NationStates Jolt Archive

You cannot rationally choose to deny yourself choice in the future, any more than you can rationally choose to become insane. An inherent part of rationality is the continuation thereof.

A necessary consequent of your assertion is that suicide can never be rational.

Of course you can rationally choose to deny yourself future choice. Future choice has some value to you. If you can get something you value more than that in exchange, then you can rationally choose that over your future choice.

So basically, you have the natural right to do whatever you want, but other people have the natural right to do whatever they want to you, making natural rights rather moot.

Right. Natural rights are rights existing in a state of nature. A state of nature is a situation where no government exist. People gave up some of their natural rights for the benefits of government, i.e. to have property rights that don't depend on your ability to prevent others from taking them.

The poll didn't have a very large reason why the democratic party isn't fond of other left-leaning parties - They take just enough votes away from the democratic candidate to give the republican candidate a lead in the polls, thus why some people who would vote Green vote Democrat instead.

You cannot rationally choose to deny yourself choice in the future, any more than you can rationally choose to become insane.

Why not? How is it irrational?

Maybe I would rather not deal with the responsibility of freedom, and trust someone else to make better choices than I would.

Right. Natural rights are rights existing in a state of nature. A state of nature is a situation where no government exist. People gave up some of their natural rights for the benefits of government, i.e. to have property rights that don't depend on your ability to prevent others from taking them.
The rest of this thread is getting way too cerebral for me, but thanks for clearing that up.

A necessary consequent of your assertion is that suicide can never be rational.

Of course you can rationally choose to deny yourself future choice. Future choice has some value to you. If you can get something you value more than that in exchange, then you can rationally choose that over your future choice.

Sure it can: when your continued existence would be immoral, and there is no alternative measure to fix the problem. As an example, supposing you were captured and had vital intelligence data that would result in the death of soldiers on your side. Duty demands that you keep that data from your foes, but you know that you do not have the moral or physical resolve to withstand their torture. In that case, suicide is both rational and moral, because it is the only way to fulfill your duty and preserve your countrymen.

The distinction is that a rational mind never acts from or out of passion, because passions are at best an inconsistent means of arriving at a good intent: even if you chance across a truly good action arriving out of your passions, you usually do it for the wrong reason. By contrast, a truly good will is something that is never bad, no matter what consequences it spawns; even if the world should perish, an action done for the right reason would still have that glimmer of goodness in it. As such, the rational mind can reason out that at certain instances, the mind will cease to be rational, but it might still do harm. In those circumstances, since it is reason that makes us human, the rational mind comes to the conclusion that, in effect, we're already dead, and death of the body needs to follow lest harm befall those still around the irrational husk. By contrast, no man can ever rationally say that, from now on, I'm merely going to cessate all reasoning and turn authority for my actions over to another. Such a thing, in addition to being almost by definition caused by irrational passions, is a denial of our fundamental humanity, a denial of our nature. You can't rationally commit yourself to stop reasoning any more than you can rationally commit yourself to stop urinating.

Why not? How is it irrational?

Maybe I would rather not deal with the responsibility of freedom, and trust someone else to make better choices than I would.

That is a choice that people make, but it is never arrived at through rational means. After all, no man ever wants to deny his freedom when freedom brings him happiness, only despair.

By contrast, no man can ever rationally say that, from now on, I'm merely going to cessate all reasoning and turn authority for my actions over to another. Such a thing, in addition to being almost by definition caused by irrational passions, is a denial of our fundamental humanity, a denial of our nature. You can't rationally commit yourself to stop reasoning any more than you can rationally commit yourself to stop urinating.

Is it irrational, or impossible?

That is a choice that people make, but it is never arrived at through rational means.

No choice is arrived at solely through "rational means."

After all, no man ever wants to deny his freedom when freedom brings him happiness, only despair.

And if it does bring him despair, why is it irrational to deny it?

The distinction is that a rational mind never acts from or out of passion, because passions are at best an inconsistent means of arriving at a good intent: even if you chance across a truly good action arriving out of your passions, you usually do it for the wrong reason. By contrast, a truly good will is something that is never bad, no matter what consequences it spawns; even if the world should perish, an action done for the right reason would still have that glimmer of goodness in it. As such, the rational mind can reason out that at certain instances, the mind will cease to be rational, but it might still do harm. In those circumstances, since it is reason that makes us human, the rational mind comes to the conclusion that, in effect, we're already dead, and death of the body needs to follow lest harm befall those still around the irrational husk. By contrast, no man can ever rationally say that, from now on, I'm merely going to cessate all reasoning and turn authority for my actions over to another. Such a thing, in addition to being almost by definition caused by irrational passions, is a denial of our fundamental humanity, a denial of our nature. You can't rationally commit yourself to stop reasoning any more than you can rationally commit yourself to stop urinating.
Now you're being intentionally obfuscatory.

Selling yourself into slavery isn't a choise to turn off your brain. It's a choice to hand authority over you to someone else. You can still make decisions on your own, but they're subject to approval and retribution from another.

But if that lost freedom is less valuable to you than what you got in exchange, then you can rationally choose to lose it.

Is it irrational, or impossible? They're both impossible to do in a rational manner. You could theoretically stop urinating; all you'd have to do is have someone cut your kidneys out and stop up the connecting pipes. But no one would rationally do that.



No choice is arrived at solely through "rational means."


Yes you can; although you might be confusing rational means with no emotion. The point is not that we don't have emotion, it just shouldn't be the thing that initiates our actions. I may emotionally appreciate saving someone's life, but I should do it out of a sense of duty towards my fellow man, because if I were emotionally invested I might not save the life of someone I didn't like.


And if it does bring him despair, why is it irrational to deny it?

You don't have to deny it, you just shouldn't act out of it.

Now you're being intentionally obfuscatory.

Selling yourself into slavery isn't a choise to turn off your brain. It's a choice to hand authority over you to someone else. You can still make decisions on your own, but they're subject to approval and retribution from another.

But if that lost freedom is less valuable to you than what you got in exchange, then you can rationally choose to lose it.

It's a choice to stop choosing while still existing, which is a choice no rational chooser ever makes. "You can still make decisions on your own, but they're subject to approval and retribution of others" is a fitting description of the social life of dogs, not men.

And in what world is there an opportunity cost for freedom? What price does your freedom have, pray tell?

And in what world is there an opportunity cost for freedom? What price does your freedom have, pray tell?
The price of my freedom is pretty steep. But some people would willingly sell theirs in order to secure some benefits for their loved ones. Maybe to rescue family members from a debtors' prison.

They're both impossible to do in a rational manner. You could theoretically stop urinating; all you'd have to do is have someone cut your kidneys out and stop up the connecting pipes. But no one would rationally do that.

Oh, I see what you were saying now; nevermind.

Yes you can; although you might be confusing rational means with no emotion. The point is not that we don't have emotion, it just shouldn't be the thing that initiates our actions. I may emotionally appreciate saving someone's life, but I should do it out of a sense of duty towards my fellow man, because if I were emotionally invested I might not save the life of someone I didn't like.

If anything, I would argue the opposite; a good act done out of love is morally preferable to one done out of a sense of duty. There is something wrong with, say, a parent who cares for her children out of a sense of duty rather than love, and something saintly about a person who cares for others not so that she can fulfill some abstract moral precept but out of real, fierce love and compassion for other human beings.

It's true that we can't rely on emotions like love and compassion; there is a role for duty, but it is secondary rather than primary.

And what's rational about a "sense of duty"?

You don't have to deny it, you just shouldn't act out of it.

I didn't mean "deny despair," I meant "deny freedom." If a person's freedom, or her entire life, simply brings her despair, why shouldn't she eliminate it?

Wow – what shocking display of ignorance about the constitution, Jeffersonian ideals, and American history.

The whole idea that the government should provide all of that did not come about, in any meaningful way, until the great depression. Jefferson would be shocked that you would suggest that he was fighting for government provided education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing. He would be incredibly appalled.

How could you possibly consider it the obligation of the government to provide one recreation? Oh yeah – pursuit of happiness… that obviously didn’t mean having the freedom to do what you want, it mean the government would schedule games of dodgeball, badminton, or bridge for everyone. :rolleyes:

Somehow I just don’t get how government provided babysitters were part of the agenda for any of the founding fathers.

The whole point of the constitution was that people had the freedom to provide these things for themselves – not that the government would provide them. The ‘government’ is supposed to be a cop, not a nursemaid.

ummm....pursuit of happiness was written in much later...under jefferson it was life liberty and property...but the gov decided people shouldn't be allowed to defend their homes/property with firearms....huge mistake imho...damn intrusive gov...whole damn place could be run with a 50 delegate commitee that met twice a year, were only paid while in session and had a day job somewhere else.....oh yeah, like the way it was started....

Of course, I could claim that the right of a slave to her labor is the equivalent of the right of a horse to its labor, and, indeed, a slave society would probably claim exactly that.

Slavery has always been justified two ways:

1. The belief that humans are not inherently entitled to their labor. (A belief that I actually can't deny absolutely)

2. The belief that some set of humans are actually less than human and therefore do not merit the dignity bestowed upon true humans.

True. And when such an "action or claim to action" is guaranteed by another right, we have a conflict - one that cannot be resolved by a scheme of absolute rights.

I jumped all over your example without addressing the point of it. I don't even know what the phrase "absolute rights" means.

These criteria aren't necessarily inconsistent with slavery.

If a person voluntarily sold himself into slavery, then he has conceded something in a free and honest agreement.

If the slave didn't concede his ownership of himself in a free and honest agreement, then his rights were violated, but the subsequent owner has still received something in a free and honest agreement, so she deserves to be compensated for the emancipation of her slave. Ideally by the original enslaver.

That's not slavery per se, that was known in the day as "indentured servitude" and lasted a number of years depending on the money/goods/service received at indenture.

The belief that humans are not inherently entitled to their labor.

BY 'inherently entitled", do you mean that a person's right to his labour is inalienable?

Because I'm clearly denying that any rights are inalienable.

I jumped all over your example without addressing the point of it. I don't even know what the phrase "absolute rights" means.

I was using it in the sense of "completely inviolable" - a right that it is never just to violate, whatever the circumstances.

If anything, I would argue the opposite; a good act done out of love is morally preferable to one done out of a sense of duty. There is something wrong with, say, a parent who cares for her children out of a sense of duty rather than love, and something saintly about a person who cares for others not so that she can fulfill some abstract moral precept but out of real, fierce love and compassion for other human beings.

It's true that we can't rely on emotions like love and compassion; there is a role for duty, but it is secondary rather than primary.

And what's rational about a "sense of duty"?


I wouldn't necessarily deny that there is something admirable about a fiercely-held conviction for good. But I would say that it's also inconsistent. A powerful love can drive us to do great things, moral things, but it can also lead us equally well to do stupid stuff that hurts ourselves, hurts those we love, and violates what we know to be moral. The rational sense of duty, then, is preferable because at it's best, it's inerrant. A perfectly rational being that always acted out of a sense of duty would never be immoral. As such, it seems to me that consistency trumps nobility in this case.

And a sense of duty not rational in and of itself; it's merely the outgrowth of a rational enquiry into "What is the right intent in this instance", combined with the will to carry it out.


I didn't mean "deny despair," I meant "deny freedom." If a person's freedom, or her entire life, simply brings her despair, why shouldn't she eliminate it?

While I can appreciate the sentiment, she shouldn't eliminate it because it would be acting out of an impulse that might or might not be consistent with what is truly excellent in the world; a good intent. As a matter of fact, I can almost be certain that in this case she has a bad intent, and while it might be understandable, the fact that someone or everyone has mistreated you does not morally entitle you to reciprocate in kind. Just as its not all right to hit someone back so long as they hit you first, its not all right to end life if it treats you unkindly.

Secondly, I would say that the word "freedom" is misused; if you're a slave to your passions, how free can you truly be? That's why we never really say that a pig is free.

BY 'inherently entitled", do you mean that a person's right to his labour is inalienable?

Because I'm clearly denying that any rights are inalienable.

Of course there are no inalienable rights.

I meant that the right to your own labor was established by a status greater than simply being human. It was acceptable, for example, for the winners of a war to enslave the losers.

I wouldn't necessarily deny that there is something admirable about a fiercely-held conviction for good. But I would say that it's also inconsistent. A powerful love can drive us to do great things, moral things, but it can also lead us equally well to do stupid stuff that hurts ourselves, hurts those we love, and violates what we know to be moral.

That's why we need reason. I didn't say we should let our emotions run freely; as you note, that is a dangerous course.

The rational sense of duty, then, is preferable because at it's best, it's inerrant. A perfectly rational being that always acted out of a sense of duty would never be immoral. As such, it seems to me that consistency trumps nobility in this case.

It might make sense to test loving acts with the demands of duty, that is, to ask "does this act I do out of love correspond with my moral duty?" But to act out of duty to me seems to be morally imperfect.

And a sense of duty not rational in and of itself; it's merely the outgrowth of a rational enquiry into "What is the right intent in this instance", combined with the will to carry it out.

And how can I rationally answer that question? At best, I can conclude, "if this intent is the right intent, then I should perform this action"; I can't somehow demonstrate the "right intent."

While I can appreciate the sentiment, she shouldn't eliminate it because it would be acting out of an impulse that might or might not be consistent with what is truly excellent in the world; a good intent.

So the problem isn't suicide or self-enslavement per se, it's that she's acting out of despair? What if she is in some circumstance where, for whatever reason, she cannot help anybody else, but is despairing and no longer wishes to live (or to make free choices)? How can we morally criticize her decision? She is doing what is in her rational self-interest, because she will only suffer if she continues on her current path, and because she will not harm anyone else by her action it cannot be claimed that she is violating any of her duties to anyone else.

