Capitalist Philosophy Animation

[Baconator]

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

[IcarusAngel]

That has nothing to do with anarchist philosophy. That's about tyrannical libertarian philosophy, which implicates that all humans are pieces of property.

[Baconator]

Did you even watch it or did you just make a blind comment? Clearly it was the latter.

Self ownership is tyrannical? Any better suggestions that wouldn't be an obvious contradiction?

[Dimentio]

Did you even watch it or did you just make a blind comment? Clearly it was the latter.

Self ownership is tyrannical? Any better suggestions that wouldn't be an obvious contradiction?

The right to exclude others from utilising utilities is quite tyrannical.

[Baconator]

The right to exclude others from utilising utilities is quite tyrannical.


So excluding someone to use my body ( lets say for pleasure) is quite tyrannical?

[gla22]

I would say that video applies to socialism and communism as well.

[Baconator]

I would say that video applies to socialism and communism as well.

Except for the part of owning the product of your labor/human energy and mutual and voluntary exchange thereof.

[Bright Banana Beard]

This is libertarian, not anarchist.

[Baconator]

This is libertarian, not anarchist.

I think libertarianism ( small 'L' as in the ideology not politics of the Libertarian Party) taken to its logical conclusions is anarchism.

What portion of the movie would you consider not a part of anarchism?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I think libertarianism ( small 'L' as in the ideology not politics of the Libertarian Party) taken to its logical conclusions is anarchism.

What portion of the movie would you consider not a part of anarchism?

State.

[Kami]

What portion of the movie would you consider not a part of anarchism?
Property, would be fairly high on the list.
The silly idea that something can be achieved by just stopping asking.
Complete lack of mention of class.

There was very little of any worth to an anarchist in that movie at all.

Though I did giggle at the hats.

[Baconator]

State.

Where did you see anything pro-state in there?

[Kami]

Where did you see anything pro-state in there?
Yes, it contained the basis of the liberal "social contract", for one.

[Incendiarism]

Capitalist elements are ultimately and completely incompatible with anarchism, though I do think that Proudhon had a semi-good idea concerning ownership of property made through the individual's effort. Though I still think it wouldn't work, it's just a nice idea and that's it.

[Baconator]

Property, would be fairly high on the list.
The silly idea that something can be achieved by just stopping asking.
Complete lack of mention of class.

There was very little of any worth to an anarchist in that movie at all.

Though I did giggle at the hats.

Property. Its certainly not meant in the context that most socialist understand property. Even Proudhon recognized legitimate property as that which one's labor/human energy creates. You should probably watch it again to understand what is actually meant by property.

Property starts with the axiom of self-ownership. To make the claim self-ownership is invalid means that that in itself is a contradiction in the premise since you are using your property rights over yourself to think about what you're gonna write and using your fingers to type that. Likewise, such a claim would be irrational and unscientific since only your biochemical and neurological functions only work on your body/mind.
On top of that you have an inherent right to exclusivity with yourself since stating other wise would make things like murder and rape meaningless and even justified.

Accepting the validity in self-ownership also means we have exclusive rights over our life and only over our own lives and not someone else's since other people hold that same right over themselves. Any proposition claiming that we don't have a right to our life means that something else does and may justify murder since murder would be meaningless.

Since we all have exclusive rights over our own lives then any proposition claiming one may own the life of another invalidates itself since this would have to be universal and applicable to all human beings since there is nothing inherent in our anatomy as human beings that gives one person 'more humanity' than another. If you have the right to own my life , I have the right to own yours too and that proposition fails logical consistency and is therefore, invalid.

Since we own our own lives , then we also own the energy(labor) that life gives us to be able to think and act. Any claim that we do not own our own energy(labor) is contradictory to the axiom of self-ownership and therefore, cannot be valid.

Since we own our energy/labor , we also own the fruits of our labor. Those things which our human energy ( through thought and physical work) produces. And claim against the ownership of the fruits of one's own labor contradicts the axiom of self-ownership and cannot be valid.

Since we own the fruits of our own human energy (labor) then we also must have property rights over these things since making the claim that we do not have those property rights also contradicts the axiom of self-ownership. We we cannot legitimately have property rights over the fruits of our labor then we cannot have property rights over our labor itself , and therefore, over our own lives which grant us that human energy.

Since we have property rights over the fruits of our own labor then we may claim exclusivity or non exclusivity over those things and we may trade them voluntarily. Such is the basis for human prosperity.

In order to invalidate all of this you must find a logically inconsistency in the reasoning of the axiom of self-ownership. :) I welcome you to try ;)

In order to be able to use your life to harness your human energy you must have liberty ( i.e. freedom from coercion) because the logical opposite to liberty is enslavement.

What is meant by 'not asking' is simply the fact that people will eventually see the absurdity and irrationality in the concept of government. You certainly wouldn't ask a pink unicorn to rule over you would you? Anarchists( at least of the market variety) totally oppose the initiation of force against other human beings since anarchy rests on the non-aggression axiom. One would expect any anarchist to consider the idea of a 'bloody revolution' repulsive and unethical.

Market anarchists do not recognize 'classes' since classes do not exist in objective reality. Classes are a concept of an aggregate applied to individual human beings. No class can be valid if its rights are in anyway different than any other human being. MAs only recognize the rights of all individuals and believe that freedom must be manifested within the individual before it can be valid for everyone as a whole.

Hope that helped :)
If you disagree, please find the contradictions in the axiom of self-ownership.

[Baconator]

Yes, it contained the basis of the liberal "social contract", for one.For one , the SC was never mentioned. Market anarchists hold that inherent rights based on self-ownership are not 'made up' or 'granted' by the 'social contract' but exist independently of it. The SC was a justification for statism with a lot of rhetoric.

Here is a market anarchist refutation of the social contract:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU

Hope this helps you understand better. :)

[Baconator]

Capitalist elements are ultimately and completely incompatible with anarchism, though I do think that Proudhon had a semi-good idea concerning ownership of property made through the individual's effort. Though I still think it wouldn't work, it's just a nice idea and that's it.

As far as modern capitalism goes, I agree with you. Corporations depend on the protection of the state and its the state itself that gives the corporation 'legal status.' Again a corporation doesn't exist in material reality but rather as a concept and a concept could only be valid or invalid. In reality all a corporation really is a group of individuals claiming the right to pay other individuals (the state) to initiate violence against other individuals ( everyone else).
Any concept such as a corporation or a state is invalid when it claims that certain individuals have different or more or less rights than others. Only aggression with force could possibly sustain such a contradiction. Thus, any notion of modern capitalism which is sustained by the state is incompatible with anarchy.

Proudhon was correct in his first definition of property. It certainly is theft because he is talking about state property which is all taxed property ( basically everything).

His second definition of property ( the 'possession clause')mostly fits the market anarchist view of property since it is logically consistent with the axiom of self-ownership. We disagree with Proudhon about exchange and exclusivity of such 'possessions' but at least he recognizes the validity in owning the fruits of your labor.

I just read What is Property? :D

[Incendiarism]

Yeah, I really don't have a problem with that, I used to think it was a great idea and should be integrated, but somewhere along the line I just felt that these factors(retainment of wages, property according to proudhon's view) were irreconcilable with the bigger scheme of things.

As for free market anarchism, you mean the kind advocated by Benjamin Tucker, or along the lines of Rothbard?

[freakazoid]

Pretty interesting video, :) I have long thought that for the most part libertarianism is pretty close to anarchism, except obviously when dealing with economics. I have never like the idea of reformism in government. I have always believed in the complete abolishment from the beginning, no small changes until it magically disappears. And I think this video explains why pretty well. The only reason the government seems to have authority over us is because we allow it to.


State.

Where did you see that? I saw nothing but it saying that the idea of a State was a bad thing. I saw nothing in that video that was incompatible with anarchism. In fact it seems to do nothing but support the idea.

What is a "market anarchist"? Is that an anarcho-capitalist?


Yes, it contained the basis of the liberal "social contract", for one.

I'm also not real familiar with what that mean too, :(

Also, why were you restricted Baconator?

[Baconator]

Yeah, I really don't have a problem with that, I used to think it was a great idea and should be integrated, but somewhere along the line I just felt that these factors(retainment of wages, property according to proudhon's view) were irreconcilable with the bigger scheme of things.

As for free market anarchism, you mean the kind advocated by Benjamin Tucker, or along the lines of Rothbard?

Please explain what you mean by the 'retainment of wages?' and what is meant by the 'bigger scheme of things?'

