain ?

We're working from their statistics...

Professor Moneybags

14th October 2004, 14:50

Why would they exaggerate ? It isn't their country.

LSD

14th October 2004, 15:29

This is a blatant misuse of the term "force"- an equivocation. Trust you to think that being "forced to work as a slave" is a phenomenon of the same order as being "forced to eat to stay alive".

Not forced to eat, forced to work.

In order to get that food to "eat to stay alive", labour is nescessary. The food doesn't "make itself". The only question is who's going to provide that labour. You believe that whoever "owns" the resources to be worked "owns" the labour. That regardless of who actually did the work, if you "own it, it's yours".

I don't any rational debate is possible.

That might explain why you haven't attempted one! :lol:

So by your logic, a rape victim is employing coercion if she "deprives" anyone of her body (which everyone has a "right" to, according to need) and so everyone who wants to is justified in gang-raping her (democracy). According to you, they are not coercing her, they are merely acting in self-defense against this "capitalist" who claimed a "nebulous right to property" (which somehow "coerced" them).

Again you compare personal security with "ownership" of the world.

A parallel you have not proven.

Please stop reading Redstar's drivel for a moment and try thinking for yourself. If you own yourself, you own your labour and thus the productd of your labour. If someone else claims them without your consent, then they are claiming your labour, thus they claiming ownership of you. There are no collective minds, there is no collective body.

"owrnership of labour"

hmm...

So how come the product of my labour is "owned" by the "capital investor" who "owns" the machines I work with?

I thought I "owned" my labour?

I have no problem with owenership of labour, in fact I fiercely support it! I do have a problem with the ownership of another's labour, which is what capitalism promotes. Capitalism externalizes ownership. "Property rights" mean that regardless of who did the work, if you "own" the land or the factory, it's "yours"!

Well gee, if someone steals everything I own then my life will be come somewhat difficult, don't you agree ?

But wait, I thought, "Without provate property, there would be no such concept 'theft'."

Nobody is "stealing everything you own", you just are not permitted to "steal" their labour!

If it was against my will then it was coercive

I agree!

But as I've said, and as you've so thoughtfully "imortalized", coercion is inevitable, the question is whether or not it's justified.

When people live in a community together, it means that everyone can't do anything they want. If you don't like it, you can leave. But, as long as you are part of a society, you must understand that everyone "coerces" everyone else. Again, the point is whether it is defendable coercion. Democarcy is implicitly coercive, the general society is the authority. Now, this means that everyone has a say, but it does not mean that anyone can do "whatever they please." They are subject to the rules that the people make for themselves.

...but as we've already seen, you're "not a big fan" of democracy are you?

You have not shown how this is coercion. I am just sitting there, literally minding my own business until these people walk up to me and demand my farm...oops, sorry, "rise up" and take it.

You are, again, ignoring your coercive actions taken in defense of your "property rights".

You intitiated force when you stopped them from farming on "your land".

You claim that this isn't coersion because you cling to this notion of an "axiomatic right" of "property owenership"

I have not used force against anyone, not until these others use force to steal the farm that I built with my labour. It is these others who who have initiated force and thus it is they who have used coercion against me.

You're trying to tell me that because I want to prevent others from initiating force against me, that you consider that to be coercion

No you are! :D

You are saying that the farmers preventing you from intitating force against them (stopping them from farming on "your" land) is coersion on their part! According to your above argument, we should actually look at their actions as self-defense, right? After all, they're just trying to stop you from taking action against them.

You couldn't care less whether or not coercion is used because you've said so yourself (immoralized in my signature).

Gee, I'm touched. :wub: Let's make out.

Professor Moneybags

14th October 2004, 19:54

In order to get that food to "eat to stay alive", labour is nescessary. The food doesn't "make itself".

Well congratulations, you're finally learning something. Can you now see why a "right to food" entitles one to a "right to live off someone else's labour" ?

The only question is who's going to provide that labour. You believe that whoever "owns" the resources to be worked "owns" the labour.

I did not suggest that at all.

That regardless of who actually did the work, if you "own it, it's yours".

The relationship between the farmers and the farm owner is one of interdependence. No farm, no labour. No labour, no produce. It's that simple.