As a matter of fact, I can almost be certain that in this case she has a bad intent, and while it might be understandable, the fact that someone or everyone has mistreated you does not morally entitle you to reciprocate in kind. Just as its not all right to hit someone back so long as they hit you first, its not all right to end life if it treats you unkindly.

Why do we have a duty to life?

Secondly, I would say that the word "freedom" is misused; if you're a slave to your passions, how free can you truly be? That's why we never really say that a pig is free.

I don't think describing the circumstance as slavery to passions is necessarily accurate; she could have rationally contemplated her decision beforehand and still ending with the conclusion that her best option is to terminate her life. And even if she is a "slave to her passions," she has nevertheless freely chosen not to restrain them.

If she has a duty that she can only fulfill while living - if, say, she has a family financially dependent on her - I would agree that her suicide would be immoral (though still not irrational), but otherwise, I don't see why it would be.

I was using it in the sense of "completely inviolable" - a right that it is never just to violate, whatever the circumstances.

There is no such thing.

There is no such thing.

I tend to agree. "Tend to" because there might be a way to formulate a right that I would be willing to accept as absolute - but it would probably be so broad and vague that it wouldn't be very useful.

Bill O' Reilly said it best.

I can't tell a wookie from a libertarian.
Because they're the same thing.;)

And occupancy, in terms of animals, is defined by how far their property can extend and still have them be able to hold onto it. For humans, however, the range of occupancy is much, much larger than any animal can maintain. Combine that with the fact that we often occupy our property with proxies, like guards or our houses and occupancy is easily satisfied even when someone is not physically there. Mix that with the arbitrary nature of use and you can easily satisfy both criteria. For example, a farmer goes vacationing in Florida and leaves his field planted. He is using the field for his crops, and his house remains as a symbol of occupancy, unless you maintain that squatters should be allowed to take the crops for themselves if he is not their to guard against it.In terms of rights in a society, I'm not arguing that a person should lose the right to their home should they go on vacation. With that said, occupancy of your residence is different than owning a factory; the factory owner, for the most part, doesn't occupy and use the factory, the employees do.

Claiming ownership was developed as a way of signifying both intent to occupy and use a said piece of land. It was deemed a more civilized way of sorting out property than multiple groups wasting time trying to drive each other out. While it is government sanctioned, I would maintain that it was adopted out of necessity rather than forced upon people.The problem with intent is that it can be indefinite - I claim ownership of the earth because I intend to occupy and use it. I wouldn't have to actually act upon this intent. Ownership doesn't require acting upon the intent, so most intentions shouldn't be considered valid.

After all, wars are a great example of throwbacks to the "use and occupancy" criteria being applied. If a nation takes land from another nation, the occupancy has changed, which should mean that it now belongs to the other nation. However, adopting this ideal would lead to a great drop in the stability of countries around the world, as any invasion would be a justified acquisition of lands.This is arguable, however if you have a government whose duty it is to secure your natural rights, the governments' duty would be to protect your occupancy from others trying to take it from you. The right to occupancy and use would necessitate rightful occupancy and use - therefore, it would be entirely possible to occupy and use something without having the right to.

Right. Natural rights are rights existing in a state of nature. A state of nature is a situation where no government exist. People gave up some of their natural rights for the benefits of government, i.e. to have property rights that don't depend on your ability to prevent others from taking them.Right. This doesn't mean that property rights as we understand them have to take the form that they do today, though.

In terms of rights in a society, I'm not arguing that a person should lose the right to their home should they go on vacation. With that said, occupancy of your residence is different than owning a factory; the factory owner, for the most part, doesn't occupy and use the factory, the employees do.
I'm not sure I agree with this. A factory owner brings in employees to complete certain tasks that she is unable or unwilling to complete on her own and that provide her with value. For example, a factory owner may have employees build chairs so she can can sell them to produce value for herself. In return, she will pay the employees wages that are high enough that they would rather do the job than not do the job. If the factory could not produce any value for the owner, because the demand for chairs was too low or the value produced would be outweighed by the value lost to hire people to come in and make them, the owner will not hire employees to build chairs. This is all done on a contractual basis: the employee would not normally be allowed on the factory owner's property. The owner could just as easily choose to build the chairs on his or her own, if she really wanted to, or she could not bother and just live on the property. The fact that the employees are doing the actual assembly in her factory does not make them the owners of her factory. It makes them employees with a previously agreed upon contract.

An analogy would be hiring a maid to do work around your house. The maid produces value for you by allowing you free time to do things other than cleaning. In return, you provide the maid with a wage that is high enough that she would rather work for you than not work for you. If the hiring of a maid could not produce any value for you, because the house is already immaculately clean or the value produced in cleanliness would be outweighed by the value lost to hire and pay the maid, you will not hire a maid. This is all done a contractual basis: the maid would not normally be allowed on your property. You could just as easily do the work yourself, if you really wanted to, or you could choose to have a messy house. The fact that the maid is doing the actual work in your house does not make her the owner of your house. It makes her an employee with a previously agreed upon contract.

Why do Dems consider Libetarians enemies? Because the dims think anyone not slavishly devoted to their party is the enemy, even more than the terrorist who murdered Americans.

Why do Dems consider Libetarians enemies? Because the dims think anyone not slavishly devoted to their party is the enemy, even more than the terrorist who murdered Americans.
I'm not even a Democrat and that sounds outrageously stupid.

These criteria aren't necessarily inconsistent with slavery.

If a person voluntarily sold himself into slavery, then he has conceded something in a free and honest agreement.

If the slave didn't concede his ownership of himself in a free and honest agreement, then his rights were violated, but the subsequent owner has still received something in a free and honest agreement, so she deserves to be compensated for the emancipation of her slave. Ideally by the original enslaver.
The problem is that subsequent "owners" violate the slave's rights merely by knowingly exerting ownership which is clearly illicit. Each "owner" is, however, entitled to compensation from the previous "owner" for the payment made in the illicit trade of the slave.

I'm not sure I agree with this. A factory owner brings in employees to complete certain tasks that she is unable or unwilling to complete on her own and that provide her with value. For example, a factory owner may have employees build chairs so she can can sell them to produce value for herself. In return, she will pay the employees wages that are high enough that they would rather do the job than not do the job. If the factory could not produce any value for the owner, because the demand for chairs was too low or the value produced would be outweighed by the value lost to hire people to come in and make them, the owner will not hire employees to build chairs. This is all done on a contractual basis: the employee would not normally be allowed on the factory owner's property. The owner could just as easily choose to build the chairs on his or her own, if she really wanted to, or she could not bother and just live on the property. The fact that the employees are doing the actual assembly in her factory does not make them the owners of her factory. It makes them employees with a previously agreed upon contract.No, the employees wouldn't own the factory, since the legal definition of ownership is not the same as occupancy and use, however by the definition of occupancy and use they would.
As far as the factory owner simply living in the factory, that would be an option, but there is only a limited amount of space that a person can live in and use.

An analogy would be hiring a maid to do work around your house. The maid produces value for you by allowing you free time to do things other than cleaning. In return, you provide the maid with a wage that is high enough that she would rather work for you than not work for you. If the hiring of a maid could not produce any value for you, because the house is already immaculately clean or the value produced in cleanliness would be outweighed by the value lost to hire and pay the maid, you will not hire a maid. This is all done a contractual basis: the maid would not normally be allowed on your property. You could just as easily do the work yourself, if you really wanted to, or you could choose to have a messy house. The fact that the maid is doing the actual work in your house does not make her the owner of your house. It makes her an employee with a previously agreed upon contract.I understand where you're going with this, but I would say that this is different because the house's primary use is a residence, and not as the means of production. A maid in a hotel would be a different story, though.

In reference to your earlier post, I realize that there can be problems with using use as the defining characteristic of rights, but this doesn't make it impossible.

In reference to your earlier post, I realize that there can be problems with using use as the defining characteristic of rights, but this doesn't make it impossible.

The primary one to me is that there seem to be circumstances in which this right would be violated, yet nevertheless nothing really wrong is going on, and circumstances in which this right would be upheld, and yet something really wrong is going on.

Let's take the example of the employees in the factory again. The relationship between them and the capitalist may be unjust - usually is unjust - but the problem doesn't to me seem to be embodied in the fact that the people who use and work the factory don't own it. What right do they have to what they neither built nor bought? All they do is use it, yet other people performed the labor required to build it, and other people provided the capital, took on the risk, etc. required for the system to work. What becomes of them? Don't they have some right as well? If the workers to come up to the factory owner and say, "Look, we've worked at the factory here for several years, thus you don't really own it anymore," she's going to cry theft, and she has good reason.

You have an excellent argument on the subject of land, because land isn't human-made (for the most part). But a factory isn't land. It's not a pre-existing aspect of the landscape that a capitalist just approaches and seizes; the labor put into making it has been purchased, directly or indirectly, by her. It doesn't make any sense to me to regard her claim as worthless simply because she doesn't work at the factory.

Edit: Now if you were going to say that a system of social arrangements determined by this sort of "private property" has worse consequences than a system of social arrangements determined by your preferred system, that would be a different argument, and one I would probably accept.

The primary one to me is that there seem to be circumstances in which this right would be violated, yet nevertheless nothing really wrong is going on, and circumstances in which this right would be upheld, and yet something really wrong is going on.

Let's take the example of the employees in the factory again. The relationship between them and the capitalist may be unjust - usually is unjust - but the problem doesn't to me seem to be embodied in the fact that the people who use and work the factory don't own it. What right do they have to what they neither built nor bought? All they do is use it, yet other people performed the labor required to build it, and other people provided the capital, took on the risk, etc. required for the system to work. What becomes of them? Don't they have some right as well? If the workers to come up to the factory owner and say, "Look, we've worked at the factory here for several years, thus you don't really own it anymore," she's going to cry theft, and she has good reason.

You have an excellent argument on the subject of land, because land isn't human-made (for the most part). But a factory isn't land. It's not a pre-existing aspect of the landscape that a capitalist just approaches and seizes; the labor put into making it has been purchased, directly or indirectly, by her. It doesn't make any sense to me to regard her claim as worthless simply because she doesn't work at the factory.I can agree that the factory and the land are different, but until we have buildings that float, anything built upon land is inexorably tied to that land, and should be exchanged in the same way.

I can agree that the factory and the land are different, but until we have buildings that float, anything built upon land is inexorably tied to that land, and should be exchanged in the same way.

What if the capitalist were to argue that by building something, or paying the people who built something, on that land, she has a "right of use"? Since she does have a right to the factory and she's actively making money from the production it leads to, wouldn't she have a claim?

What if the capitalist were to argue that by building something, or paying the people who built something, on that land, she has a "right of use"? Since she does have a right to the factory and she's actively making money from the production it leads to, wouldn't she have a claim?No, because the claim could be extended to the land itself - "I bought the land, I have the right to it." The modification of the land is irrelevant as it couldn't have existed without the land itself.

No, because the claim could be extended to the land itself - "I bought the land, I have the right to it."

But the land was never made, so no one had a right to ownership over it in the first place.

The modification of the land is irrelevant as it couldn't have existed without the land itself.

What does this demonstrate? If I have the right to use unclaimed land to grow crops, why doesn't the capitalist have the right to use unclaimed land for a factory?

But the land was never made, so no one had a right to ownership over it in the first place.Why should making something be the defining characteristic of ownership?

What does this demonstrate? If I have the right to use unclaimed land to grow crops, why doesn't the capitalist have the right to use unclaimed land for a factory?You shouldn't have the right to use unclaimed land to grow crops if you don't use the crops, and instead sell them. Since the capitalist doesn't use the end product of the factory, ze shouldn't be able to use the factory, either.

Why should making something be the defining characteristic of ownership?

I don't think it is. "Making something" with the intent and rational expectation of ownership afterwards is the defining characteristic of one sort of legitimate ownership. In a society without private ownership of the means of production, there would be no right to private property over factories, but then again, individual capitalists wouldn't be paying for their construction either. As long as they do, I don't see why they don't have some sort of legitimate claim.

You shouldn't have the right to use unclaimed land to grow crops if you don't use the crops, and instead sell them.

Why not? What difference does it make if I use them for myself or exchange them in a fair, consensual exchange with my neighbor?

I don't think it is. "Making something" with the intent and rational expectation of ownership afterwards is the defining characteristic of one sort of legitimate ownership. In a society without private ownership of the means of production, there would be no right to private property over factories, but then again, individual capitalists wouldn't be paying for their construction either. As long as they do, I don't see why they don't have some sort of legitimate claim.I would say that they only would have a legitimate claim in a society where the defining characteristic of one sort of legitimate ownership is is making something with the intent of rational expectation of ownership afterwards. This does not mean that making something is in and of itself inherently legitimate.

Why not? What difference does it make if I use them for myself or exchange them in a fair, consensual exchange with my neighbor?Because you're not using them for yourself (the other half of occupancy and use).

I would say that they only would have a legitimate claim in a society where the defining characteristic of one sort of legitimate ownership is is making something with the intent of rational expectation of ownership afterwards.

If it weren't such a society, the expectation would not be rational.

This does not mean that making something is in and of itself inherently legitimate.

We agree. The problem is that if you are assuming that rightful property is derived from use, then the capitalist even in today's society has no rightful claim to the factory. That's the element that I would reject.

Because you're not using them for yourself (the other half of occupancy and use).

Sure I am. I'm using them to attain something for myself by trading them for something that I want more.

If it weren't such a society, the expectation would not be rational.There doesn't need to be an expectation for something to happen for someone to argue in its favor, and things typically only change when someone argues in its favor.

We agree. The problem is that if you are assuming that rightful property is derived from use, then the capitalist even in today's society has no rightful claim to the factory. That's the element that I would reject.Yes, the capitalist in today's society has no rightful claim to the factory. The extension of an incorrect premise does not make the extension correct.