As far as economics in anarchy goes, I am simply for the free market since it is the most consistent with anarchistic principles ( no coercive rulers, voluntaryism, mutualism, and non aggression:)) and holds the ethical high ground. On top of that , its just really efficient.

I am influenced by the ideas of both of those great men.

[DancingLarry]

One thing that libertarians routinely fail to understand about anarchism is that anarchism originates as a working-class socialist movement. Who else cold possibly have propounded the concept of the elimination of the state in the first place, certainly not those of the privileged classes that benefit from the employment of state powers, and that are comfortably enough privileged to pretend that class doesn't exist. Having swung several degrees of separation away from their own intellectual and philosophical roots, libertarians are no longer aware of the very nature of their own origin.

[Baconator]

Pretty interesting video, :) I have long thought that for the most part libertarianism is pretty close to anarchism, except obviously when dealing with economics. I have never like the idea of reformism in government. I have always believed in the complete abolishment from the beginning, no small changes until it magically disappears. And I think this video explains why pretty well. The only reason the government seems to have authority over us is because we allow it to.

Indeed. The government in reality is just a group of individuals fundamentally no different than you and I claiming the 'right' to initiate force against others while only reserving that 'right' unto themselves. It is a contradiction both in theory and practice and only violence can enforce such brutality.




What is a "market anarchist"? Is that an anarcho-capitalist?

Fundamentally, yes. (Free)Market Anarchism is the preferred terminology among many Anarcho-Capitalists because of the dichotomy of capitalism's meaning. Those who do not understand that capitalism also means free markets will mistake its meaning with modern, state enforced, capitalism ( think neo-mercantilism.) Capitalism has come to mean its own opposite meaning ( opposite of free market) so (Free)Market Anarchism is usually more precise and descriptive of what the ideology really is.




Also, why were you restricted Baconator?

Am I? Well, probably I will be soon if I'm not yet. I am not a communist , socialist, or syndicalist so I think that warrants a restriction. :crying:

[Kami]

Am I? Well, probably I will be soon if I'm not yet. I am not a communist , socialist, or syndicalist so I think that warrants a restriction. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/crying.gif
We have members enough who don't fit into those categories; unfortunately, you're not an anarchist or a leftist either ^^

[freakazoid]

Am I? Well, probably I will be soon if I'm not yet. I am not a communist , socialist, or syndicalist so I think that warrants a restriction. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/crying.gif

Unless I am mistaking you for someone else I thought that before you used this name you where someone else but because of the problems with making new topics you temporarily made this name so you could make new topics.

[freakazoid]

unfortunately, you're not an anarchist

Is he not? I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

[Kami]

Is he not? I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise.
Supporting the "free" market would seem like quite a non-starter on that front ^^
Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea here, but I got a distinct capitalist vibe from this user. As others have stated, what he's posted has been libertarian, not anarchist.

[Baconator]

One thing that libertarians routinely fail to understand about anarchism is that anarchism originates as a working-class socialist movement. Who else cold possibly have propounded the concept of the elimination of the state in the first place, certainly not those of the privileged classes that benefit from the employment of state powers, and that are comfortably enough privileged to pretend that class doesn't exist. Having swung several degrees of separation away from their own intellectual and philosophical roots, libertarians are no longer aware of the very nature of their own origin.

Well the libertarian minded people I know are plenty aware of the socialist anarchists and their movement. We are very aware of the contributions of Kropotkin and Proudhon ( the latter I think we understand better than some socialists.) Libertarianism sprung as the 20th century model of Classical Liberalism, both being fundamentally the same. The socialists in turn borrowed their class struggle analysis from the classical liberals.

Rationally speaking , class does not exist in material, tangible reality. Class is a concept aggregating individuals and a concept can either be valid or invalid first and foremost depending on its logical consistency. The class itself cannot have any special rights that other individuals in another 'class' lack and possibly be consistent. A class can have no special rights overlapping and contradictory to all individuals existing on planet earth since the class means nothing without the individuals that make it up.

[freakazoid]

Supporting the "free" market would seem like quite a non-starter on that front ^^

I have actually never really learned what that means... I fail :(


As others have stated, what he's posted has been libertarian, not anarchist.

I don't see how that video is not anarchist. In fact it would seem to support the idea of a collective right of the means of production over the idea that a single person can own it. Which would be anti-capitalist.

[Baconator]

We have members enough who don't fit into those categories; unfortunately, you're not an anarchist or a leftist either ^^

Heh, well let me begin with 'leftist.' Being a 'Leftist' is completely subjective since the Left/Right paradigm has shifted so many times, especially in the English speaking countries. There is nothing objective about it since in some countries a free marketer would be considered more left than a socialist and in the past free market advocates were typically slumped with the left.

As far as me not being an anarchist, is that your opinion ( and you're certainly obligated to it) or is it an objective fact? If it is the latter then you must prove your case through a logical chain of reasoning or it can be dismissed as just opinion.

[Baconator]

Unless I am mistaking you for someone else I thought that before you used this name you where someone else but because of the problems with making new topics you temporarily made this name so you could make new topics.

I was Dejavu.

[Baconator]

Supporting the "free" market would seem like quite a non-starter on that front ^^
Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea here, but I got a distinct capitalist vibe from this user. As others have stated, what he's posted has been libertarian, not anarchist.

Can you distinguish your opinion from objective fact? Can you show me how a free market is incompatible with anarchism logically? At the same time can you show me how socialism is compatible with anarchy logically? I await your rational response. :)

[Baconator]

I have actually never really learned what that means... I fail :(



I don't see how that video is not anarchist. In fact it would seem to support the idea of a collective right of the means of production over the idea that a single person can own it. Which would be anti-capitalist.

You don't know what 'free market' or 'non starter' means?

Tricky terms here. I prefer to use the term free market since the term 'capitalism' has been bastardized so much to so many people that it simply means mercantilism. Its quite a task to demonstrate that free market =/= mercantilism('capitalism'). Well there really can be no 'collective rights' unless the 'collective' refers to every single individual of the human species. The 'collective' is meaningless without the individuals that comprise it. It is impossible for a 'collective' to have 'self-ownership' and thus all rights of property cannot be derived from the collective but rather the individuals that make it up.

Logical consistency is very important in finding out the truth value and validity of propositions. In this case, any special 'rights' granted to the collective that is more than any single individual is clearly ridiculous and can be dismissed as invalid.

[freakazoid]

You don't know what 'free market' or 'non starter' means?Free market. I have a very rough idea but I pretty much don't understand it.


Well there really can be no 'collective rights' unless the 'collective' refers to every single individual of the human species.Obviously a collective right wouldn't include something that takes away a right of someone else, the saying "my rights end at your nose" would fit here. While you wouldn't be able to take my personal fruit of my labor nor the means to create the product of labor for yourself, as the video explains, if the product of labor is collective then so too is the means of production.

[Kami]

I have actually never really learned what that means... I fail http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif
Free market is, to put it simply, ideological capitalism. Think "Anarcho"-cappies and objectivists.

As far as me not being an anarchist, is that your opinion ( and you're certainly obligated to it) or is it an objective fact? If it is the latter then you must prove your case through a logical chain of reasoning or it can be dismissed as just opinion.
Of course it's bloody well my opinion, who else's would it be? As it happens, it is also fact; anarchism is anti-capitalist.

Can you show me how a free market is incompatible with anarchism logically?
Yes, and incredibly simply; capitalism (and here I refer to ideological 'free' market capitalism, not neo-mercantilism) creates hierarchies of wealth; these hierarchies may well be based upon individual effort, but they are hierarchies nontheless. Freedom is limited by wealth, as well. Neither are things supported by anarchism.

At the same time can you show me how socialism is compatible with anarchy logically?
I'll leave that to the socialists.

[Baconator]

Free market. I have a very rough idea but I pretty much don't understand it.

You can hit me up on PM and we can exchange contact info. I'd be more than happy to help you explore this wonderful concept. :)




Obviously a collective right wouldn't include something that takes away a right of someone else, the saying "my rights end at your nose" would fit here. While you wouldn't be able to take the fruit of my labor nor the means to create the product of labor for yourself, as the video explains, if the product of labor is collective then so to is the means of production.

Simply put, there are no 'collective rights' since rights pertain to only things that exist i.e. individuals. I don't think you understood what it was saying. Even if many individuals participate exhausting energy on a particular thing it still counts as individual human energy exhausted from each individual.
Now individuals may share property rights with one and other such as a husband and wife owning a home together but that is only done so legitimately through mutual consent rather than with the point of a gun.