The owner is not "enslaving" you if you agree to work for him, regardless of your circumstances or reason for working.

Again you compare personal security with "ownership" of the world.

I'm comparing ownership of one's body to ownership of one's labour.

Stop reading those Redstar comics !

"owrnership of labour"

hmm...

So how come the product of my labour is "owned" by the "capital investor" who "owns" the machines I work with?

It isn't.

I thought I "owned" my labour?

I have no problem with owenership of labour, in fact I fiercely support it!

You just want the right to everyone else's too.

I do have a problem with the ownership of another's labour, which is what capitalism promotes.

Is that the reason you endorse positive rights, ones that demand unpaid labour from others ?

Capitalism externalizes ownership. "Property rights" mean that regardless of who did the work, if you "own" the land or the factory, it's "yours"!

Let's take it one step at a time :

If you buy a newspaper, you hand over your money in exchange for the paper.
You are not being "robbed", "coerced" or "exploited", you are engaging in a voluntary transaction. Once you have bought the paper, you are not then entitled to have your money back too. The money is no longer yours because you have agreed to exchange it with the shopkeeper.

This transaction is no different from that between the farmers and the farm owner. They work in exchange for a wage, just as you trade a newspaper for your money. That is the principle of trade- the exchange of value for value.

You don't seem to agree. You think that this transaction is coercion :

-By both parties
-Against both parties.

That is ridiculous and anti-conceptual as it abuses the definition of the term "coercion".

But as I've said, and as you've so thoughtfully "imortalized", coercion is inevitable, the question is whether or not it's justified.

It is not inevitable. You have misused the word "coercion".

When people live in a community together, it means that everyone can't do anything they want. If you don't like it, you can leave.

That suggests that I must pander to the coercive.

But, as long as you are part of a society, you must understand that everyone "coerces" everyone else.

But they don't.

Again, the point is whether it is defendable coercion.

No such thing.

Democarcy is implicitly coercive, the general society is the authority. Now, this means that everyone has a say, but it does not mean that anyone can do "whatever they please." They are subject to the rules that the people make for themselves.

So there's no problem with gang-rape providing everyone (or the majority) agrees to it ?

You are, again, ignoring your coercive actions taken in defense of your "property rights".

You intitiated force when you stopped them from farming on "your land".

You claim that this isn't coersion because you cling to this notion of an "axiomatic right" of "property owenership"

LOL ! You haven't understood a word I've said.

No you are!

You are saying that the farmers preventing you from intitating force against them (stopping them from farming on "your" land) is coersion on their part ! According to your above argument, we should actually look at their actions as self-defense, right? After all, they're just trying to stop you from taking action against them.

Someone explain the difference between coercion and self-defence to this idiot. I've nothing more to add; this topic has run it's course.

LSD

14th October 2004, 20:24

The relationship between the farmers and the farm owner is one of interdependence. No farm, no labour. No labour, no produce. It's that simple.

Sort of like with a slave?

Interdependence doesn't indicate lack of coercion, it merely demonstrates mutual dependency.

The owner is not "enslaving" you if you agree to work for him, regardless of your circumstances or reason for working.

If you have no other options, then that "choice" is entirely illusionary.

If my only choice is starvation or "choosing to work for you", have we really entered into a voluntary relationship?

I'm comparing ownership of one's body to ownership of one's labour.

No you're not!

You're comparing ownership of one's body to ownership of another's labour. You didn't work the farm, the farmers did, so why do you bennefit from their work? Because you "own" the land; because you claim ownership of their labour by virtue of the fact that they were coerced by circumstance and environment to enter into a relationship with you in which they ceded ownership of their labour to you.

The contention here is whether or not such a relationship is justified. Whether or not workers can legitimately be forced to turn over authority over their labour to another.

In this scenario you did no real labour short of "acquiring" the farm and "hiring" the farmers. What labour did you do over which you can claim owenerhsip? The only labour being done is being done by your employees, yet you bennefit.

"owrnership of labour"

hmm...

So how come the product of my labour is "owned" by the "capital investor" who "owns" the machines I work with?

It isn't.

Really?