Sure I am. I'm using them to attain something for myself by trading them for something that I want more.Assuming that the ultimate purpose of growing the crops is that they will be eaten, only the person who eats the crops uses them, except for uses which don't interfere with the eating (such as an artist putting the fruit in a bowl and painting still lifes). Putting a price on the crops interferes with the eating, and is therefore not valid.

That's not slavery per se, that was known in the day as "indentured servitude" and lasted a number of years depending on the money/goods/service received at indenture.
But for sufficient return, could I not sell my service indefinitely?

Because you're not using them for yourself (the other half of occupancy and use).
But there's no requirement that I use everything I produce. If I occupy and use some land, and once my needs are satisfied I discover that I can produce more than I need from this land, am I somehow forbidden from selling my excess product?

But there's no requirement that I use everything I produce. If I occupy and use some land, and once my needs are satisfied I discover that I can produce more than I need from this land, am I somehow forbidden from selling my excess product?Not according to the law, no, but you should be, yes. You could give it away, though, and hope that others will give you something in return.

The problem is that subsequent "owners" violate the slave's rights merely by knowingly exerting ownership which is clearly illicit. Each "owner" is, however, entitled to compensation from the previous "owner" for the payment made in the illicit trade of the slave.
Clearly illicit? Can the subsequent owner know if the initial ownership was illicit?

I would assert that the continued violation of the slave's rights is being done by the initial owner, even after he has sold the slave.

Not according to the law, no, but you should be, yes. You could give it away, though, and hope that others will give you something in return.
I assume you accept that your preferred system of ownership would result is dramatically lower levels of production.

I assume you accept that your preferred system of ownership would result is dramatically lower levels of production.Which is fine, since the majority of what is produced is unnecessary and wasteful.

Not according to the law, no, but you should be, yes. You could give it away, though, and hope that others will give you something in return.
So you're advocating a system of exchange, just one that's based entirely on good faith?

Anyway, I have a few questions for you and Soheran. I'll ask them one at a time so this thread doesn't go in too many directions at once.

1) Why would I bother to build a factory if I'm only going to keep the number of chairs I make? Wouldn't it be far easier for me to build that number of chairs from scratch? Surely there are better things I could do with my time.

So you're advocating a system of exchange, just one that's based entirely on good faith?

Anyway, I have a few questions for you and Soheran. I'll ask them one at a time so this thread doesn't go in too many directions at once.

1) Why would I bother to build a factory if I'm only going to keep the number of chairs I make? Wouldn't it be far easier for me to build that number of chairs from scratch? Surely there are better things I could do with my time.
That's just it. He's proposing a system of self-sufficiency. Any transfer of goods would be entirely extraneous.

However, I do wonder how he'd finance any sort of enforcement of his commerce prohibition.

And you're right about the chairs. This is why production would plummet under his system.

Which is fine, since the majority of what is produced is unnecessary and wasteful.
Which explains why we shouldn't miss it, but it's hardly a justification for actively preventing it.

Is waste bad? Should we only have that which is necessary? Who decides what's necessary?

That's just it. He's proposing a system of self-sufficiency. Any transfer of goods would be entirely extraneous.

However, I do wonder how he'd finance any sort of enforcement of his commerce prohibition.

And you're right about the chairs. This is why production would plummet under his system.
Yeah, just wait until I try to self-sufficiently construct an iPod.

So you're advocating a system of exchange, just one that's based entirely on good faith?No, I advocate a system of direct democracy combined with communism. In this system, the society or community would be responsible for production, even if each individual within didn't do the actual work of producing. The community would use the things produced, though.

Anyway, I have a few questions for you and Soheran. I'll ask them one at a time so this thread doesn't go in too many directions at once.

1) Why would I bother to build a factory if I'm only going to keep the number of chairs I make? Wouldn't it be far easier for me to build that number of chairs from scratch? Surely there are better things I could do with my time.If you have a community of people using chairs, it might be more efficient for the community to build a factory.

No, I advocate a system of direct democracy combined with communism. In this system, the society or community would be responsible for production, even if each individual within didn't do the actual work of producing. The community would use the things produced, though.

If you have a community of people using chairs, it might be more efficient for the community to build a factory.
So you're favouring specialisation of labour?

How is your system different from capitalism, then?

Jello reminds me of the hippies on southpark.

Hippy: Will have a guy that makes bread..
Stan: You mean like a baker..
Hippy: Nonono! That's the capitalist dogs trying to sabatoge our dream! And like.. will have another guy that puts out fires..
Kyle: You mean like a fireman?

So you're favouring specialisation of labour?

How is your system different from capitalism, then?Capitalism allows a factory owner to live off of the product that the workers produce, the system I propose wouldn't allow this.

Yes, the capitalist in today's society has no rightful claim to the factory. The extension of an incorrect premise does not make the extension correct.

What precisely is this "incorrect premise"?

No, I advocate a system of direct democracy combined with communism. In this system, the society or community would be responsible for production, even if each individual within didn't do the actual work of producing. The community would use the things produced, though.

Would other communities be entitled to deny the community use of their products (perhaps short of bare necessities) if the community failed to fulfill its responsibilities?

What precisely is this "incorrect premise"?In this instance, current factory ownership is an incorrect premise; just because something was once sanctioned by a society doesn't mean that the society can't change its mind.

Would other communities be entitled to deny the community use of their products (perhaps short of bare necessities) if the community failed to fulfill its responsibilities?Certainly, this could go down to the individual level too; the community could deny the individual the use of their products if the individual failed to fulfill zir responsibilities.

Capitalism allows a factory owner to live off of the product that the workers produce, the system I propose wouldn't allow this.
What if he's doing some of the work? Not necessarily physical labour, but providing expertise or management.

You're calling it communism, but you add features that basically turn it into a free market. The people voluntarily associate, they make agreements between communites to apply their various areas of skill, and they withhold benefits from those who don't satisfy the conditions of their agreements.

Libertarians aren't particularly opposed to oppression, they're simply opposed to government interference, which places them, de facto against political oppression, but not against any other kind. They see the Federal Civil Rights act as political oppression against racists. They're ok with oppression, so long as it comes from corporations and militia groups.

That all depends on what your definition of 'oppression' is. In my book it means people are forced to do something against their will. Just having a large powerful corporation in your society doesn't mean you are oppressed. And in libertarian eyes, at least mine, the welfare state ideals of the liberals count as oppression or government interference or whatever you want to call it because there is no choice but to obey the government. They have the power of the police and the prisons to use against you.

What if he's doing some of the work? Not necessarily physical labour, but providing expertise or management.

You're calling it communism, but you add features that basically turn it into a free market. The people voluntarily associate, they make agreements between communites to apply their various areas of skill, and they withhold benefits from those who don't satisfy the conditions of their agreements.If the employees of the factory vote to have someone provide expertise or management, then this would be acceptable, but they should have the option of managing themselves in much the same way a worker owned co-op would.

In this instance, current factory ownership is an incorrect premise; just because something was once sanctioned by a society doesn't mean that the society can't change its mind.

I don't see your point here. Whether or not society can change its mind, our current society does sanction private ownership of the means of production. The capitalist has been making decisions based on that premise, and indeed, has invested a considerable portion in the assumption that that is the case, and will be the case for the forseeable future. In that context, how can it be claimed that the capitalist has no legitimate claim to the factory?

Certainly, this could go down to the individual level too; the community could deny the individual the use of their products if the individual failed to fulfill zir responsibilities.

I could see a model along those lines working.

I don't see your point here. Whether or not society can change its mind, our current society does sanction private ownership of the means of production. The capitalist has been making decisions based on that premise, and indeed, has invested a considerable portion in the assumption that that is the case, and will be the case for the forseeable future. In that context, how can it be claimed that the capitalist has no legitimate claim to the factory?People can make decisions based upon false premises all of the time; if a society voted that a previously held premise is now false, then the premise is false. The capitalist is welcome to argue against the new law, of course, but this doesn't mean that the new law is wrong. (Or right.)

I could see a model along those lines working.It's an anarcho-communist model, though mine is more centralized than most models are.

If the employees of the factory vote to have someone provide expertise or management, then this would be acceptable, but they should have the option of managing themselves in much the same way a worker owned co-op would.
Don't they in a free market? By choosing to work for a factory owner, they are effectively voting to be managed. Otherwise, they could pool resources and start their own factory.

Don't they in a free market? By choosing to work for a factory owner, they are effectively voting to be managed. Otherwise, they could pool resources and start their own factory.And likewise, by choosing to live in a society with a 100% tax rate, they are effectively voting to be taxed. :D

People can make decisions based upon false premises all of the time; if a society voted that a previously held premise is now false, then the premise is false. The capitalist is welcome to argue against the new law, of course, but this doesn't mean that the new law is wrong. (Or right.)

But it does mean that the capitalist has been unfairly harmed - at least if her expectation were reasonable. That's the immorality, not the new policy itself.

Anyway, though, that's not what I mean - you seem to be suggesting that right now, the workers are entitled to seize the factory, and because they have a right to property by use, the capitalist has no ground to complain. That seems unfair to me. The action of the workers might be justified, but if it were, it would be justified in spite of the capitalist's property rights. She would have lost a great deal of money against her will.

It's an anarcho-communist model, though mine is more centralized than most models are.

I know it is, and it's a decent one. I tend to prefer to add in market mechanisms for efficiency and incentive purposes, but we can leave those disagreements for after the Revolution. :)

But it does mean that the capitalist has been unfairly harmed - at least if her expectation were reasonable. That's the immorality, not the new policy itself.

Anyway, though, that's not what I mean - you seem to be suggesting that right now, the workers are entitled to seize the factory, and because they have a right to property by use, the capitalist has no ground to complain. That seems unfair to me. The action of the workers might be justified, but if it were, it would be justified in spite of the capitalist's property rights. She would have lost a great deal of money against her will.I would say that the reason the capitalist's expectation is reasonable is only because there's a law saying that the government will protect factories from being seized by revolutionaries. When the law is changed, I don't see the expectation as being reasonable. In addition, once such a law is beginning to be discussed, through ratifiication to where it begins to take effect, the capitalist can consider zirself on notice.

I know it is, and it's a decent one. I tend to prefer to add in market mechanisms for efficiency and incentive purposes, but we can leave those disagreements for after the Revolution. :)I'm personally against markets, but my quibbles are fairly minor, so yes, we don't have to discuss them now. :)

And in libertarian eyes, at least mine, the welfare state ideals of the liberals count as oppression or government interference or whatever you want to call it because there is no choice but to obey the government. They have the power of the police and the prisons to use against you.

Is "no choice but to obey the government" the only necessary criterion for it to count as "oppression"?

I would say that the reason the capitalist's expectation is reasonable is only because there's a law saying that the government will protect factories from being seized by revolutionaries. When the law is changed, I don't see the expectation as being reasonable.

I don't think you would see capitalists buying factories after the law were changed, unless they were doing it out of altruism.

I don't think you would see capitalists buying factories after the law were changed, unless they were doing it out of altruism.True, but you would have more workers joining together to build and run factories.

True, but you would have more workers joining together to build and run factories.

In order to achieve the necessary capital accumulation, I think that would be more in the hands of communities than independent groups of workers.

In order to achieve the necessary capital accumulation, I think that would be more in the hands of communities than independent groups of workers.Yes, probably; either way I'd consider this to be an improvement.

Jello is, at least, being wonderfully consistent.

By embracing communism he's opposing individual freedom, and he's using democracy - the antithesis of individual freedom - as his mechanism of oppression.

Is "no choice but to obey the government" the only necessary criterion for it to count as "oppression"?
It's certainly a sufficient criterion.

And likewise, by choosing to live in a society with a 100% tax rate, they are effectively voting to be taxed. :D
Assuming there exists an accessible alternative.

Jello is, at least, being wonderfully consistent.

By embracing communism he's opposing individual freedom, and he's using democracy - the antithesis of individual freedom - as his mechanism of oppression.Communism and democracy both maximize freedom.

Assuming there exists an accessible alternative.Unless there is one world government, there will be accessible alternatives.

It's certainly a sufficient criterion.

It is? Do you think the government giving you "no choice but to obey" a law against, say, rape is also "oppression"?

I don't think you would see capitalists buying factories after the law were changed, unless they were doing it out of altruism.
Look at it this way, if people were altruists, communism would not be necessary. We would voluntarily redistribute wealth anyway.

True, but you would have more workers joining together to build and run factories.
There is a major difference between running a factory and running a business. I know you'll cry foul at me for using this example, but consider for a moment the USSR, because while it was not communist, it does still contain lessons to be learned. The workers at the factories in the USSR were very capable of running the factories. They could produce thousands of light bulbs. If a machine broke down they could order a new one. If they needed more materials they could get a supplier to send them more materials. What they couldn't manage was translating that production into something valuable for society. Thousands of light bulbs would be defective. Thousands more would sit around in warehouses. Why? Because it's not just the workers that make a business.

First, you have your marketing and sales divisions. These people are required in order to make sure that your product actually reaches the hands of those who need it. A product contains no value if no one wants it. If no one knows about it, no one can want it. Consider, if you will, the ancient healer in the Amazon rainforest who knows that crushing a certain root and adding water will cure malaria. Unfortunately, everyone thinks he is crazy. They will not listen when he talks and they will not try anything he has concocted. The genius of the idea alone is not enough to create value. The idea needs people to be aware of its existence before it serves any practical use. Workers might be trained to make light bulbs, but people need to know they are making light bulbs before the light bulbs become worth anything. Before you say that workers can market on their own, consider this: if that were true, current factories would not bother to hire marketing and sales staff.