I'll give you an example to think about. Suppose you are a software designer and you want to have a new home. There are several ways you can go about acquiring your new home.

But before we delve into that it must be understood that you own the product of your labor in the software design industry. Instead of owning all the individual software you design, you may choose instead to be compensated with money(i.e. a commodity that is preferable in most or all exchanges). Money would likely be more beneficial to you since most traders would rather take money instead of software design. However, it stands to reason that you own your money that your labor has produced.

Now there are several ways to go about acquiring a house.

A.You can build your own house with your own labor.

Technically this would be sticking to the 'we own the product of our own labor clause' quite strictly without employing exchange. This would mean that you must spend all of your money in acquiring materials needed to build your house. This is feasible but probably not the most efficient method. For one , being a software designer, you probably have very little experience in the skills required for building a house. This will consume a lot of your energy and time and probably take away from the trade you specialize in which is software design which means less money being earned.

B. Outsource, or hire skilled people to build your house.

Question is, since your own sweat wouldn't go into building the house would it still be legitimately your property? Here is where socialists fumble the ball so to speak. Of course it would still be the product of your labor. Simply because all that labor in the past you spent accumulating enough money is 'transfered' to the house so to speak by paying the product of your labor i.e. money to the home builders. In turn , the home builders exchange the product of their labor ( different parts of the home) for the product your labor, the money. This is will only happen if the home builders value your property ( i.e. product of your labor) - the money more than they value the home they(will) build and vice versa. This is voluntary exchange and requires no gun.

C. Buy the home from someone else.

Pretty straight forward. If the home owner values your property ( money) more than he values his property ( the house) and vice versa then the exchange will happen. Again, this requires no gun.

C1:There are several ways this can happen depending on the situation of the buyer and seller. It could be the case that you don't have all the money right now but are willing to make timely payments on the house to the owner. Now the owner will only take this deal if he values it higher than keeping his own house. Again , no gun necessary. You simply make a contract with the owner and if he feels its a high risk premium ( you might not pay it all) then he will ask you to sign through an insurance policy with a trusted firm which can be easily provided in the free market without a gun. Such ideas like dispute resolution organizations ( DROs) have been proposed to function for such purposes. If you're bad on your payment obligation to the owner then the DRO will compensate him but then charge you a higher premium to pay off the DRO now. If you don't , then the DRO may effect your 'credit rating' or something to that effect making a dishonest slouch like you play fair or you will find it increasingly difficult to play at all. :laugh: Such a stateless system was successful in the past with Law of Merchant.

Also none this requires a gun.

C2: It could be the case that you have not saved up that much money with your labor but you want a house now. It could also be the case that the owner wants a complete payment now and not wait for gradual payments. So this would pretty much suck for you right? Tough luck? Hmm, maybe not. You see it could be the case that you can go to someone else to loan you the money to pay for the house now. Or, that someone else can purchase the house under the precondition that you will pay him off in exchange for living in the house immediately. So who is this someone else?
That guy is the guy that did save the product of his labor ( through mind or body - the money) and he may be an investor looking to do business with guys just like you and the house owner. The investor or guy that helped you out gets paid in interest. Here's another socialist fallacy and misunderstanding of interest. Socialists will argue that paying interest is exploitation of the guy paying it. I argue that not paying interest is exploitation of the guy doing you this incredible service. Because what he did was something quite in incredible. Through the product of his labor , the was able to 'reach forward in time' and bring your future house into your present. The reason I said future house is because it would require you to spend time and labor into acquiring enough money to buy the house and that can only come in the future. This third guy only charges interest for bringing your future to your present and it will only happen if all three of you ( you , the homeowner, and this loaner) agree to the exchange. Once again, no gun needs to be used. Everybody gets what they want.

D. Insert: the government and/or democratic system.

Suppose you and the homeowner come to a mutually agreed upon deal where you both benefit. All this sudden, this other guy comes along and sticks his nose into your business. On top of that , this guy has a gun holstered around his waste. He starts commanding you guys on how to initiate your trade under his rules. He further demands a fee for his 'services' and will frequently collect fees from you in the future.
You and the homeowner look at this guy and say what gives you the right to even be involved let alone bark orders at us? The armed man replies 'well, I got the gun and those people down the street wanted me to direct your guys' transaction.' (democracy). Naturally you guys would object but he warns you that if you don't comply with what he's saying he's going to bust out some shackles and take you guys to a warehouse and lock you up there for however long he wants until you guys are ready to play by his rules. He also states he will charge you a higher fee for that 'service.' Furthermore, if you try to resist being shackled , he will deploy the gun against you.

Obviously this is sick and true exploitation. In a free society no gun would be necessary and voluntary exchange can rule the day and benefit everyone.

[Jazzratt]

The title of this thread was misleading, fixed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So excluding someone to use my body ( lets say for pleasure) is quite tyrannical?
"Ownership" means more than just "right to exclusive use." Ownership also means a right to buy and sell the object being owned. If a human body can be owned, then a human body can be bought and sold. Therefore, self-ownership justifies slavery.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Can you show me how a free market is incompatible with anarchism logically?
Briefly, it goes like this: A free market requires private property rights. In order to hold an object as your private property, you must have the power to exclude other people from using that object against your will (among other powers). The only way such a power can be granted to you is if there is an organization capable of finding and punishing anyone that uses your property against your will. Such an organization would need to have access to a large amount of weapons and manpower in order to protect your property and that of others.

Now for the important part: Any organization powerful enough to find and punish anyone using your property against your will is also powerful enough to find and punish you for doing stuff it doesn't like. Such an organization is called a state.

Basically, property rights can only be enforced by a large number of men with guns (let's call them Group A) who are powerful enough to defeat any other groups of men with guns (let's call them Groups X,Y,Z) that might tresspass on the property defended by Group A. How do you call Group A's power to defeat any other armed groups on its territory? A monopoly over the initiation of force. How do you call a group of men with guns with a monopoly over the initiation of force in a given area? A state. Property rights can only be enforced by a state, or an organization with the same power as a state.

"Free market anarchists" want a society with property rights enforced by private organizations just as powerful as modern-day states, and yet somehow magically expect that these organizations will not do exactly the same things that modern-day states do. And why? Because these organizations are supposedly kept in check by the fact that they need to compete with each other for customers. Um, no. If they have more firepower than you, they won't be the ones having to please you. You'll be the one having to please them.

Besides, states compete too. It's called going to war.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Free market. I have a very rough idea but I pretty much don't understand it.
The "free market" is a theoretical concept based on the idea of a society where everyone owns roughly the same amount of property and economic activity is done by a large number of small private firms. It's a petty-bourgeois dream world.

Capitalists love to use examples of such petty-bourgeois dream worlds in their arguments, but they are wrong for two reasons: First, no such dream worlds exist. This is a problem because capitalists claim that the free market is "natural." Funny how this "natural condition" never seems to happen. Second, even if free markets did exist, they would be extremely unstable. Free markets work only as long as all people have roughly equal amounts of wealth, but the markets themselves destroy that equality of wealth that is necessary for them to function well. Free markets always degenerate into corporate oligarchies.

Notice, for example, Baconator's examples about you building, buying or owning a house. Notice all the things he is assuming: The you own the land on which to build the house, that you own the materials with which to build the house, that you have the money to pay people to build the house... and so on. He is assuming that you are rich, and then proceeds to show that a free market works well for you - assuming you are rich. Well, no shit, Sherlock. Of course it does. Trouble is, most of us are not rich.


You can hit me up on PM and we can exchange contact info. I'd be more than happy to help you explore this wonderful concept.
And you can hit me up on PM and we can exchange contact info as well - I would be more than happy to debunk Baconator's sophistry and crap. :)


Simply put, there are no 'collective rights' since rights pertain to only things...
Stop right there. Rights pertain to whatever we want them to pertain. There can be collective rights if we want there to be. "Rights" in general are created and defined by human society. Not by you. You do not get to define the rights of everyone else.


Obviously this is sick and true exploitation. In a free society no gun would be necessary and voluntary exchange can rule the day and benefit everyone.
Don't be a fucking moron. If people have the opportunity to use a gun to exploit you, sooner or later one of them will. They only way to prevent that is to ensure that they don't get the opportunity in the first place.