So why does he make the money off of it?

I know, I know, I voluntarily chose to work for him and thereby freely allowed my labour to be used by him. Bullshit.

If I have no choice but to allow another to claim ownership of my labour, it isn't "voluntary" it's....wait.....oh yes, COERCED.

Is that the reason you endorse positive rights, ones that demand unpaid labour from others ?

You just want the right to everyone else's too.

I want everyone to have the right to everyone's labour.

What I don't want is the status quo, in which a few people own everyone else's.

As I've said, in any interconnected society, your ideal "freedom" in which the lone ranger stands alone on his farm with no responsiblities to anyone and is master of his domain is simply unachievable.

Capitalism doesn't achieve it. Coercion is a nescessary part of the capitalist model, it's how it works. If you don't work, you don't eat.

But that's not coercion? :lol:

Every society requires that its members work, the only question is in what form does this coercion take. Capitalism does it through the "market" and through "units of exchange". If you don't work, you don't get "dollars", and you need "dollars" so that you can get shelter and food and water....

The implied threat is there. If you don't work, you "face the consequences". It's coercion, whether you like to call it that or not.

So there's no problem with gang-rape providing everyone (or the majority) agrees to it ?

Yes.

Personally, I would choose to leave such a society as I imagine many others would, but that's called democracy. Once you try to run a society through "moralism" or "absolutism", things get very dangerous.

How else would you have things work?

By the word of "God"?

omeone explain the difference between coercion and self-defence to this idiot.

You call it "self-defense" when it's the "intiation of force" in support of something you like (property rights), but "coercion" when it's in support of something you don't (healthcare rights).

Hypocrite.

But they don't.

No such thing.

LOL ! You haven't understood a word I've said.

um...

I've nothing more to add; this topic has run it's course.

Well, with brilliant arguments like that, I can't imagine why... :lol:

Osman Ghazi

15th October 2004, 01:14

Man, everyone has to stop using analogies, becaus you guys just can't pull it off. Collectivism is not rape. If you want to debate using loaded (i.e. useless) terminology, then go ahead, but you won't be taken seriously.

The relationship between the farmers and the farm owner is one of interdependence. No farm, no labour. No labour, no produce. It's that simple.

Nice, but you forgot the main assumption that you base this reasoning on. In addition to the other little rules, you seem to think that No farm owner = no farm. But contrary to that belief, the farm will be there whether or not someone 'owns' it.

Professor Moneybags

15th October 2004, 12:34

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 12:14 AM
Man, everyone has to stop using analogies, becaus you guys just can't pull it off. Collectivism is not rape. If you want to debate using loaded (i.e. useless) terminology, then go ahead, but you won't be taken seriously.

By whom ? LSD ? You ? Do I honestly sound like I care ?

No, Ghazi, I don't. LSD has made the basis of his philosophy quite clear- "coercion in men's relationships is necessary", and I have made mine : "It isn't." We'll let anyone who reads this thread make up their minds as who talking nonsense and who isn't. To those who think it's me, I don't care; as far as I am concerned, you're a lost cause. I'm not here to waste time with the concrete-bound.

Nice, but you forgot the main assumption that you base this reasoning on. In addition to the other little rules, you seem to think that No farm owner = no farm. But contrary to that belief, the farm will be there whether or not someone 'owns' it.

Do farms and factories just fall out of the sky ? Are they not the product of someone's labour ?

LSD

15th October 2004, 12:44

No, Ghazi, I don't. LSD has made the basis of his philosophy quite clear- "coercion in men's relationships is necessary", and I have made mine : "It isn't."

You can't honestly be that naive.

You do support coercion, you just won't admit that's what it is!

You condemn the "initiation of force" except you have no problem if the force is in support of "property rights" and you compare this with self-defense. Fine, that's your oppinion. But don't deny that preventing someone from using "your" farm is coercive. Whether you believe it is justified or not, it's still coercive.

You are "[applying] force to control the action of a voluntary agent". That is the dictionary defintion of coercion. Whether you like it or not, when you "drive" someone off of "your land" you have taken coercive action.

You feel that that action is justified coercion because you must "protect your property". I do not.

That is where we disagree.