Next, you have your accounting and finance divisions. These people are required to make sure that you are not wasting resources that could be better used elsewhere. After all, as any environmentalist will tell you, there are a limited amount of resources on this planet, and we need to decide how to allocate them. It's not a good idea to requisition more raw materials to turn into light bulbs when everybody already has a lifetime supply of light bulbs. Similarly, it's not a good idea to requisition materials for candles when everyone is using light bulbs. It goes beyond just that, however. Why would you build another machine for filaments when the bottleneck in production is caused by a shortage in glass making machines? These are the kinds of things that your accounting and finance divisions sort out every day to keep the factory runing both smoothly and efficiently. Before you say that workers can do advanced financing and accounting on their own, consider this: if that were true, current factories would not bother to hire finance and accounting staff.

Finally, you have administration. This is probably the division you have the least respect for. After all, they don't work: they watch other people work and tell them to do better. I might be of the same mind, had I not met the average worker. I work at a grocery store in the deli. I have coworkers, and we have supervisors. If there's one thing I've learned, it is that we need that supervision. For starters, a lot of the people working at my store are just not intelligent people. They need to be told what to do and in what priority because left to their own devices they are not capable of correctly prioritizing on their own. Heck, I can think of numerous examples that I could go into, but I don't want to leave a written record of my discontent with the incompetence of some these people. Sometimes you need smart people around to lead the stupid people, simple as that. Some managers are dumb, admittedly, but they get fired or ignored because they harm productivity. In the end, the smart people set out goals and priorities for other people to follow through on, which is just as valuable as the actual work itself.

So yes, I suppose your workers could run a factory in the simplest sense of the term, but they could not run a business. I'm working on my commerce degree right now, and I work in a run of the mill grocery store, so I think I've got enough experience in both the practical and theoretical side of business to highlight the importance of all those functions that Marx stated create no value, but you're welcome to disagree. I think the management at my store sucks in terms of competence, but I certainly wouldn't trust my coworkers to run the store any better than management.

*snip*

I think you're using far too narrow a definition of "worker."

It is? Do you think the government giving you "no choice but to obey" a law against, say, rape is also "oppression"?
Hmm. Perhaps not. Certainly for victimless activity.

Certainly for victimless activity.

I agree, though you might have a broader definition of "victimless" than I do.

Communism and democracy both maximize freedom.
Not individual freedom. Democracy involves majority rule, and thus individual freedom is compromised. Similarly, communism limits voluntary exchange between individuals.

Unless there is one world government, there will be accessible alternatives.
Not necessarily. What if other governments don't allow free movement across their borders? What if all world governments are similarly communist?

Similarly, communism limits voluntary exchange between individuals.

Voluntary exchange of what?

I agree, though you might have a broader definition of "victimless" than I do.
No demonstrable harm to a non-voluntary participant.

Actually, I suspect our differences lie in our respective definitions of "harm".

Actually, I suspect our differences lie in our respective definitions of "harm".

Since I can accept the definition you gave, you are probably right.

Edit: And we might disagree about "voluntary," too.

I think you're using far too narrow a definition of "worker."
But the thing is, under certain defitions even an investment banker is a "worker". The investment banker uses the capital provided by clients to select projects that would result in a profit for the individual, basically allocating resources, just like a staff employee in accounting or finances. Consider the Political Compass question that asks if it's shameful that some people make livings by just moving money around. They are moving money around in a way that sees that resources get allocated to the projects that provide the most profits, and these profits are realized by satisfying the most consumer needs. These people, who are commonly villified by communists and socialists, are the ones making sure that when you have a good idea you get the resources needed for it and that when you have a bad idea you do not because we can't afford to have our limited resources scattered without priority. Even they count as workers under a broader definition. So what is your definition?

Voluntary exchange of what?
Any commodity. Including labour.

Jello has openly opposed commerce, or the sale of any goods.

Any commodity.

Not a "voluntary exchange," since in JB's anarcho-communism there would be no "private property" as capitalist society would conceive it. You have to own something to exchange it.

Including labour.

I don't see any reason why, in the context of general communist policy, there would be any objection to exchange of labor - an "I'll do this task for you, you'll do this task for me" sort of thing.

But the thing is, under certain defitions even an investment banker is a "worker". The investment banker uses the capital provided by clients to select projects that would result in a profit for the individual, basically allocating resources, just like a staff employee in accounting or finances.

Yes, he is a worker.

Consider the Political Compass question that asks if it's shameful that some people make livings by just moving money around. They are moving money around in a way that sees that resources get allocated to the projects that provide the most profits, and these profits are realized by satisfying the most consumer needs. These people, who are commonly villified by communists and socialists, are the ones making sure that when you have a good idea you get the resources needed for it and that when you have a bad idea you do not because we can't afford to have our limited resources scattered without priority.

I don't think the objection is to "moving money around," I think it's to getting obscenely rich moving money around. Especially if you are paying other people to do the work of "moving money around," and are really only providing capital.

Even they count as workers under a broader definition. So what is your definition?

I would use said "broader definition." A worker is someone who labors to produce something of value. Even the managers etc. are workers - but while in a capitalist society they are near the top of the hierarchy, in a system with worker self-management they would have an equal vote to anyone else, and would only remain managers as long as the workers wanted them there.

I don't see any reason why, in the context of general communist policy, there would be any objection to exchange of labor - an "I'll do this task for you, you'll do this task for me" sort of thing.
But isn't that a false distinction? If my labour produces something, I'm either providing you with that product before I make it or after I make it - either way we're exchanging something.

Now, if there's no private property at all, then the product of my labour isn't mine to exchange, so there's no incentive for me to produce it. If I don't benefit from my effort, why would I bother?

Perhaps there's communal ownership of everything, and I'm only provided with my necessities if I cooperate, but that sounds a lot like slavery.

But isn't that a false distinction? If my labour produces something, I'm either providing you with that product before I make it or after I make it - either way we're exchanging something.

Except your labor, in itself, doesn't use anything. The creation of products requires the alteration of already existing things, which society may seek to regulate as it sees fit.

Now, if there's no private property at all, then the product of my labour isn't mine to exchange, so there's no incentive for me to produce it. If I don't benefit from my effort, why would I bother?

There are more "benefits" than purely material ones.

Perhaps there's communal ownership of everything, and I'm only provided with my necessities if I cooperate, but that sounds a lot like slavery.

In anarchist socialism, at least, you would be permitted to leave, and there would be unclaimed land for you to use if you chose to leave or were expelled. There would also be other communities, and conceivably, at least, capitalist ones among them.

Note that in capitalism this choice is not very different, except that the means of survival are controlled to a greater extent, and by those who control the means of production, not by society as a whole. Note also that many left-anarchists, myself among them, would not withhold bare necessities even from someone who refused to work.

Not individual freedom. Democracy involves majority rule, and thus individual freedom is compromised. Similarly, communism limits voluntary exchange between individuals.While it does involve majority rule, it also allows the individual to express his or her own opinion, whereas other systems don't have this requirement. Additionally, the freedom in a product isn't the voluntary exchange of it, it is the use of a product. If a system allowed people to exchange things but not use them, there would be a huge gap in freedom, however if a system allowed the use of things but not necessarily the exchange of things, there isn't a big loss of freedom, especially if the ability to use things is significantly increased.

Not necessarily. What if other governments don't allow free movement across their borders? What if all world governments are similarly communist?Technically, this is true, however it is unlikely. Additionally, there are places in the third world called "Free Trade Zones", where the people who work in them aren't allowed to leave. While this could be given as an example of capitalism, this isn't the example that people usually give. Additionally, companies could conceivably have similar conditions to each other so that there isn't much of a difference working for one or the other.

So I will refine my statement: as long as countries allow people to emigrate, it is no different than the capitalist suggestion that workers are free to accept or not accept the terms offered by their employers.

I would use said "broader definition." A worker is someone who labors to produce something of value. Even the managers etc. are workers - but while in a capitalist society they are near the top of the hierarchy, in a system with worker self-management they would have an equal vote to anyone else, and would only remain managers as long as the workers wanted them there.Yes, this is how I would respond to the question of Ragbralbur's managers, accountants, etc. If the workers in the company are too incompetant, lazy, timid, etc., to be managers, etc., then they are free to elect managers and accountants. Naturally, of course, those managers and accountants would be open to recall at any time.

The Constitution was intended to provide each citizen with the education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing that they NEED TO FREELY DEVELOP.



Umm.. no it wasn't. Public education, healthcare, pensions, recreation, and housing, didn't even come along until the late 1930s. Our founders stood for rugged individualism, not collectivist socialism.

2. I will bet you $1,000,000 that a Right Wing Economy..a free market..is more important to Libertarians in a country than Gay Marraige. I guarantee you.

Does this Right Wing economy also include excessive corporate welfare? If so, then no, I don't want that Right Wing economy. I want the kind of Right Wing economy where we have a totally free market and the government does prop up various business because they slide a few bucks into a bureaucrat's pocket. Unfortunately, the economy we have right now is the former kind of Right Wing economy.

Yes, this is how I would respond to the question of Ragbralbur's managers, accountants, etc. If the workers in the company are too incompetant, lazy, timid, etc., to be managers, etc., then they are free to elect managers and accountants. Naturally, of course, those managers and accountants would be open to recall at any time.
So why is it that workers can dismiss managers, but managers cannot dismiss workers? I really don't see why the business world should be based on the principles of democracy. After all, when it comes to providing other people with the things they want, it is a question of how much you bring to the table, not the fact that you come to the table. I don't see why the man with a major in productions should be able to be voted down by two assembly line workers who think it would be cool to produce cars that are puke coloured for a while.

I don't see why the man with a major in productions should be able to be voted down by two assembly line workers who think it would be cool to produce cars that are puke coloured for a while.

Why on Earth not? If they want to produce puke colored cars, they should be permitted to do so. If it causes them to not fulfill their responsibilities to others, those "others" will be capable of measures to express their displeasure. If the "man with a major in productions" doesn't wish to suffer the consequences, he can always leave.

Just perusing through this thoroughly beaten horse once more I can see it has taken some rather predictable turns. I see people talking about workers and factories--one guy even said "communism maximizes freedom" I think. If you really think that's true consider this: your dollar [labor] can be put to use in any investment [production] you so desire. The stock market has done more to put the means of production in the hands of the largest group of people possible [which continues, by the way, to be the American middle class] than any half-assed socialist program or misty-eyed communist theory in the history of civilization. Anyone still stupid enough to advocate Communism on the grounds that it puts the means of production into the hands of the workers obviously has not considered this.

Also, I couldn't resist this:

There are more "benefits" than purely material ones.
News flash: People can't live without material benefits. Ever try to put bread on your table with sacrifice and charity rather than some good ol' fashioned bustin' ass? The idea that I should not be allowed to protect the resources I've acquired is baseless and without merit. If I can't create anything that's my own, then I've surrendered control of everything save hopefully my senses: someone else already has my body because he knows where it's best put to use, and they've already got my mind too because everything that comes out of it is a "contribution to society" rather than my own creation or vision.

So why is it that workers can dismiss managers, but managers cannot dismiss workers? If, when the manager is elected, ze is given the power to dismiss workers, then ze will be able to do so.

The stock market has done more to put the means of production in the hands of the largest group of people possible [which continues, by the way, to be the American middle class] than any half-assed socialist program or misty-eyed communist theory in the history of civilization.It's irrelevant that more people have the means of production in their hands; only the workers using the means of production should have the means of production in their hands. Never mind, of course, that the upper class have a greater per capita share of stock than the middle class does.

*Specifically the American Democratic Party They're morons.

This is really a question that has long confused me. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform, which is very widespread in the political spectrum anyway USA only has Republicans and Democrats. That's not much of a politcial spectrum. , but it seems a large problem to be limited to that alone. The current administration is both fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative. These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana. Yeah, me too. But Libertarians are up for a free economy as well, and the Dems don't like that.

Instead, when election 2004 rolls around I heard “A vote for a third party is a vote for Bush”. A statement which isn't even logical unless the person in question originally was going to vote democrat, which is an unfounded assumption. The democratic party has always been able to host a diverse range of opinions, why wont they meet the libertarians even on like issues? A vote for a third party is a vote to not only put a third party in the US political specrtum, it's one less vote for the Democrats. I've noticed that Dems are far more extremist than Reps.

Its not like the republicans have ever been great friends of libertarians. Most republicans I have debated on other sites associate libertarians with modern day hippies, smoking crack and rejecting common decency, while democrats associate them with backwoods gun-nuts who refuse to give money to the “gubbermint”. Both views are entirely separate and yet held with equal ferocity. The Democrats however, actually associate the the libertarians with Republicans, while the Republicans never made the same connection to the Democrats. Democrats are stupid and so are Republicans. They like their "one or the other" hold on America, and the presence of Libertarians means they'd only have one third of the votes, and not half liek they like. (I say one third as POSSIBLE supporters, however, I don't think the Reps have much support anymore). It's the same with the Dems.

Another common misconception is that every libertarian holds the most extreme views of the philosophy, and that these will all be simultaneously be enacted the day the libertarians are in office. Democrats and Republicans have held radical views for decades that haven't even been discussed in congress, why would it be any different with the libertarians? Er... no. Libertarians are for FREEDOM, of both morals and industry. Dems are the free-morals, controlled-industry nuts, and the Reps are the Christian-morals, free0industry nuts. "Libertarians" and "are extremists" are not to be used in a SERIOUS sentence.

Really, my question is: What don't the democrats have to gain from libertarian alliance, and why is there such opposition to a supposedly “weak” party in the first place? The Dems have nothing to gain, and supporters and seats to lose to the Libs. Libs are only a "weak" party because there is hardly any thrid party at all (to my knowledge there is also the Socialist party, and the Libertarians, but they're not very big parties), because the Reps and Dems are both trying to monopolize the government, and don't want competition from third parties that are basically unheard of. :rolleyes:

News flash: People can't live without material benefits.