There is no such thing as a society where no gun is necessary. There is no such thing as a society where all actions and exchanges are voluntary. There is no such thing as a society where everyone is happy all the time. The choice is between rule by majority and rule by minority, happiness for the many or happiness for the few.

Anything else is fantasy.

[IcarusAngel]

Did you even watch it or did you just make a blind comment? Clearly it was the latter.

No, I've seen it before. I saw it about four years ago, and like I said, I think it's fucking stupid.

Self-ownership has been debunked, philosophically, hundreds of times. It is indeed the basis of slavery and property rights, which are shown by history to be tyrannical.

It's funny you'd jump to obviously false conclusions such as these while claiming to be a purporter of logic and reason.


Self ownership is tyrannical? Any better suggestions that wouldn't be an obvious contradiction?

Better suggestions for what? Leftists have already put forward their version of society.

Rather than try and debunk them, people like you make up shit like "self-ownership" and then claim that socialism some how violates it.


Property starts with the axiom of self-ownership. To make the claim self-ownership is invalid means that that in itself is a contradiction in the premise since you are using your property rights over yourself to think about what you're gonna write and using your fingers to type that.

LOL. That doesn't even make any sense, and how does that logically follow?

Care to show the actual logic and premise behind it to show that this "logically" followed, or are you just making shit up again.

I could be thinking for myself, EVEN IF THE STATE AND DOESN'T RECOGNIZE MY RIGHT TO SELF-OWNERSHIP, WHICH IT DOESN'T, SO IT'S YOU WHO HAS THE CONTRADICTION.



Likewise, such a claim would be irrational and unscientific since only your biochemical and neurological functions only work on your body/mind.

Never in anthropological history has it been shown that species most "own" themselves in order to be able to think.

That makes no fucking sense, and as shown, it's actually unscientific.

You're projecting a series of rights on society as being a necessarily prerequisite for thought, when it isn't. Jews in concentration camps were able to be use their mind. Trachtenberg or whatever his name was even came up with a whole system of speed math in one.

This is the same type of "reasoning" people use when they claim nothing exists because nothing is truly how we see it. Of course, even the philosophers who claimed that had SOME scientific principles behind them.


Accepting the validity in self-ownership also means we have exclusive rights over our life and only over our own lives and not someone else's since other people hold that same right over themselves.

No it doesn't. When you're forced to sell yourself into slavery (which "self-ownerships" advocate openly promote) that isn't freedom.

Self-ownership naturally implicates slavery.

In a normal, humane society (communism), if I renege on a contract, say because I find out the guy whose house I'm going to paint is a total asshole or is doing something I don't approve of, the worst thing that would be hurt is my reputation.

Even in today's society, if I renege on a contract it might not even be worth it take me to court, because everybody has some rights. I imagine if he'd already paid me he might consider it to be worth to take me to court, and get his money back.

In anarcho-capitalist society, all hell would break lose. I'd be taken to some "private court," and I'd be forced to accept whatever ruling they come up with. (This is because there is are no "human rights" in anarcho-capitalism, only property rights.)

This even means he could force me into slavery over backing out of a contract, because if I have no money, the capitalists come after the final piece of property: my body.


If you disagree, please find the contradictions in the axiom of self-ownership.

I already did.

Rothbard, like you, claimed that self-ownership was the basis of natural, free production. But, just because z follows y, doesn't mean that x couldn't get us there as well.

property
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP

ownership
1 : the state, relation, or fact of being an owner
2 : a group or organization of owners

own
1 a : to have or hold as property : POSSESS b : to have power over : CONTROL <wanted to own his own life>


In order to own something, A and B must be different things, as there is A, owner, and B the property owned.

That's the logic approach.

And of course, the common sense approach is that we do not have complete control over our bodies and our thoughts. We don't control our hearts, for example.

And we cannot simple use and enjoy our bodies, and then discard them.

This concept would only work (possibly) if we were all robots, if we really were propety.

Finally, the concept of ownership requires more than two actors, because rights are social constructs.

For you to truly "own" something, it has to be recognized by society as such. For instance, for me to claim ownership over a wrench, society would have to deem I have a certain set of rights under which if I acquire the wrench, it becomes "mine."

You're essentially forcing your absurd belief system upon everybody, which most people don't even agree with.

[IcarusAngel]

I would say that video applies to socialism and communism as well.

As shown above, self-ownership naturally implicates slavery. Because, when you owe a debt to someone, the person you owe the debt to could come after your final piece of property: your body.

Care to show where Socialism or anarchism would permit this?

Capitalists even admit they're pro-slavery. Nozick claimed you had the "right" to sell yourself into slavery. The economist Buchanan even said that the duty of each individual citizen to own as many slaves as possible.

They seemed obsessed with the concepts of "race" as well as slavery, probably because they need "race" as an excuse to explain away some of the failures of capitalism, and they need to justify slavery because self-ownership would naturally permit it.


__________________________________________________ ___________


Finally, I need to note that some people seem to be mixing and matching philosophies, and much more 'mixing' than 'matching.'

Classical-liberals believed in the concept of "social contracts," not necessarily "self-ownership." In fact, some of the first to question the idea of "natural rights" were Utilitarians and classical-liberals, such as Bentham.

Rousseau was one who believed in natural rights and complete individuality. He leaves out that the paper he used to write his books, and the pen, and so on, all were made available to him because of society.

But at least Rousseau had as the basis of his philosophy the escape from slavery and chains, as we've all seen the quotes, whereas anarcho-capitalists like dejavu are trying to tkae us back into slavery.

[Baconator]

Its dishonest to name this thread 'capitalist' since thats not the intent of the movie and 'capitalist' draws neo-mercantilist opposition here and and the movie has nothing to do with that. Thats dishonest IMO. I will not entertain this thread if its title is changed on a subjective whim.

[Publius]

NOTE: Since your Godless forum software won't let me create new threads ("You can't create new tags!" I remove the tags, hit submit, "You can't create new tags!" etc.) I'm just going to post this here, as it sort of fits:

Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia

I'm finding it difficult to refute and it's arguments philosophically sound.

Note that I don't like them -- I hate libertarianism -- but since I'm such a fair-minded guy, I can't just reject arguments that seem convincing to me and, philosophically, Nozick's arguments seem pretty airtight. I can't see any way to accept natural rights and reject his conclusions. Does that mean that in order to accept any form of leftism I have to reject natural rights?

I'm wary of that for several reasons. The usual tactic when responding to libertarians is just to say "it won't work" or "it'll produce bad effects." But Nozick absolutely destroys utilitarian arguments in his text, and even if it didn't work, all that would prove is that the only way to have a functioning society is to essentially enslave some people against their will, a conclusion that I'm no happier with than living in a minimal-state hellhole.

Are there any serious philosophical objections to Nozick? I know Rawls' philosophy is usually posited as a good refutation of Nozick (though Nozick in fact intended to refute Rawls) but having read both Rawls and Nozick, it seems to me that Nozicks arguments are stronger even if I like Rawls conclusions better. I know you guys aren't even very sympathetic to Rawlsianism, but he pretty sucessfully (to me it seems) dispenses with Marxism too.

For example, take the classic leftist talking point that individuals should hold influence in decision making to the extent that they're affected. That in the decision to shut down the factory, for example, the workers should be consulted and get to vote. I used to think this was a good idea, but Nozick makes quick work of the notion: Imagine that 4 men all ask to marry 1 woman. Her decision greatly affects all of their loves, but who here would say that the 5 of them should get together and vote? What if the men finally come to a consensus and vote her a husband she doesn't want? Does she just have to accept it? Abject tyranny. And far from just being a flippant example, I can't see how any application of this principle doesn't result in someone being similarly forced to do something they don't want to do. Isn't that wrong?

I feel as if there have to be some philosophically rigorous objections to libertarianism, but I thought I already knew most of them, and they just don't seem as compelling anymore. What arguments do you guys find most convincing?

Thanks.

[Demogorgon]

There are plenty of philosophical arguments against Nozick. Indeed Nozick himself came up with a fair few after he changed his mind about his philosophy.

The main philosophical objection though is that Nozick's conception of freedom is absolute junk. In Nozick's world view, if I am born with nothing to my name and cannot be educated (because there is no free education) and hence can only get the worst jobs for a pittance of pay and die young due to lack of healthcare, then I am entirely free. It is so stuck in an intellectual vacuum that it simply is not applicable to the real world.

So basically Nozick's opening premise is broken and from there no matter who valid the logic, the conclusions will be wrong as they come from utterly wrong basic assumptions.

There is also the problem that Nozick is utterly obsessed with process. According to him legitimate process leads to legitimate outcome. So if you happen to come into possession of property today, you can pass it on to your descendents and if none of them choose to dispose of it, it will still legitimately be their property ten thousand years from now, no matter how much benefit could have come from it not being their property. (Note, that this was Nozick's main objection to his own philosophy. He later advocated substantial inheritance taxes to prevent wealth, in his words, "cascading down the ages".

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I can't see any way to accept natural rights and reject his conclusions. Does that mean that in order to accept any form of leftism I have to reject natural rights?
Actually, yes. Natural rights logically lead to tyranny (and libertarianism is, in fact, a form of tyranny). I don't think any philosophically consistent leftist can accept the notion of natural rights.

Hell, natural rights don't even have any kind of basis in reality. Why should there be a right to X? Because you want that right? Because Nozick wants that right? Not good enough. Every time natural rights are defended with the argument that they are principles most or all people would accept - which is the only defence I've ever seen - the person making that argument is in fact implying that rights are not absolute, but depend on the will of the people.


I'm wary of that for several reasons. The usual tactic when responding to libertarians is just to say "it won't work" or "it'll produce bad effects." But Nozick absolutely destroys utilitarian arguments in his text, and even if it didn't work, all that would prove is that the only way to have a functioning society is to essentially enslave some people against their will, a conclusion that I'm no happier with than living in a minimal-state hellhole.
Why not? It is logically impossible to have a society in which every individual is free to do absolutely anything he or she wants. People have conflicting desires, and in order to have a functional society there must be a mechanism to decide what to do in cases where the desires of two or more people cannot be met at the same time.

Nozick's solution is private property: Divide the world into (highly unequal) spheres of influence, and give every individual absolute power within his own sphere and no power at all within the spheres of others. But since none of the spheres are self-sufficient and human beings must work together to survive, those whose spheres of influence contain important things (like the means of production) can use their control over those important things to essentially blackmail others to do their bidding. Nozick's solution fails because he imagines it is possible to keep the spheres of influence separate. It is not.

The solution preferred by socialists is to reduce those spheres of influence to the level of the human body - your body is the only thing you have absolute control over - and create a collective sphere of influence over the rest of the universe, so that when the desires of two or more people conflict, society votes to decide what happens (as opposed to Nozick's solution in which case one person always has the power to impose his desires on others, that person being the owner of property).


For example, take the classic leftist talking point that individuals should hold influence in decision making to the extent that they're affected. That in the decision to shut down the factory, for example, the workers should be consulted and get to vote. I used to think this was a good idea, but Nozick makes quick work of the notion: Imagine that 4 men all ask to marry 1 woman. Her decision greatly affects all of their loves, but who here would say that the 5 of them should get together and vote? What if the men finally come to a consensus and vote her a husband she doesn't want? Does she just have to accept it? Abject tyranny.
Fallacy of the excluded middle. Nozick is presenting you with a choice between the ideas that (1) every single thing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (libertarianism), and (2) nothing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (the marriage example, where the woman's body is not under her control).

It is possible that the utilitarian ideal, the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest number, requires a combination of the two principles above, rather than the absolute extreme interpretations that Nozick asks you to choose from. Only one who believes in natural rights is forced to choose between such extremes.

His argument can also be attacked from a different angle: Rule utilitarianism. People should vote on everything, but they should vote on general rules rather than on a case-by-case basis. So we would not be voting on what to do when Jack, John, Andrew and Mike all want to marry Sophie. We would be voting on a general rule that would apply in all cases where 4 men want to marry the same woman. A vast majority of the population would vote to give the woman sole authority to decide whom to marry. So we have reached freedom through a purely collectivist process.

This is, to some extent, the same argument that Rawls makes with his "veil of ignorance": No person would vote for slavery if there was a chance he might end up being the slave. Even a collective with absolute powers over your body and your life would probably not degenerate into "abject tyranny" as long as the voters only get to vote on general principles that apply equally to everyone.


I can't see how any application of this principle doesn't result in someone being similarly forced to do something they don't want to do. Isn't that wrong?
No society can possibly avoid the possibility that someone may be forced to do something they don't want to do. Whether by vote, by order of the king, or by order of the property owner.


I feel as if there have to be some philosophically rigorous objections to libertarianism, but I thought I already knew most of them, and they just don't seem as compelling anymore. What arguments do you guys find most convincing?
It all comes down to the simple principle that property is tyranny. If a person has the right to exclude other people from access to the things they need in order to live, he can make those other people his slaves. Power over things is power over people.

[Dimentio]

So excluding someone to use my body ( lets say for pleasure) is quite tyrannical?

Your body/Your house/Your TV =/= A Factory/Production Facility/Utility

[Dimentio]

Actually, yes. Natural rights logically lead to tyranny (and libertarianism is, in fact, a form of tyranny). I don't think any philosophically consistent leftist can accept the notion of natural rights.

Hell, natural rights don't even have any kind of basis in reality. Why should there be a right to X? Because you want that right? Because Nozick wants that right? Not good enough. Every time natural rights are defended with the argument that they are principles most or all people would accept - which is the only defence I've ever seen - the person making that argument is in fact implying that rights are not absolute, but depend on the will of the people.


Why not? It is logically impossible to have a society in which every individual is free to do absolutely anything he or she wants. People have conflicting desires, and in order to have a functional society there must be a mechanism to decide what to do in cases where the desires of two or more people cannot be met at the same time.

Nozick's solution is private property: Divide the world into (highly unequal) spheres of influence, and give every individual absolute power within his own sphere and no power at all within the spheres of others. But since none of the spheres are self-sufficient and human beings must work together to survive, those whose spheres of influence contain important things (like the means of production) can use their control over those important things to essentially blackmail others to do their bidding. Nozick's solution fails because he imagines it is possible to keep the spheres of influence separate. It is not.

The solution preferred by socialists is to reduce those spheres of influence to the level of the human body - your body is the only thing you have absolute control over - and create a collective sphere of influence over the rest of the universe, so that when the desires of two or more people conflict, society votes to decide what happens (as opposed to Nozick's solution in which case one person always has the power to impose his desires on others, that person being the owner of property).


Fallacy of the excluded middle. Nozick is presenting you with a choice between the ideas that (1) every single thing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (libertarianism), and (2) nothing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (the marriage example, where the woman's body is not under her control).

It is possible that the utilitarian ideal, the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest number, requires a combination of the two principles above, rather than the absolute extreme interpretations that Nozick asks you to choose from. Only one who believes in natural rights is forced to choose between such extremes.

His argument can also be attacked from a different angle: Rule utilitarianism. People should vote on everything, but they should vote on general rules rather than on a case-by-case basis. So we would not be voting on what to do when Jack, John, Andrew and Mike all want to marry Sophie. We would be voting on a general rule that would apply in all cases where 4 men want to marry the same woman. A vast majority of the population would vote to give the woman sole authority to decide whom to marry. So we have reached freedom through a purely collectivist process.

This is, to some extent, the same argument that Rawls makes with his "veil of ignorance": No person would vote for slavery if there was a chance he might end up being the slave. Even a collective with absolute powers over your body and your life would probably not degenerate into "abject tyranny" as long as the voters only get to vote on general principles that apply equally to everyone.


No society can possibly avoid the possibility that someone may be forced to do something they don't want to do. Whether by vote, by order of the king, or by order of the property owner.


It all comes down to the simple principle that property is tyranny. If a person has the right to exclude other people from access to the things they need in order to live, he can make those other people his slaves. Power over things is power over people.

That depends on the values of the collective. Like that village in Sudan which forced a man to marry a goat.

[Dimentio]

The really fun thing with that video is that socialism fundamentally is here to give you the absolute rights to the fruits of your labour, because that profits are stolen labour from workers. According to socialists, you pay the boss so that you would have the "right" to work in her factory.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That depends on the values of the collective. Like that village in Sudan which forced a man to marry a goat.
Ah, but would they have voted on a general rule that said all men should marry goats? Unlikely.

[IcarusAngel]

I already spotted an error in Nozick's reasoning in that ridiculous four-men-and-a-wife example. When I first read through quickly the last page of this thread, I read it as if it was an argument against community: that if four men and one woman get together and marry, it would be totally insane to suggest they should get together and "vote" to decide whether a woman stays or if she goes. That is a very good argument against the concept that the community (or soverign, or what have you) should have complete control over an individual. Although suitable for a polygamist compound, most people would reject outright the concept that a woman should ever be forced to stay with her husbands.