Yes, they can. What they cannot live without are certain goods - food, water, etc. - but those need not be material benefits attached to labor, which, incidentally, was the subject of discussion.

In fact, if anything a system of right by use assumes and incorporates this aspect of goods better than capitalist notions of property do - while in such a system goods necessary for life can be claimed by those who need them, under capitalist systems of property, economic inequalities and the system of exchange make it at least conceivable (and in practice it has been borne out) that some people will not get goods necessary for life.

Ever try to put bread on your table with sacrifice and charity rather than some good ol' fashioned bustin' ass? The idea that I should not be allowed to protect the resources I've acquired is baseless and without merit.

"Acquired"? Already you presuppose a system of private property. Since such a system is not what I was talking about, your point is irrelevant.

If I can't create anything that's my own, then I've surrendered control of everything save hopefully my senses: someone else already has my body because he knows where it's best put to use, and they've already got my mind too because everything that comes out of it is a "contribution to society" rather than my own creation or vision.

Your body and mind are free to be put to use as you please. The only thing you lose is the capability to claim, simply by the nature of certain uses of your body and mind, ownership of material things they happen to affect.

Obviously, there are other benefits of using your body and mind, beyond simply acquiring more material things than everyone around you.

So just so I'm clear on this, Soheran and Jello favour abolishing all previously made contracts between workers and capitalists and forcing democracy into the workplace?

So just so I'm clear on this, Soheran and Jello favour abolishing all previously made contracts between workers and capitalists and forcing democracy into the workplace?

"Forcing"? If the workers, or the people as a whole, want to keep things as they are, I wouldn't make them change anything.

"Forcing"? If the workers, or the people as a whole, want to keep things as they are, I wouldn't make them change anything.
But democratic will is not a reason to renege on a contract, is it? Surely there are some things more important than just what the masses want.

Surely there are some things more important than just what the masses want.

Most definitely there are. The protection of vast inequalities in wealth and power is not one of them.

Most definitely there are. The protection of vast inequalities in wealth and power is not one of them.
You say protection of vast inequalities in wealth and power, I say voluntary agreements to exchange goods and services. It's all really semantics.

You say protection of vast inequalities in wealth and power, I say voluntary agreements to exchange goods and services. It's all really semantics.

One does not preclude the other. The problem is that "voluntary" does not mean "just" or "fair." All it means is that the person in question prefers that alternative to others - not that she has access to all the alternatives she should have access to, or that her best alternative is a good one.

Furthermore, since there are certain necessities required just to live, and also other material goods that are required to have a minimally decent life, the idea of "voluntary" contracts in a society where such goods require money to purchase is questionable.

One does not preclude the other. The problem is that "voluntary" does not mean "just" or "fair." All it means is that the person in question prefers that alternative to others - not that she has access to all the alternatives she should have access to, or that her best alternative is a good one.
Cicero once said that everthing is worth what people are willing to pay for it. In this case, I would say that a voluntary agreement is always fair. Then again, I believe that gas prices are fair as long as we continue to pay for them, not matter how much people whine, so I think fair means different things to both of us. If you have nothing of value to me except your labour, and I have something of great value to you, like food, I should be able to hire you to work for the food that I have if I want to. I think it is wise to feed the hungry and the help the poor because it makes me happy and I believe that someday my charity might come in handy, like when some kid on the street who would have been a beggar if people like me had not set up bursaries comes up with a cure for the disease that I have. That said, other people are not as enlightened as me. I'm not going to make them more enlightened by taking their stuff away, and the fact that they work hard, even if they give none away, does improve society to a certain extent. I find it unfortunate that people live in poverty, and I have raised money in the past to help these people, but I'm forced to wonder if I'd be as willing to work 16 hours a day my fellow staffers who work 4 hours a day could out-vote me.

Furthermore, since there are certain necessities required just to live, and also other material goods that are required to have a minimally decent life, the idea of "voluntary" contracts in a society where such goods require money to purchase is questionable.
The excuse of every thief, warlord and murderer is that they had no choice. In the words of every clichéd show in existence, you always have a choice. That said, if the world's markets were freer, you would have far less people living in poverty anyway, so it wouldn't be an issue.

libertarians are what republicans pretend to be. greens are what democrats pretend to be (or used to when more of them were getting elected). i'm green and i don't hate libertarians. i have no use for the real harm that is being caused by trying to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper and i see libertarians as pandering to the economic fanatacism called capitolism.

i would love to see a political landscape dominated by greens with libertarians as the loyal opposition. they have a lot of good ideas about a lot of things. just what i see as too much blind faith, not in the power of market forces, which is real enough, but the sufficiency of them do what is needed and avoid doing what is universaly destructive.

=^^=
.../\...

So just so I'm clear on this, Soheran and Jello favour abolishing all previously made contracts between workers and capitalists and forcing democracy into the workplace?Not exactly. I mean, there are pros and cons to this, but I wouldn't say that it's a good idea simply because the workers, for whatever reason, might not want democracy in the workplace, and I think it would be undemocratic to force democracy onto people. With that said, I believe that there should be a right to and a legal process of secession so that anyone whose society is no longer meeting their needs can secede for any reason (other than to commit human rights abuses legally). This would allow people to choose if they want democracy or not.

That said, if the world's markets were freer, you would have far less people living in poverty anyway, so it wouldn't be an issue.That's debatable. The fact that rich countries can subsidize their exports and poorer countries can't is an example of an unfree market where making the market freer would help the poorer countries. However, a large welfare system in a country is an example of an unfree market that would have fewer people living in poverty. With that said, I think the former happens more than the latter, so I will agree that freeing up the markets from their current state will result in less poverty, but not that freeing up the markets always does so.

The stock market has done more to put the means of production in the hands of the largest group of people possible [which continues, by the way, to be the American middle class] than any half-assed socialist program or misty-eyed communist theory in the history of civilization.
.

This is only due to mixed economy policies expanding the middle class. True unregulated capitalism is dynamically centralist. The wealth will increase in the hands of those making money and debt will increase for those without money. The poor and rich gap will only increase I couldn't care less about who own the means of production but to say anarcho capitalism will deliver it to a middle class is simply a fabrication.

Yes, they can. What they cannot live without are certain goods - food, water, etc. - but those need not be material benefits attached to labor, which, incidentally, was the subject of discussion.
So you're saying people shouldn't work for food? That they should be awarded the basic necessities of life simply by existing? That's not how civilization works and it never has been. You're living in a dream world that assumes everyone deserves a free ride--and moreover, that others will freely give it to them. Goddamn kids.

Incidentally, the main reason why we can't grow enough food to feed everyone on the planet right now is because left-wing organizations like Greenpeace are impeding the progress of bioengineered food. From what I've heard [and this may be erroenous, but it sounds plausible according to the CIA Factbook entries I've seen] we only have enough arable land to grow enough food [using current methods] for ~4-5 billion people. In 1998 Greenpeace talked Sudan out of accepting an enormous load of US-grown bioengineered food.

In fact, if anything a system of right by use assumes and incorporates this aspect of goods better than capitalist notions of property do - while in such a system goods necessary for life can be claimed by those who need them, under capitalist systems of property, economic inequalities and the system of exchange make it at least conceivable (and in practice it has been borne out) that some people will not get goods necessary for life.
OK, but who the hell starves in the United States?

The right to life does not mean the right to the tools of life. In a free society, the right to exist does not and should not categorically subsume all necessary impliments for living. You don't get born into the Meat of the Month club, but it's not that hard to get.

You're arguing that Capitalism is an inferior system based on the fact that it deprives certain people of much-needed resources. I'm not prepared--and I don't know how many [real] capitalists really are--to deny that this isn't the case. If I may be so bold as to steal your thunder, I'll go ahead and call myself an asshole and point out that I don't give a good god damn if a few people get the shaft: it's happened before, it's happening right now, and it's going to happen again. People regularly whine and complain about how capitalism oppresses the poor, but no one stops to think what would happen if someone at the People's Labor Planning Committee held a similar personal grudge or prejudice.

People don't starve in the United States, and it's got nothing to do with Welfare. Obesity is a bigger problem here than malnourishment--because capitalism has provided us with a ridiculous abundance of resources. Considering these cicumstances, the idea that we need to fix this so that more people can eat obviously suggests that material plenty is a bigger problem for humanity than famine.

"Acquired"? Already you presuppose a system of private property. Since such a system is [i]not what I was talking about, your point is irrelevant.
Beg pardon? Above, you presupposed a system of labor that defeated one's necessity to work for food; I fail to see how operating within my [correct] moral paramaters is such an egregious breach of relevancy. You're attempting to cloak your vaguely defined leftist propaganda in plausibility by removing it from reality and placing it in a dream-world where systems of private property need not be addressed: they can be thrown away without further consideration as "irrelevant" on the grounds that you're operating on some plane where they don't exist.

People want to own things, be they material things [like my computer] or figurative ones [like, say, the Chancellary or the People's Labor Planning Committee]. Denying the citizen the power to define his property while at the same time giving the intellectuals or planners or bureaucrats above him ownership of his time and effort is a heinous mockery of justice.

Your body and mind are free to be put to use as you please. The only thing you lose is the capability to claim, simply by the nature of certain uses of your body and mind, ownership of material things they happen to affect.
Oh how I'm sure you wish that were true. Apparently, it's necessary for me to break this down: If your labor is put to a specific use that you have no power over then you are not choosing how your labor is put to use. I honestly have no idea where some of you people come up with this mindless nonsense. Any pretense you had to call my mind and body "free" went out the window when you did away with private property--how can you say that people are "free" in an environment where they're not able to [or at the very least discouraged from] improv life [i]for themselves without having to worry about their neighbor's goiter?

Obviously, there are [i]other benefits of using your body and mind, beyond simply acquiring more material things than everyone around you.
Interesting that you should bring this up, since it conviently raises yet another one of many points that make the left look like clowns: I'm not suggesting that it's an imperative that one must gather more resources than everyone around them.* I'm merely suggesting that those who do the gathering be permitted the freedom to keep as much as they please. If you're such a super duper fantastic altruist, you've a much better chance at making a real difference with it under Capitalism than under any kind of Statist wet dream.

Some people are afraid of Capitalism because it enables individuals to do what Socialists and their ancestors have been trying to pawn off on society for centuries--improving the condition of man.

*And ironically, leftist dogma declares charity is in fact an imperative, since if it wasn't there wouldn't be anything wrong with free-market capitalism. Despite this ironclad moral declaration, many of you still pretend to treat with me under the pretense that morality "has no abolutes" or that they don't exist, or that only simple-minded men deal in them.

libertarians are what republicans pretend to be. greens are what democrats pretend to be (or used to when more of them were getting elected). i'm green and i don't hate libertarians. i have no use for the real harm that is being caused by trying to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper and i see libertarians as pandering to the economic fanatacism called capitolism.

i would love to see a political landscape dominated by greens with libertarians as the loyal opposition. they have a lot of good ideas about a lot of things. just what i see as too much blind faith, not in the power of market forces, which is real enough, but the sufficiency of them do what is needed and avoid doing what is universaly destructive.

=^^=
.../\...

Bah! Forgot the Greens! :headbang: :eek:

So, here's the US political spectrum (mostly): republicans and Democrats. Others, who can't make it: Libertarians, Greens, Socialists. 5 total, 2 in government. Personally I'd like to see a Green or Libertarian next election.

Not exactly. I mean, there are pros and cons to this, but I wouldn't say that it's a good idea simply because the workers, for whatever reason, might not want democracy in the workplace, and I think it would be undemocratic to force democracy onto people. With that said, I believe that there should be a right to and a legal process of secession so that anyone whose society is no longer meeting their needs can secede for any reason (other than to commit human rights abuses legally). This would allow people to choose if they want democracy or not.
I'm just asking what people who are seceding get to take with them. I'd prefer it not be the chairs I invested in creating and paid them to build.

That's debatable. The fact that rich countries can subsidize their exports and poorer countries can't is an example of an unfree market where making the market freer would help the poorer countries. However, a large welfare system in a country is an example of an unfree market that would have fewer people living in poverty. With that said, I think the former happens more than the latter, so I will agree that freeing up the markets from their current state will result in less poverty, but not that freeing up the markets always does so.
The thing is that I don't have an issue with society being divided into the rich and the richer, which is where I think we are going with capitalism, and where I think we will get quicker if we were to cut subsidies. I think I had the conversation about free trade with you before though.

Bah! Forgot the Greens! :headbang: :eek:

So, here's the US political spectrum (mostly): republicans and Democrats. Others, who can't make it: Libertarians, Greens, Socialists. 5 total, 2 in government. Personally I'd like to see a Green or Libertarian next election.

Well actually, there are many third parties that are represented on the state and local level so saying they "cant make it" is a matter of selective perspective. Besides the Republicans and Democrats, the most important include Libertarian Party, Constitution Party (Like the libertarians but with several conservative twists and an obsession with theocracy, they are actually a very powerful party), The Green party, and The Reform Party- The reform party is in decline now, but it was once very powerful.-.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

heres a decent site on info

So you're saying people shouldn't work for food? That they should be awarded the basic necessities of life simply by existing? That's not how civilization works and it never has been.

Yes, we are well known for starving children, the elderly, and the disabled.

You're living in a dream world that assumes everyone deserves a free ride

Not starving someone is equivalent to giving someone a "free ride"? If the only thing people wanted were necessities, the labor market in capitalist systems wouldn't work very well.

--and moreover, that others will freely give it to them.