On the retake, I see that Nozick is actually using a false analogy: he's claiming that the workers shouldn't have voting rights for the same reason men can't just get together and vote for the woman they choose.

This is wrong on so many levels I think it's hard not to see an error in his reasoning.

The political refutations:

If he's agruing against the concept of democracy: everybody has the right to vote, and people would democratically agree that it's wrong to allow people to vote others into slavery, no matter where it occurs. Similarly, people would agree that it's wrong to have any kind of slavery, making the concept of "selling yourself into slavery" impossible.

Second, it is a false analogy because the woman does not actually owe Jack, John, Andrew and Mike at all, obviously, and she never actually contributed her "love" to the men in the first place, so there is no reason for them to totally and completely arbitrarily get together and decide they can vote her into their bizarre sexual slavery.

This is in complete contrast to the workers in the factory, who actually MADE the products that come from the factory, and thus have an inherent right (or social right, if you will) to the production facilities.

You own what you create, what you are using, and so on, and the managers owe the workers a debt, and, to be fair, the reverse is true, the workers owe the managers a sense of debt.

Since that's the case, as everybody participated in production, it makes sense that they should get together and vote. And it may well be there are more managers and/or managerial workers than regular workers, who decide that it's best to bail out and shut down the company. That is completely free and I would like to live under such a system.

It's clearly a false analogy - it makes little sense, and I would ask Nozick why he thinks workers shouldn't control the factories, and demand a serious refutation (not that nonsense above), and explain to him that the freest system is indeed one in which democracy exists and there are no landed or natural monopolies on resources, where everybody works according to their interests or the interests of the community -- as you may need to do certain work in order for them to want to support you.

He may claim that democracy is tyranny (or whatever his arguments are, I'm not that familiar with him), but I would argue that it is corporations who are tyrannical because they are the ones who actually implement mob rule -- they find just enough people to back them, claim a monopoly on the resources, and force everybody else to accept them or they'll go on the attack -- just like what the mob used to do.

If he claims democracy can lead to bad decisions, you could just as easily claim that people who believed in natural rights also made bad decisions, and his version of "natural rights" hasn't even come into fruition. (At least with democracy, society makes the mistakes as a whole, instead of a dictator or a capitalist making them.)

And he may claim the leftist society isn't free, but we know that the Israeli kibbutzim and other communities based on these concepts have been the freest and most egalitarian, as well as non-hierarchical societies in existence, whereas capitalism on the other hand has created the largest state in history.

I think it's a terrible argument. I've read a lot of von Mises, like Human Action, which also isn't very logically sound, but that argument makes von Mises claims seem rational by comparison.

Hopefully, Nozick had better arguments against democracy and freedom than those above.

[IcarusAngel]

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Nozick is presenting you with a choice between the ideas that (1) every single thing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (libertarianism), and (2) nothing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (the marriage example, where the woman's body is not under her control).

It is possible that the utilitarian ideal, the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest number, requires a combination of the two principles above, rather than the absolute extreme interpretations that Nozick asks you to choose from. Only one who believes in natural rights is forced to choose between such extremes.

I'll let this be the philosophical refutation, as your comments are very astute. I think a libertarian society would perhaps even be worse than the society we've got, with the small amount of democracy we have.

Also, I imagine maybe in syndicalism or some other form of democratic-anarchism, worker controller really isn't a pre-requisite - it's just the best idea people have come up with so far on how to achieve freedom. If there was another way, some kind of partial ownership between manager and worker (or whatever), I think it would be permitted and still be called syndicalism.

The point is, people ultimately work out freedom. Communism I guess could only be run one way, that which maximizes the concept that people each receive according to their need.

[Publius]

There are plenty of philosophical arguments against Nozick. Indeed Nozick himself came up with a fair few after he changed his mind about his philosophy.

I don't know how much he changed his mind. There's dispute over that.

AFAIK he still considered himself a libertarian and thought people were misrepresenting him.



The main philosophical objection though is that Nozick's conception of freedom is absolute junk.

Maybe.

But I don't see how leftist notions of freedom are much better, or at least they have their own flaws.

Redistribution of wealth, it seems, is always going to require some confiscatory apparatus, and that's always going to be problematic.



In Nozick's world view, if I am born with nothing to my name and cannot be educated (because there is no free education) and hence can only get the worst jobs for a pittance of pay and die young due to lack of healthcare, then I am entirely free. It is so stuck in an intellectual vacuum that it simply is not applicable to the real world.

Yes. But how can that be resolved without violating someone's rights?



So basically Nozick's opening premise is broken and from there no matter who valid the logic, the conclusions will be wrong as they come from utterly wrong basic assumptions.

I think his opening premise leads to unacceptable ends, yes.

But I can't find any logical fault with it, other than the fact that this just is the natural result of application of natural rights theory or a Kantian ethical system.



There is also the problem that Nozick is utterly obsessed with process. According to him legitimate process leads to legitimate outcome. So if you happen to come into possession of property today, you can pass it on to your descendents and if none of them choose to dispose of it, it will still legitimately be their property ten thousand years from now, no matter how much benefit could have come from it not being their property. (Note, that this was Nozick's main objection to his own philosophy. He later advocated substantial inheritance taxes to prevent wealth, in his words, "cascading down the ages".

That seems the obvious problem to me, or at least one of them.

But it seems to follow absolutely from his methodology.

[Dimentio]

Ah, but would they have voted on a general rule that said all men should marry goats? Unlikely.

The man had "coveted" the goat in question. Usually, he would have been stoned. But the judge had a good day I guess.

[Publius]

Actually, yes. Natural rights logically lead to tyranny (and libertarianism is, in fact, a form of tyranny). I don't think any philosophically consistent leftist can accept the notion of natural rights.

Hell, natural rights don't even have any kind of basis in reality. Why should there be a right to X? Because you want that right? Because Nozick wants that right? Not good enough. Every time natural rights are defended with the argument that they are principles most or all people would accept - which is the only defence I've ever seen - the person making that argument is in fact implying that rights are not absolute, but depend on the will of the people.

Okay.

But now I'm lost at sea, because I think utilitarianism is absolutely shot to hell and Kantianism is nonsense.

I mean, I use utilitarian reasoning all the time, but I don't feel as if it's philosophically justified.



Why not? It is logically impossible to have a society in which every individual is free to do absolutely anything he or she wants. People have conflicting desires, and in order to have a functional society there must be a mechanism to decide what to do in cases where the desires of two or more people cannot be met at the same time.

Nozick's solution is private property: Divide the world into (highly unequal) spheres of influence, and give every individual absolute power within his own sphere and no power at all within the spheres of others. But since none of the spheres are self-sufficient and human beings must work together to survive, those whose spheres of influence contain important things (like the means of production) can use their control over those important things to essentially blackmail others to do their bidding. Nozick's solution fails because he imagines it is possible to keep the spheres of influence separate. It is not.

The solution preferred by socialists is to reduce those spheres of influence to the level of the human body - your body is the only thing you have absolute control over - and create a collective sphere of influence over the rest of the universe, so that when the desires of two or more people conflict, society votes to decide what happens (as opposed to Nozick's solution in which case one person always has the power to impose his desires on others, that person being the owner of property).

But Nozick's ideology allows for this to happen.

He isn't forcing anyone to accept his ideology. Why, in the type of society he imagines, couldn't socialist groups on their own?



Fallacy of the excluded middle. Nozick is presenting you with a choice between the ideas that (1) every single thing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (libertarianism), and (2) nothing in the universe should be under the absolute control of a single individual (the marriage example, where the woman's body is not under her control).

Okay.

But how then do we decide when we can or cannot apply this rule?

He also gives the example of an elderly conductor who wants to step down and thus disband his orchestra. The rule seems to have to apply here: it deals with people's jobs. But can the orchestra (the workers) force their boss to stay on board, even though he's old and wants to quit?

I don't think this principle is any good, philosophically.



It is possible that the utilitarian ideal, the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest number, requires a combination of the two principles above, rather than the absolute extreme interpretations that Nozick asks you to choose from. Only one who believes in natural rights is forced to choose between such extremes.

Okay, but this doesn't really solve the problem.

When would it be proper to do this?

Factory owner wants to shut down his factory because it's losing money. The workers don't want this, they'll be out jobs. Can they force the factory owner to take a loss?



His argument can also be attacked from a different angle: Rule utilitarianism.

Problematic in its own right.

How do you derive the rules? Well, pick the rules that maximize utility, I guess.

Like what? "Don't steal"? That'd probably be a rule we'd make, using rule libertarianism, right?

But what if you had an opportunity to steal where you wouldn't get caught, and doing so would increase total utility? In this case following the rule would decrease overall utility, so should you steal?

The usual argument would be no, because the rule itself increases utility, so you can't break it. But the rule is just a means to an end, not an end itself. It's a means to reach ultimate utility. But if you can acheive that by breaking the rule, it seems you have to.

So I guess the rule is "Don't steal, unless it'll produce a net gain in utility." But that isn't much of a rule, now is it?



People should vote on everything, but they should vote on general rules rather than on a case-by-case basis. So we would not be voting on what to do when Jack, John, Andrew and Mike all want to marry Sophie. We would be voting on a general rule that would apply in all cases where 4 men want to marry the same woman. A vast majority of the population would vote to give the woman sole authority to decide whom to marry. So we have reached freedom through a purely collectivist process.

Reduce the example. The five them are the only people in society.

Now is the vote legitimate?

This 'solution' only works by expanding the scope; I don't think it settles the fundamental issue. The issue is none could ever tell Sophie who to marry, for any reason. Not you, not me, not society, not even if it increased utility.

Don't you think that?

I do.



This is, to some extent, the same argument that Rawls makes with his "veil of ignorance": No person would vote for slavery if there was a chance he might end up being the slave. Even a collective with absolute powers over your body and your life would probably not degenerate into "abject tyranny" as long as the voters only get to vote on general principles that apply equally to everyone.

This is probably workable. I'll have to think about this.



No society can possibly avoid the possibility that someone may be forced to do something they don't want to do. Whether by vote, by order of the king, or by order of the property owner.

That's probably true, yes.

This is, I think, one possible justification of consequentialist or utilitarian principles: how else can you judge what rules to go by without looking at the effects? Natural rights? Why natural rights, and not, say, natural rights for all living things? Or natural rights for people with blue eyes?

Eventually you have to resort to the effects of your original starting rules or else you'd admit all sorts of absurdities.



It all comes down to the simple principle that property is tyranny. If a person has the right to exclude other people from access to the things they need in order to live, he can make those other people his slaves. Power over things is power over people.

Yes, and power over people is power over people.

If you have the power to order people around, even for a utilitarian end, that seems at least somewhat tyrannical.

[Publius]

The really fun thing with that video is that socialism fundamentally is here to give you the absolute rights to the fruits of your labour, because that profits are stolen labour from workers.

Question I've always had about this idea.

Could workers refuse to give charity?

If I'm entitled to all the fruits of my labor, how can I be forced to donate? How can I be forced to pay taxes?

It has be that I'm not entitled to all the produce of my labor for redistribution to be possible.

[Publius]

I already spotted an error in Nozick's reasoning in that ridiculous four-men-and-a-wife example. When I first read through quickly the last page of this thread, I read it as if it was an argument against community: that if four men and one woman get together and marry, it would be totally insane to suggest they should get together and "vote" to decide whether a woman stays or if she goes. That is a very good argument against the concept that the community (or soverign, or what have you) should have complete control over an individual. Although suitable for a polygamist compound, most people would reject outright the concept that a woman should ever be forced to stay with her husbands.

Exactly.

Might one say that a woman has a 'natural right' to her body?

Why or why not?

(This is directed not at you, but at leftists in general)

This is the issue I have with rejecting natural right theory. It is not acceptable to me that society could just, if it wanted to, decide that women didn't have a right to control their own bodies, say.

Say if America voted to outlaw abortion (possible). If that was fair and democratic, would you accept that result? No! You'd think it violated women's rights. Which seems strange if you deny that women have such rights, and that society can decide such things.



On the retake, I see that Nozick is actually using a false analogy: he's claiming that the workers shouldn't have voting rights for the same reason men can't just get together and vote for the woman they choose.

Essentially.



This is wrong on so many levels I think it's hard not to see an error in his reasoning.

The political refutations:

If he's agruing against the concept of democracy: everybody has the right to vote, and people would democratically agree that it's wrong to allow people to vote others into slavery, no matter where it occurs. Similarly, people would agree that it's wrong to have any kind of slavery, making the concept of "selling yourself into slavery" impossible.

He's not arguing against democracy, he's arguing against people voting for issues "to the extent that they're effected by them."

While that would presumably be an example of democracy, it is not itself 'democracy.'



Second, it is a false analogy because the woman does not actually owe Jack, John, Andrew and Mike at all, obviously, and she never actually contributed her "love" to the men in the first place, so there is no reason for them to totally and completely arbitrarily get together and decide they can vote her into their bizarre sexual slavery.

This is in complete contrast to the workers in the factory, who actually MADE the products that come from the factory, and thus have an inherent right (or social right, if you will) to the production facilities.

But they didn't make the production facilities.

Also, they agreed to give up the product of their labor for wages. If people can't give away the product of their labor via contract, how can it be confiscated from them via taxation, or taken by society to pay for health care or schooling?



You own what you create, what you are using, and so on, and the managers owe the workers a debt, and, to be fair, the reverse is true, the workers owe the managers a sense of debt.

So if I loan you my hammer, and you use it, it's now your hammer?

If I loan you my car? If you just take my hammer, and use it to build something?

If you sign an agreement saying "I give up my right to my labor in exhange for money"?



Since that's the case, as everybody participated in production, it makes sense that they should get together and vote. And it may well be there are more managers and/or managerial workers than regular workers, who decide that it's best to bail out and shut down the company. That is completely free and I would like to live under such a system.

But Nozick says that worker controlled factories could exist under his system.

He has no problem with this.



It's clearly a false analogy - it makes little sense, and I would ask Nozick why he thinks workers shouldn't control the factories, and demand a serious refutation (not that nonsense above), and explain to him that the freest system is indeed one in which democracy exists and there are no landed or natural monopolies on resources, where everybody works according to their interests or the interests of the community -- as you may need to do certain work in order for them to want to support you.

His answer would be because they didn't get the factory through a Lockean acquisition of property.



He may claim that democracy is tyranny (or whatever his arguments are, I'm not that familiar with him),

He is worth reading, if only due to how influential he still is within libertarian circles.



I think it's a terrible argument. I've read a lot of von Mises, like Human Action, which also isn't very logically sound, but that argument makes von Mises claims seem rational by comparison.

Hopefully, Nozick had better arguments against democracy and freedom than those above.

Nozick is quite a bit smarter than von Mises, I assure you.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know how much he changed his mind. There's dispute over that.

AFAIK he still considered himself a libertarian and thought people were misrepresenting him.

He said he was still a Libertarian yes. But he moved considerably away from the far-right of the movement as he began to re-think a lot of his stuff


Maybe.

But I don't see how leftist notions of freedom are much better, or at least they have their own flaws.

Redistribution of wealth, it seems, is always going to require some confiscatory apparatus, and that's always going to be problematic.

Probably, but Nozick's model also involves much confiscatory apparatus. As Nozick says himself, if process is to legitimise outcome, then the results of violation of process in the past have to be rectified in order to have a just society. For this reason he advocates taxing white Americans to compensate Native Americans and blacks for the force that whites used against them and to take them to the stage they would have been without such force.

Of course you could go even further to the right than Nozick and drop that concession saying that the starting point for legitimate process is today, but if you do that, the argument loses its entire intellectual basis, because then you would be saying that procedure only matters when you want it to.


Yes. But how can that be resolved without violating someone's rights?

Rights that Nozick believes we have? What makes him the authority there? I could give you a conception of rights that would not involve any violations in order to resolve this.


I think his opening premise leads to unacceptable ends, yes.

But I can't find any logical fault with it, other than the fact that this just is the natural result of application of natural rights theory or a Kantian ethical system.

The problem is not in his formal logic, but in his premises. If I say the moon is made of cheese and conclude from that that the moon is edible, then there is no problem with my logic, but my conclusion is still wrong because my premise is wrong. Nozick has exactly the same problem.


That seems the obvious problem to me, or at least one of them.

But it seems to follow absolutely from his methodology.
Which shows that something has gone wrong earlier than that.

Nozick's problem is that he dismisses the possibility that a just society is one shaped by the will of those in it rather than one that follows from a set of axioms that he happens to like.

This is where Rawls obviously bested him. The original position is pretty flawed, partly because it has no bearing on how societies form, making it a simple intellectual curiousity and partly because Rawls presumes we would come to a certain conclusion when different people may choose different things, but nonetheless he starts off from a good position when he realises that people's desire to live in a certain way accounts for something.