Maybe. If they don't, they don't; it would contradict my preference, but it would be within the bounds of democracy.

The right to life does not mean the right to the tools of life. In a free society, the right to exist does not and should not categorically subsume all necessary impliments for living. You don't get born into the Meat of the Month club, but it's not that hard to get.

Clearly, we disagree fundamentally. If the right to life does not include a right to the basic requirements of sustaining that life, it is not a right to life; it is a right to be protected from certain kinds of behavior that threaten your life, but not others.

You're arguing that Capitalism is an inferior system based on the fact that it deprives certain people of much-needed resources. I'm not prepared--and I don't know how many [real] capitalists really are--to deny that this isn't the case. If I may be so bold as to steal your thunder, I'll go ahead and call myself an asshole and point out that I don't give a good god damn if a few people get the shaft: it's happened before, it's happening right now, and it's going to happen again.

Again, we disagree fundamentally. As a human being, I am morally equal to most other human beings, at least the ones who have not committed horrendous crimes; as such, if I would object to getting the shaft, my recognition of the human dignity of other people requires me to oppose them getting the shaft as well.

People regularly whine and complain about how capitalism oppresses the poor, but no one stops to think what would happen if someone at the People's Labor Planning Committee held a similar personal grudge or prejudice.

There would be protections in place for such things - as there are in today's society, only more rigorous because the people with such power are immediately and easily capable of being held democratically accountable.

People don't starve in the United States, and it's got nothing to do with Welfare. Obesity is a bigger problem here than malnourishment--because capitalism has provided us with a ridiculous abundance of resources. Considering these cicumstances, the idea that we need to fix this so that more people can eat obviously suggests that material plenty is a bigger problem for humanity than famine.

This logic is difficult to follow - because the US has a lot of obese people, famine isn't as much of a problem for humanity?

As you’ve no doubt noticed, I’ve been ignoring some portions of your post; you’ve already acknowledged that the statement I made about the way capitalism excludes some people from much-needed resources is accurate, so the rest is irrelevant.

Beg pardon? Above, [i]you presupposed a system of labor that defeated one's necessity to work for food;

Right.

I fail to see how operating within my [correct] moral paramaters is such an egregious breach of relevancy.

Because I presupposed it. If you're going to challenge my contention, you have to consider what I was actually talking about, not whatever pops into mind about what you think I was talking about. I agree that in systems with private property, human beings have a right to what they own. What I don't agree with is the notion that in a society where there is no private property there would necessarily be oppression.

If you haven’t read the full context of the discussion I was having with Llewdor, I suggest you do so; it’s invaluable to understanding the context of what I was talking about.

You're attempting to cloak your vaguely defined leftist propaganda in plausibility by removing it from reality and placing it in a dream-world where systems of private property need not be addressed: they can be thrown away without further consideration as "irrelevant" on the grounds that you're operating on some plane where they don't exist.

Do you know the context of the bit you quoted? Either you do (in which case I'm missing your point) or you don't (in which case your point misses the point, and you should go and read the context - like you should have done before you quoted my statement.)

If you want to talk about the justice of a transition from capitalism to a system without private property, I would most definitely acknowledge that some people's property rights would be violated.

People want to own things, be they material things [like my computer] or figurative ones [like, say, the Chancellary or the People's Labor Planning Committee].

People want to use things, and be guaranteed their use. In our present society, guarantee of use takes the form of private property. It need not always.

Denying the citizen the power to define his property

What do you mean by "define his property"? How does a citizen "define his property"?

while at the same time giving the intellectuals or planners or bureaucrats above him ownership of his time and effort is a heinous mockery of justice.

As I said already, he can contribute his time and effort as he sees fit.

Oh how I'm sure you wish that were true. Apparently, it's necessary for me to break this down: If your labor is put to a specific use that you have no power over [i]then you are not choosing how your labor is put to use.

Money paid in taxes is not "labor." When you made the decision to contribute labor to someone else in exchange for a certain quantity of money, you knew that some of it would be taxed, yet you made the decision to do so anyway.

I honestly have no idea where some of you people come up with this mindless nonsense. Any pretense you had to call my mind and body "free" went out the window when you did away with private property --how can you say that people are "free" in an environment where they're not able to [or at the very least discouraged from] improv life [i]for themselves without having to worry about their neighbor's goiter?

There are other ways to improve life for yourself beyond accumulating more material benefits than everyone around you. We've been over this already.

Interesting that you should bring this up, since it conviently raises yet another one of many points that make the left look like clowns: I'm not suggesting that it's an imperative that one must gather more resources than everyone around them.* I'm merely suggesting that those who do the gathering be permitted the freedom to keep as much as they please.

No, you're not talking about "freedom." I've already explained that people in a society with private property would have (or at least theoretically could have, and in any decent model would have) the capability to do as they pleased with their body and mind, as long as they weren't actively harming anyone else.

What you're talking about is the alleged duty of society to reward certain kinds of behavior, whatever society thinks. If society wants to reward them, as part of, say, an attempt to provide greater incentives for labor, then society can - but you have no right to demand society give you material rewards simply because you chose to contribute labor in a society where you would have known beforehand that such contributions would not provide you with material rewards. If you don't want to work without material rewards for doing so, don't.

If you're such a super duper fantastic altruist, you've a much better chance at making a real difference with it under Capitalism than under any kind of Statist wet dream.

Well, I'm not a statist, so I'm not particularly concerned about that.

Some people are afraid of Capitalism because it enables individuals to do what Socialists and their ancestors have been trying to pawn off on society for centuries--improving the condition of man.

And some people are afraid of socialism because they’ve been told, without knowing what it is, that God doesn’t like it. People believe all kinds of stupid things for all kinds of stupid reasons. I don’t see your point.

And ironically, leftist dogma declares charity is in fact an imperative, since if it wasn't there wouldn't be anything wrong with free-market capitalism.

You clearly don't know anything about leftist dogma. The motives behind charity might be the same motives behind advocacy of leftist ideologies, but they aren't based on the same principles. In fact, they are two vastly different approaches to combating injustice.

One thing leftist ideologies tend not to do, unlike most religions, is exhort the exploited to be "charitable" to their oppressors and meekly accept their lot in life.

Despite this ironclad moral declaration, many of you still pretend to treat with me under the pretense that morality "has no abolutes" or that they don't exist, or that only simple-minded men deal in them.

Morality is not objective; it is still a legitimate basis for making judgments. There is nothing irrational about you using your system of morality to make judgments, and nothing irrational about me using mine.

There are more "benefits" than purely material ones.
But you can't know whether a given worker will value those benefits.

In anarchist socialism, at least, you would be permitted to leave, and there would be unclaimed land for you to use if you chose to leave or were expelled. There would also be other communities, and conceivably, at least, capitalist ones among them.
And that's freedom. If you can choose in what sort of community to live, you win.

Note that in capitalism this choice is not very different, except that the means of survival are controlled to a greater extent, and by those who control the means of production, not by society as a whole.
But if society as a whole controls them, then I need to convince a lot more people if I want something from them. If society as a whole disagrees with me, I'm out of luck. Whereas, if that control is exerted by individuals, I have vastly more opportunity.

Under communism, no one person can ever control the means of production. Under capitalism, anyone can, if they just figure out how.

Note also that many left-anarchists, myself among them, would not withhold bare necessities even from someone who refused to work.
Which creates a huge free rider problem.

But you can't know whether a given worker will value those benefits.

Yeah, and you can't know whether a given worker will value material benefits, either.

And that's freedom. If you can choose in what sort of community to live, you win.

I agree.

But if society as a whole controls them, then I need to convince a lot more people if I want something from them. If society as a whole disagrees with me, I'm out of luck. Whereas, if that control is exerted by individuals, I have vastly more opportunity.

Which is one of the reasons I support a pluralistic, decentralized form of socialism, where there would be plenty of alternatives rather than monopolist power.

Which creates a huge free rider problem.

How many people do you know who would be content with bare necessities? Couple that with social disapproval, an incapability to exceed those around you, and eventual boredom, and I don't think the problem would be "huge" at all - certainly not much huger than it is in capitalism.

While it does involve majority rule, it also allows the individual to express his or her own opinion, whereas other systems don't have this requirement. Additionally, the freedom in a product isn't the voluntary exchange of it, it is the use of a product. If a system allowed people to exchange things but not use them, there would be a huge gap in freedom, however if a system allowed the use of things but not necessarily the exchange of things, there isn't a big loss of freedom, especially if the ability to use things is significantly increased.
But doesn't the use of a product include using it to acquire other products? I don't see how exchange necessarily limits freedom to use.

Technically, this is true, however it is unlikely.
Is it? I can't just move to France if I want to work there. Or the US, for that matter. Few countries (possibly none at all) currently allow free movement of labour across their borders.

Yeah, and you can't know whether a given worker will value material benefits, either.
Which is why you should let the worker choose.

How many people do you know who would be content with bare necessities? Couple that with social disapproval, an incapability to exceed those around you, and eventual boredom, and I don't think the problem would be "huge" at all - certainly not much huger than it is in capitalism.
I've never seen social disapproval as much of a motivator. But then, I don't really like people.

I'll admit I don't know many welfare bums, but they exist in great numbers. Especially if they have a chance to supplment their lifestyles outside the regulated economy. For example, though hunting for meat.

In Newfoundland, there exist former fishermen who receive payment from the government because the government shut down their fishery. These fishermen, rather than get new work and lose their free money, moved inland, use the government money to maintain what are quite nice homes, and grow and hunt their own food.

Which is why you should let the worker choose.


I've never seen social disapproval as much of a motivator. But then, I don't really like people.

I'll admit I don't know many welfare bums, but they exist in great numbers. Especially if they have a chance to supplment their lifestyles outside the regulated economy. For example, though hunting for meat.

In Newfoundland, there exist former fishermen who receive payment from the government because the government shut down their fishery. These fishermen, rather than get new work and lose their free money, moved inland, use the government money to maintain what are quite nice homes, and grow and hunt their own food.

If I turn out to be wrong and there is no effective incentive to labor, there is an easy solution - begin to tie even basic material benefits for labor-capable people to their actual laboring. It doesn't contradict the principles; the chief problem for me is that it makes people too dependent on society, but if necessary it could be done.

However, there are two factors that should be considered that I haven't mentioned much yet. Firstly, one primary objective of a socialist economy would be the minimization of unpleasurable and boring labor. Secondly, the drive to exceed others that often manifests itself in capitalism as the drive to attain more material benefits than everyone else would not leave under socialism; it would simply be manifested differently. Such competition without direct material rewards can be seen all the time even in our current society.

I'm just asking what people who are seceding get to take with them. I'd prefer it not be the chairs I invested in creating and paid them to build.Ah, I see. Well, ideally they shouldn't need to "steal" anything from anybody. I would say that the current system of private property ownership being the way it is should be viewed as more of an incentive to secede than something to be rectified by other forms of direct action. With that said, I wouldn't have any objection if the government overturned all private property laws; in that case the chairs would be fair game.

The thing is that I don't have an issue with society being divided into the rich and the richer, which is where I think we are going with capitalism, and where I think we will get quicker if we were to cut subsidies. I think I had the conversation about free trade with you before though.I believe that we probably did have the free trade conversation; I do feel that I must voice my disagreement with the idea that society is being divided into the rich and the richer, though.

But doesn't the use of a product include using it to acquire other products? I don't see how exchange necessarily limits freedom to use.
No, I wouldn't say that the use of a product need to include using it to acquire other products, that is simply one conceivable use. As far as your second sentence goes, I wasn't saying that exchange limits freedom to use, what I was saying that if there was limited freedom to use but not freedom to exchange, there would be a huge loss of freedom there, but if freedom to exchange is limited but not freedom to use, there is only a small amount of freedom lost, which can be negated if people have an expanded freedom to use as a result of the loss of the freedom to exchange.

Is it? I can't just move to France if I want to work there. Or the US, for that matter. Few countries (possibly none at all) currently allow free movement of labour across their borders.I don't see this as being very different than a company doing a background check on an employee; if the government of a country checks you out and you are cleared, they let you in; if a company likes what they see in your background, they hire you.

As far as your second sentence goes, I wasn't saying that exchange limits freedom to use, what I was saying that if there was limited freedom to use but not freedom to exchange, there would be a huge loss of freedom there, but if freedom to exchange is limited but not freedom to use, there is only a small amount of freedom lost, which can be negated if people have an expanded freedom to use as a result of the loss of the freedom to exchange.
I asked because you mentioned that you didn't want to allow free exchange of goods. You did want to allow the free use of goods. If free exchange doesn't limit free use, why limit free exchange? As long as free use is guaranteed, what's gained by preventing free exchange?

I don't see this as being very different than a company doing a background check on an employee; if the government of a country checks you out and you are cleared, they let you in; if a company likes what they see in your background, they hire you.
Working for a company isn't the only option under capitalism. But we all have to live somewhere.

I asked because you mentioned that you didn't want to allow free exchange of goods. You did want to allow the free use of goods. If free exchange doesn't limit free use, why limit free exchange? As long as free use is guaranteed, what's gained by preventing free exchange?The act of free exchange in and of itself doesn't limit use, however the laws associated with free exchange do. If someone has the power to exchange something, then they must be the arbiter of who gets to use it. The act of being the arbiter limits use, since naturally everybody isn't going to be able to use it. By removing the ability to exchange, you also change the criteria of use from being the decision of one person to being the decision of everybody.

Working for a company isn't the only option under capitalism. But we all have to live somewhere.Working for somebody is the only option, either a company or a bank when you take out loans to be "self-employed". Unless you have a nice inheritance, of course.
Living under a government isn't the only option, either, there are plenty of uninhabited islands and areas of the world.