The thing about Nozick is that his philosophy is great to talk about in a seminar, but is utterly useless in real life. Are you going to go to a famine hit country and tell them you haven't brought aid because this nice theory shows that they have no entitlement to such?

[Demogorgon]

He isn't forcing anyone to accept his ideology. Why, in the type of society he imagines, couldn't socialist groups on their own?

This needs answered. This position is an utter intellectual cop-out by Nozick, partly because it misunderstands what socialism is (it isn't us all going to live in a hippy commune) and partly because you can just turn around and say that capitalists would be free to have their own little capitalist societies under socialism. I mean Trotsky came up with that idea before Nozick was even born in "If America should go Communist".

Anyway let's look at this idea. People who are socialists are mostly the workers. The workers in Nozickland are the ones without much in the way of private property. They can band together to create their own little societies as much as they want, but the capitalist's will still have all the resources. It is like throwing the Christians and the lions in the arena together and saying that they are each free to pursue their own system of who gets to eat who.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't have time to reply to everything right now, so I will just respond to a few points that stand out. More to come later.


Okay.

But now I'm lost at sea, because I think utilitarianism is absolutely shot to hell and Kantianism is nonsense.

I mean, I use utilitarian reasoning all the time, but I don't feel as if it's philosophically justified.
What makes you believe that? I think utilitarianism is fully justified philosophically, its only problem lying in the fact that it is sometimes difficult to apply because one cannot always properly evaluate the consequences of an action.

But anyway, please tell me your objections to utilitarianism so that I can reply to them.


But Nozick's ideology allows for this to happen.

He isn't forcing anyone to accept his ideology. Why, in the type of society he imagines, couldn't socialist groups on their own?
Oh, but he is forcing people to accept his ideology, because he is forcing people to accept his claims of private property over things. In the type of society Nozick imagines, factories, land, and all the means of production would be private property. Those who happen to own all this property could indeed set up whatever social system they want. And those who don't own the means of production - the working class - would have no choice but to live under whatever system the owners choose for them.

Nozick's utopia does give freedom to the owners of important property to set up whatever society they want. But it makes everyone else their slaves.

In Nozick's utopia, one's ability to satisfy one's desires depends on the amount of property one owns. Those who own little or no property would have their desires ignored. So this society, like all others, does not allow everyone's desires to be met at the same time.


Okay.

But how then do we decide when we can or cannot apply this rule?
The people are sovereign. They, the members of society, can vote and decide democratically which rules they wish to live under. The only condition is that the same rules must apply to everyone equally.

He also gives the example of an elderly conductor who wants to step down and thus disband his orchestra. The rule seems to have to apply here: it deals with people's jobs. But can the orchestra (the workers) force their boss to stay on board, even though he's old and wants to quit?[/quote]
Insufficient information. Is there no possible replacement for the elderly conductor? Are there no other orchestras for the workers to join? If this is the last conductor of the last orchestra in the world, then yes, the workers should be able to force him to stay.

Nozick seems to be fond of imagining ridiculously unlikely situations, or forcing you to choose between two extreme alternatives when, in reality, there are always other ways to solve the problem (like finding a different conductor).


Okay, but this doesn't really solve the problem.

When would it be proper to do this?
The people should vote and set down a number of rules that determine when it is proper to do this.

If in doubt, hold a referendum. That's one of my guiding principles.


Factory owner wants to shut down his factory because it's losing money. The workers don't want this, they'll be out jobs. Can they force the factory owner to take a loss?
The factory owner should not exist in the first place, because all the means of production should be collective property.

So, actually, what the workers should do is take over the factory.


Problematic in its own right.

How do you derive the rules? Well, pick the rules that maximize utility, I guess.

Like what? "Don't steal"? That'd probably be a rule we'd make, using rule utilitarianism, right?

But what if you had an opportunity to steal where you wouldn't get caught, and doing so would increase total utility? In this case following the rule would decrease overall utility, so should you steal?

The usual argument would be no, because the rule itself increases utility, so you can't break it. But the rule is just a means to an end, not an end itself. It's a means to reach ultimate utility. But if you can acheive that by breaking the rule, it seems you have to.

So I guess the rule is "Don't steal, unless it'll produce a net gain in utility." But that isn't much of a rule, now is it?
You are confusing actors. Rule utilitarianism applies to the government, or society as a whole. Act utilitarianism applies to individuals. The government (or society) should enforce rules that comply with rule utilitarianism, and the individual should act according to act utilitarianism. Society and the individual are different actors.

So, to use your example: The government or society should enforce a rule that theft is wrong and will be punished. The individual should break this rule if doing so will increase total utility. The purpose of the government or society is to enforce the rules, so they should attempt to find and punish this individual. Both the government AND the individual are acting morally in this case.

Different actors should do different things in the same situation, depending on their nature. There's nothing wrong with that.

It is sometimes necessary to break a law - even a GOOD law - because of special circumstances. But that doesn't mean I would want the government to stop enforcing that law. For instance, it is good and moral to ignore traffic lights and regulations if you have a dying person in your car who needs emergency medical attention. That doesn't mean that traffic lights and regulations should be abolished.


Reduce the example. The five them are the only people in society.

Now is the vote legitimate?
Yes.

The best thing about completely unrealistic hypothetical situations is that you don't have to worry about reaching unacceptable conclusions. If your philosophy can lead to unacceptable conclusions, but these conclusions are only valid in situations that could not realistically happen, there is no problem.

I am only interested in a philosophy's conclusions about the real world. What might happen on a hypothetical desert island with 5 people is really none of my concern.

Besides, in a society of 5 people with no outside influences or control at all, it makes no sense to speak of politics or political philosophy. All decisions will be reached by some kind of agreement between the 5 anyway, regardless of whether we think that is justified or not. If you were stuck on a desert island with four other people, how much do you think your "rights" might be worth if the other people refused to abide by them? Squat. You can't enforce rights in such a small group.


Yes, and power over people is power over people.

If you have the power to order people around, even for a utilitarian end, that seems at least somewhat tyrannical.
People will always have power over other people. It is an inevitable result of living in human society - we are interdependent. Freedom - the only realistic freedom - is the equal distribution of this power.

[Demogorgon]

But anyway, please tell me your objections to utilitarianism so that I can reply to them.

This obviously is not addressed to me, but it seems like a good time to bring up a problem I have come to have with Utilitarianism. In the past I have been a Utilitarian, but have moved to a more general sort of consequentialism now as a result of this difficulty.

The difficulty is not with the principle behind Utilitarianism-which I broadly still agree with-but with the way it can be applied. The trouble is that utility is an entirely abstract concept, that cannot be measured. Bourgeoisie economists think otherwise of course, but their failure to do so reliably is telling.

The answer to this I would normally give is that we scrap the bit about utility and just do what we think will do the most good, but I am not sure if it is ever possible to work this out accurately.

Suppose I am in the unusual situation of have a hundred pounds to give away and I have the choice of giving it all to John, all to Ruth or splitting it between them whatever way I want. The natural response is to give them fifty pounds each, but suppose I know that Ruth needs the money more than John. I might then give all the money to Ruth. However it transpires that John also needs money, just not as much as Ruth, so then it becomes clear that I should split it between them, but give the greater part to Ruth.

Here is where the problem raises its head. According to Utilitarianism, there should be an exact optimum division of the money between the two that will lead to best possible outcome, and I should split the money that way. However with utility being an abstract concept, there is no way that I could possibly know exactly what that point is, so I am never going to manage to get it precisely right. I have a problem really with a system that can never be clear precisely what the correct course of action is despite being clear that there is one.

[Jazzratt]

Its dishonest to name this thread 'capitalist' since thats not the intent of the movie and 'capitalist' draws neo-mercantilist opposition here and and the movie has nothing to do with that. Thats dishonest IMO. I will not entertain this thread if its title is changed on a subjective whim.

:rolleyes: It sure as hell isn't "libertarian" and "philosophy" is still a word I feel a little uncomfortable keeping in the title. Either suck it up and get on with arguing or make your concessions now.

[Dimentio]

Question I've always had about this idea.

Could workers refuse to give charity?

If I'm entitled to all the fruits of my labor, how can I be forced to donate? How can I be forced to pay taxes?

It has be that I'm not entitled to all the produce of my labor for redistribution to be possible.

What taxes?

http://en.technocracynet.eu