*Specifically the American Democratic Party

This is really a question that has long confused me. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform, which is very widespread in the political spectrum anyway, but it seems a large problem to be limited to that alone. The current administration is both fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative. These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.

Instead, when election 2004 rolls around I heard “A vote for a third party is a vote for Bush”. A statement which isn't even logical unless the person in question originally was going to vote democrat, which is an unfounded assumption. The democratic party has always been able to host a diverse range of opinions, why wont they meet the libertarians even on like issues?

Its not like the republicans have ever been great friends of libertarians. Most republicans I have debated on other sites associate libertarians with modern day hippies, smoking crack and rejecting common decency, while democrats associate them with backwoods gun-nuts who refuse to give money to the “gubbermint”. Both views are entirely separate and yet held with equal ferocity. The Democrats however, actually associate the the libertarians with Republicans, while the Republicans never made the same connection to the Democrats.

Another common misconception is that every libertarian holds the most extreme views of the philosophy, and that these will all be simultaneously be enacted the day the libertarians are in office. Democrats and Republicans have held radical views for decades that haven't even been discussed in congress, why would it be any different with the libertarians?

Really, my question is: What don't the democrats have to gain from libertarian alliance, and why is there such opposition to a supposedly “weak” party in the first place?

the better question is why so many dems and repubs are such asswipes,and if your one..why not vote libertarian?

Yes, we are well known for starving children, the elderly, and the disabled.
That's all well and good, but I would appreciate if you would cease laboring under the pretense that by arguing for expanding the rights of these people that you are in fact arguing for expanding the rights of most people (at least in this country). Most people are not starving, elderly, or disabled. I see no reason to structure our civilization under the assumption that starving in one's childhood--or being born with or acquiring some disability-- is the normal state of human affairs.

But back to my original point: the idea that resources should automatically be handed to all humans regardless of their production has never been the basis for civilization and never can be. People--say what you will of their other merits or shortcomings--don't as a general rule have much of a drive to feed strangers on the other side of the country and historically most attempts to make them do so have not ended well for anyone involved.

Not starving someone is equivalent to giving someone a "free ride"? If the only thing people wanted were necessities, the labor market in capitalist systems wouldn't work very well.
Correct. The materials required for man's survival are not quite as simple as they are in nature. Animals need only to seek out their resources; conversely, man must produce his.

A lot of people ake this to mean that I frown or would (if in power) somehow discourage the practice of bestowing said resources on other people. While I don't generally do it myself (and won't unless under a certain set of circumstances) I wouldn't be much of an avocate for personal freedom if I didn't respect the ability of others to engage in such pursuits with their own time and money. But in the end my ultimate frame of reference is how I see and understand the world and how it behaves around me: and I know that I live in a largely capitalist society where resources are so abundant that people don't starve by the thousands. If morality is not objective (as you claim later) you have no basis for arguing with me on this since based on my observations there is little or no reason to spend masses of money on a problem (poverty) that by and large is not a statistical concern. In this country "poor" people have color TV and refrigerators.

Maybe. If they don't, they don't; it would contradict my preference, but it would be within the bounds of democracy.
It all depends on how far you try to go with it. For the most part, people aren't afraid to reach out and do the right thing when the situation demands it: observe the outpouring of labor and resources that came from Katrina or the Tidal Wave in Micronesia. America is and for some time has been the most generous nation on the face of the planet. I prefer to encourage that trend rather than to force it. Politicizing an issue has never brought out the best decisions in people. The only way to truly liberate the citizens from any "plutocratic" or "bureaucratic" (depending on which side of the aisle you're on) interests is to give them the freedom to turn $1 into $2 and to decide what to do with it. Deciding for them where that capital or labor should go is hardly a manifestation of one's interest in developing a "free" society.

Clearly, we disagree fundamentally. If the right to life does not include a right to the basic requirements of sustaining that life, it is not a right to life; it is a right to be protected from certain kinds of behavior that threaten your life, but not others.
Clearly. If the right to life is so far reaching you may want to reconsider your views on abortion. Forgive me on being presumtive, but most people who have argued along the lines you have so far presented have for one reason or another been pro-choice. If the right to life includes the right to the tools of life, this means that a fetus [since it's alive] has the right of use to the mother's umbilical cord [as it is at that point a tool of his life]. Then he's born and guess what? He's entitled to a share of the planet's resources, regardless of what contrivances may be needed to bring those resources to him.

I'm not saying I'm pro-life, but consistency is always a good thing to have.

Again, we disagree fundamentally. As a human being, I am morally equal to most other human beings, at least the ones who have not committed horrendous crimes; as such, if I would object to getting the shaft, my recognition of the human dignity of other people requires me to oppose them getting the shaft as well.
My point was that in any civilization people are going to fall through the cracks and get shit on. The idea that its even possible to develop a society where everyone is on a complete political and economic equal footing is a silly one.


There would be protections in place for such things - as there are in today's society, only more rigorous because the people with such power are immediately and easily capable of being held democratically accountable.
You could probably take this claim word for word and insert it somewhere into early Red propaganda--they undoubtedly fed this same line of garbage to the skeptics back then, too. Protections don't work. If you're going to claim (like most anticapitalists) that power corrupts, I see no logical basis for you to say this with a straight face; it amounts to the claim that "power corrupts... unless you're one of us." Since obviously you've unlocked the secret to keep people from abusing the ridiculously far-reaching powers you seek to bestow upon them.


[This logic is difficult to follow - because the US has a lot of obese people, famine isn't as much of a problem for humanity?
I need you to think a little more "big picture" here. My point is that people frequently argue that capitalism is bad for humanity, and I'm demonstrating that--based on my experiences--the problems that you claim capitalism promotes are by and large not a concern under proper capitalism.

As you?ve no doubt noticed, I?ve been ignoring some portions of your post; you?ve already acknowledged that the statement I made about the way capitalism excludes some people from much-needed resources is accurate, so the rest is irrelevant.
News flash: Life on earth excludes people from much-needed resources. We don't even have enough materials on the planet right now to feed everyone for the rest of their lives. We've reached a point in our growth as a race where we no longer have enough farmland to grow enough crops to feed everyone. Maybe when capitalism (I don't see the government doing this itself, at least not yet) finishes up their research on bioengineered food this will become less of a problem.

Because I presupposed it. If you're going to challenge my contention, you have to consider what I was actually talking about, not whatever pops into mind about what you think I was talking about. [B]I agree that in systems with private property, human beings have a right to what they own. What I don't agree with is the notion that in a society where there is no private property there would necessarily be oppression.
...
If you haven?t read the full context of the discussion I was having with Llewdor, I suggest you do so; it?s invaluable to understanding the context of what I was talking about.
...
Do you know the context of the bit you quoted? Either you do (in which case I'm missing your point) or you don't (in which case your point misses the point, and you should go and read the context - like you should have done before you quoted my statement.)
...
If you want to talk about the justice of a transition from capitalism to a system without private property, I would most definitely acknowledge that some people's property rights would be violated.
...
People want to use things, and be guaranteed their use. In our present society, guarantee of use takes the form of private property. It need not always.
There seems to be a central point to all of this, so I sorta just threw it all up there and decided to respond to it all at once. If there's something specific in there you were looking for an answer on, let me know.

I don't think you realize what my point is. My point is that you cannot operate in a system where private property "doesnt exist" and pretend to call it reality. My point is that your whole foundation--your entire basis for the rest of your conversation is totally irrelevant to the properties of humanity and has no adherance to reality whatsoever. My point is that systems with private property are by necessity incorporated into any reasonable stipulation about human morality; anything less than this is at best hypothesis.

The reason for this is that at the most basic, natural level, private property will always exist as long as our bodies and our mind do (since one's own self is the ultimate "private property").




What do you mean by "define his property"? How does a citizen "define his property"?
By having it.*


As I said already, he can contribute his time and effort as he sees fit.
I don't think you're seeing the point here. If the product of this labor is put to any use outside the control of whoever did the laboring, it is impossible to claim that his time and effort is put to whatever use he sees fit: the use or purpose of his labor has in this case been removed completely from the interests of the worker. You may have already said it, but that didn't make it any truer now than it was then. If (under whatever society you should choose to set up) my time and effort are put to use as I see fit, that means I can work as long as I want and keep whatever I get from working.


Money paid in taxes is not "labor." When you made the decision to contribute labor to someone else in exchange for a certain quantity of money, you knew that some of it would be taxed, yet you made the decision to do so anyway.
First, this is completely bogus. Money paid in taxes--being the direct result of labor--can reasonably (and always has been) be equated with the product of one's labor.

Second, this is a trite variation of the "if you don't like it, leave the country" argument that people fall back on when they're out of wiggle room. The implication here is that taxation is justified because I have little or no choice in the matter; an argument which has precisely zero credibility in any kind of even semi-serious debate.


There are other ways to improve life for yourself beyond accumulating more material benefits than everyone around you. We've been over this already.
We have, but you evidently chose to ignore what I wrote in response to that (hilariously enough, said response appears directly under this line in your previous post); methinks either you didn't bother to read it or you chose to ignore it. Neither happenstance would be particularly surprsing.


No, you're not talking about "freedom." I've already explained that people in a society with private property would have (or at least theoretically could have, and in any decent model would have) the capability to do as they pleased with their body and mind, as long as they weren't actively harming anyone else.

What you're talking about is the alleged duty of society to reward certain kinds of behavior, whatever society thinks.If society wants to reward them, as part of, say, an attempt to provide greater incentives for labor, then society can - but you have no right to demand society give you material rewards simply because you chose to contribute labor in a society where you would have known beforehand that such contributions would not provide you with material rewards. If you don't want to work without material rewards for doing so, don't.

The words (or implications of) "duty" or "society" did not appear in my previous post and have not so presented themselves in that context during my entire career on NationStates. Society doesn't reward or punish people (and this has been sorta kinda part of my whole point all along, which you have cleverly missed)--individuals do. I'm not demanding a paycheck from society; I'm demanding it from my employer.

And some people are afraid of socialism because they?ve been told, without knowing what it is, that God doesn?t like it. People believe all kinds of stupid things for all kinds of stupid reasons. I don?t see your point.
No offense, but I don't think you've seen my point once during this entire conversation. Your "rebuttal" does precisely nothing to invalidate the terms of my claim that capitalism enables us to make more of a difference in the world by granting us the ability to gather the resources necessary for such a feat. Please either try again, or just stop embarrasing yourself.

You clearly don't know anything about leftist dogma.
Clearly.

The motives behind charity might be the same motives behind advocacy of leftist ideologies, but they aren't based on the same principles. In fact, they are two vastly different approaches to combating injustice.
If anyone out there has ever read 1984, I would like to direct your attention to this real-life example of Orwellian doublespeak. If they are or even "might be" the "same motives," then claiming in one's next breath that these "same" motives are not "based on the same principles" is a blatant contradiction. Nevermind the fact that this statement is utter garbage in the first place, since the moral link between charity and socialism is an obvious and well-documented one. Both charity and socialism share as their staple the moral edict which declares that giving resources is a nobler goal than gathering them--since if the opposite were true or the latter more noble, there would be nothing morally wrong with free market capitalism.

One thing leftist ideologies tend not to do, unlike most religions, is exhort the exploited to be "charitable" to their oppressors and meekly accept their lot in life.
I'm having some difficulty in trying to understand why exactly you're so quick to bring up religion. Here and in your previous answer you invoke the (regrettable) human tendancy to follow religions, but in neither instance does it seem pertinent.

Morality is not objective; it is still a legitimate basis for making judgments. There is nothing irrational about you using your system of morality to make judgments, and nothing irrational about me using mine.
If morality is not objective, what are we arguing about? If it exists outside of reality (which has to be the case for it to be subjective, since if it's a part of reality it presumably has an identity) how can it be a valid benchmark for determining what should happen within reality? Do you even realize that this very statement ("Morality is not objective") is an absolute, objective definition as to the terms of morality? Methinks someone has got some thinking to do.

* This may be something of a simple response, since theives can "have" things that I wouldn't really consider their proerty under the circumstances. I do, of course, fully expect you to counter with the "property is theft" or "significant financial gain is not possible without theft" arguments, but I figured I'd make this clarification anyway. When

Second, this is a trite variation of the "if you don't like it, leave the country" argument that people fall back on when they're out of wiggle room. The implication here is that taxation is justified because I have little or no choice in the matter; an argument which has precisely zero credibility in any kind of even semi-serious debate.

The implication is that taxation is justified because people give consent when they choose to live in a country. In a country where emmigration is allowed then residents choose to stay. By choosing to stay in a country of their birth or immigrating top a country people consent to follow the laws of that country. Just because few people do that is no fault of the government. At least that is how the argument goes. Not sure if I agree with that.

If anyone out there has ever read 1984, I would like to direct your attention to this real-life example of Orwellian doublespeak. If they are or even "might be" the "same motives," then claiming in one's next breath that these "same" motives are not "based on the same principles" is a blatant contradiction. Nevermind the fact that this statement is utter garbage in the first place, since the moral link between charity and socialism is an obvious and well-documented one. Both charity and socialism share as their staple the moral edict which declares that giving resources is a nobler goal than gathering them--since if the opposite were true or the latter more noble, there would be nothing morally wrong with free market capitalism.

So you find libertarians who support private charities are intellectually inconsistent and crypto-socialists? Private charities are incompatible with free market capitalism?:confused:

Do you even realize that this very statement ("Morality is not objective") is an absolute, objective definition as to the terms of morality?

sfw?

once again, you seem to be confusing the statement "morality is not objective" with "there are no absolutes". i find it odd how frequently you make that mistake.

So you find libertarians who support private charities are intellectually inconsistent and crypto-socialists??

I think the argument can be made. What charity essentially amounts to is a hierarchical relationship, consisting of donor over recipient. In this relationship, the recipient is dependent upon the donor; charity does not require emphasis upon, nor any attempt to create, self-reliance. Yes, the donor may contribute voluntarily, however, this does not change the essential hierarchical dependence at the heart of charity. So, to the extent that libertarians promote individual autonomy, self-reliance, and the elimination of hierarchical social relationships, libertarianism and charity are incompatible. (edit: as are libertarianism and statist socialism, for exactly the same reason.)

Now, contrast "charity" with other forms of voluntary cooperative mutual aid that have existed in, for example, the United States, especially prior to the creation of the welfare state (social security, the so-called "New Deal" programs, etc). These voluntary cooperative mutual aid organizations (non-profit, non-commercial, and democratically operated) essentially consisted of individuals who voluntarily contributed resources (membership fees) for the purposes of providing health insurance, life insurance, funeral benefits, sick/unemployment benefits, orphanages, hospitals (and thus doctors, nurses, etc), retirement/convalescent homes, and other social welfare services to themselves and the other members. These organizations differ from charity in that every individual member who claims a benefit has contributed to the provision of said benefits. Thus, the heirarchical relationship of donor and recipient is eliminated; the recipient is the donor. The organizations also went to great length to prevent malingering (benefits were not simply handed out to whomever happened along). The point is that these organizations provided the usual charitable services, and even more, while promoting and focusing on individual autonomy, self-reliance, and the minimization of hierarchy. (edit: "charity" was often derided and rejected by the members of these organizations exactly because it was seen to destroy individual autonomy and self-reliance, while creating a hierarchy of dependence.)

As it happened, the chief forces behind the fall of such voluntary cooperative mutual aid organizations in the United States were "Progressive" politics and private commercial businesses. Private commerical businesses lamented the ability of the mutual aid organizations to provide insurance and other services at much reduced prices. Or course, competition being the mortal enemy of the private sector (as competition tends to work to drive profits down), the private sector naturally sought the protection of the state, mainly by promoting new regulatory and legislative measures that helped drive mutual aid into the ground. And Progressive/New Deal politics came in right behind, replacing voluntary cooperation between free individuals with the welfare state. Both private commercial enterprise and the politicians promoted "charity" as a noble goal (most likely because its pathetic ineffectiveness would increase support for statist welfare, thus maintaining politicitians' jobs, while not creating any meaningful competition for private enterprise).

For more information on, and a history of, mutual aid in the United States, up to the welfare state, see also From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State by David T. Beito.

sfw?

once again, you seem to be confusing the statement "morality is not objective" with "there are no absolutes". i find it odd how frequently you make that mistake.
Wow. Just...

...Wow.

If I do that its because the statements are totally interchangeable. The suggestion that "Morality is not objective" directly stipulates that there are no moral absolutes. If there were moral absolutes, then their existence would make morality itself objective.

People--say what you will of their other merits or shortcomings--don't as a general rule have much of a drive to feed strangers on the other side of the country and historically most attempts to make them do so have not ended well for anyone involved.

They do so both voluntarily (charity) and through government programs (food stamps.)

Clearly. If the right to life is so far reaching you may want to reconsider your views on abortion. Forgive me on being presumtive, but most people who have argued along the lines you have so far presented have for one reason or another been pro-choice. If the right to life includes the right to the tools of life, this means that a fetus [since it's alive] has the right of use to the mother's umbilical cord [as it is at that point a tool of his life]. Then he's born and guess what? He's entitled to a share of the planet's resources, regardless of what contrivances may be needed to bring those resources to him.

I'm not saying I'm pro-life, but consistency is always a good thing to have.

I didn't say that life implied a right to life, I said that a right to life implies a right to the necessities of life. I don't think a fetus has any kind of right to life, negative or positive. For what it's worth, I do reject the pro-choice arguments that have gone along those lines - that even if a fetus has the moral worth of a human being, it's immoral to force the mother to harbor it.

My point was that in any civilization people are going to fall through the cracks and get shit on. The idea that its even possible to develop a society where everyone is on a complete political and economic equal footing is a silly one.

The fact that it's impossible to achieve complete equality doesn't mean that it's impossible to achieve greater equality.

You could probably take this claim word for word and insert it somewhere into early Red propaganda--they undoubtedly fed this same line of garbage to the skeptics back then, too. Protections don't work. If you're going to claim (like most anticapitalists) that power corrupts, I see no logical basis for you to say this with a straight face; it amounts to the claim that "power corrupts... unless you're one of us." Since obviously you've unlocked the secret to keep people from abusing the ridiculously far-reaching powers you seek to bestow upon them.

Yes, I call it "democracy," probably accompanied by protections of some sort to guard the rights of the individual. Perfect? No. But workable.

I need you to think a little more "big picture" here. My point is that people frequently argue that capitalism is bad for humanity, and I'm demonstrating that--based on my experiences--the problems that you claim capitalism promotes are by and large not a concern under proper capitalism.

Here's what I said:

In fact, if anything a system of right by use assumes and incorporates this aspect of goods better than capitalist notions of property do - while in such a system goods necessary for life can be claimed by those who need them, under capitalist systems of property, economic inequalities and the system of exchange make it at least conceivable (and in practice it has been borne out) that some people will not get goods necessary for life.

Sure, under the right circumstances, many of the more severe problems can be averted, but that doesn't change the fact that "under capitalist systems of property... some people will not get goods necessary for life."

News flash: Life on earth excludes people from much-needed resources. We don't even have enough materials on the planet right now to feed everyone for the rest of their lives. We've reached a point in our growth as a race where we no longer have enough farmland to grow enough crops to feed everyone.

Doubtful, considering how much is wasted on the meat industry.

There seems to be a central point to all of this, so I sorta just threw it all up there and decided to respond to it all at once. If there's something specific in there you were looking for an answer on, let me know.

I don't think you realize what my point is. My point is that you cannot operate in a system where private property "doesnt exist" and pretend to call it reality. My point is that your whole foundation--your entire basis for the rest of your conversation is totally irrelevant to the properties of humanity and has no adherance to reality whatsoever. My point is that systems with private property are by necessity incorporated into any reasonable stipulation about human morality; anything less than this is at best hypothesis.

The reason for this is that at the most basic, natural level, private property will always exist as long as our bodies and our mind do (since one's own self is the ultimate "private property").

There are plenty of societies that have operated without private property, so, no, private property is not a "necessity." Nor is "one's own self" the sort of private property that I am talking about, as you well know.

By having it.*

This may be something of a simple response, since theives can "have" things that I wouldn't really consider their proerty under the circumstances. I do, of course, fully expect you to counter with the "property is theft" or "significant financial gain is not possible without theft" arguments, but I figured I'd make this clarification anyway.

Having something doesn't make it your property. As you've just admitted. You need a better explanation than that.

I don't think you're seeing the point here. If the product of this labor is put to any use outside the control of whoever did the laboring, it is impossible to claim that his time and effort is put to whatever use he sees fit: the use or purpose of his labor has in this case been removed completely from the interests of the worker.

"Use" is distinct from "purpose." "Use" implies a more objective criterion, yet it is hardly relevant; the "use" of the labor of a worker in a factory is that it produces goods, goods which are certainly not returned to the worker (and you, I assume, have no problem with this.) "Purpose" is more what I was getting at; it is irrational to have the "purpose" of attaining something through your labor that you know you won't attain. That is the whole point of my "rational expectation" argument. If you are willing to contribute labor under certain terms, and those terms remain consistent throughout, you cannot complain that you have been stolen from.

For what it's worth, that applies just as much to the worker in a factory whose "product" is taken by the capitalist as it does to the worker who is forced to pay taxes. There is no intrinsic value to labor; the most you can demand as a "right" is what you rationally expected to gain from contributing it.

The injustice of capitalism lies not in its denial of the just rewards of labor (because there are no intrinsically just rewards of labor), but in its failure to be an economic arrangement that maximizes the public good along more or less egalitarian lines.

You may have already said it, but that didn't make it any truer now than it was then. If (under whatever society you should choose to set up) my time and effort are put to use as I see fit, that means I can work as long as I want

Right.

and keep whatever I get from working.

Wrong. That's completely separate. The capability to attain the results of labor is not the same thing as to labor as one pleases.

First, this is completely bogus. Money paid in taxes--being the direct result of labor--can reasonably (and always has been) be equated with the product of one's labor.

How? You traded the labor you own for a given quantity of money in return; if you were acting rationally, you took into account taxation.

Second, this is a trite variation of the "if you don't like it, leave the country" argument that people fall back on when they're out of wiggle room. The implication here is that taxation is justified because I have little or no choice in the matter; an argument which has precisely zero credibility in any kind of even semi-serious debate.

That's not what I said. What I said was that you only have the right, in terms of the right to the rewards of one's labor, to that for which you contributed your labor. It follows that taxation is not a violation of that right; you made the exchange knowing its full terms, including the fact that the money your employer gave you would be taxed. To reuse an earlier example, if you agree to contribute your labor for $100 and you know 20% of it will be taxed, you are in effect agreeing to contribute your labor for $80. You could argue that $80 is not a fair wage, and that may be, but the basis for that claim cannot be that your labor has been stolen from you, or directly usurped from your control - you did, after all, trade it for that quantity. (I say "directly usurped" because it's conceivable that because of a lack of alternatives, you have been denied real freedom in where to contribute your labor. That, however, is a different argument.)

We have, but you evidently chose to ignore what I wrote in response to that (hilariously enough, said response appears directly under this line in your previous post); methinks either you didn't bother to read it or you chose to ignore it. Neither happenstance would be particularly surprsing.

Since I did, actually, respond to it, you could hardly argue that.

The words (or implications of) "duty" or "society" did not appear in my previous post and have not so presented themselves in that context during my entire career on NationStates. Society doesn't reward or punish people (and this has been sorta kinda part of my whole point all along, which you have cleverly missed)--individuals do. I'm not demanding a paycheck from society; I'm demanding it from my employer.

Who do you think enforces property rights? Who are you demanding refrain from taxing you? You are demanding that society accept the money your employer gives you as the rightful product of your labor even though you contributed your labor with the knowledge that said money would be taxed. Why should society accept that value as the rightful reward for your labor, rather than another? Why doesn't society have the right to decide for itself what reward you deserve for your labor?

Edit: And if your problem is that society is interfering between you and your employer, then your problem isn't with socialism, it's with taxation under capitalism. Under socialism, society would be your employer. For some reason, you seem to have a problem with more than one party determining the rewards for your labor (in this case, both your employer and society), yet you have never explained why that aspect should matter.

No offense, but I don't think you've seen my point once during this entire conversation. Your "rebuttal" does precisely nothing to invalidate the terms of my claim that capitalism enables us to make more of a difference in the world by granting us the ability to gather the resources necessary for such a feat. Please either try again, or just stop embarrasing yourself.

You said that capitalism enables us to make differences in the world. I agree, at least for some of us. You also implied that having trouble with this is the motive behind disliking capitalism. I disagree.

If anyone out there has ever read 1984, I would like to direct your attention to this real-life example of Orwellian doublespeak. If they are or even "might be" the "same motives," then claiming in one's next breath that these "same" motives are not "based on the same principles" is a blatant contradiction.

The motive for some socialists is altruism, as is the motive for most charity-givers. The principles under which the two efforts operate are nevertheless vastly different. Those socialists motivated by altruism are attempting to help others by fighting to restructure society into what they see as a more just arrangement; charity-givers motivated by altruism, on the other hand, are attempting to help others by giving more directly.

Nevermind the fact that this statement is utter garbage in the first place, since the moral link between charity and socialism is an obvious and well-documented one. Both charity and socialism share as their staple the moral edict which declares that giving resources is a nobler goal than gathering them--since if the opposite were true or the latter more noble, there would be nothing morally wrong with free market capitalism.

No, that's not (necessarily) the moral edict of either. Both charity and socialism can be just as easily advocated on the basis of justice.

I'm having some difficulty in trying to understand why exactly you're so quick to bring up religion. Here and in your previous answer you invoke the (regrettable) human tendancy to follow religions, but in neither instance does it seem pertinent.

Simply that the virtue of charity, as advocated by many religions, often diverges from the actions advocated by socialists.

If morality is not objective, what are we arguing about? If it exists outside of reality (which has to be the case for it to be subjective, since if it's a part of reality it presumably has an identity) how can it be a valid benchmark for determining what should happen within reality?

Because the fact that it isn't objectively true doesn't mean that it doesn't apply within reality. Similarly, the statement that "this food tastes good" is subjective, but that doesn't mean that the judgment is irrelevant to reality, or that I can't make decisions based on that judgment.

Do you even realize that this very statement ("Morality is not objective") is an absolute, objective definition as to the terms of morality? Methinks someone has got some thinking to do.

Yes, it is. So? It isn't a moral statement (it doesn't say that we ought to do something, or that a given action is right or wrong), it's a statement about moral statements.

Wow. Just...

...Wow.

If I do that its because the statements are totally interchangeable.

no, they aren't.

The suggestion that "Morality is not objective" directly stipulates that there are no moral absolutes.

maybe. though that is a different statement than "there are no absolutes" - it's got an additional word, for one thing.

and really, i'm not so sure that it does. depending on the definition of 'moral absolute' being used, i could easily see a case being made for 'subjective moral absolutes'.

in any case, the statement "morality is not objective" isn't inherently problematic, no matter how much you don't like it.

Yes, it is. So? It isn't a moral statement (it doesn't say that we ought to do something, or that a given action is right or wrong), it's a statement about moral statements.

sad, isn't it?

The implication is that taxation is justified because people give consent when they choose to live in a country. In a country where emmigration is allowed then residents choose to stay. By choosing to stay in a country of their birth or immigrating top a country people consent to follow the laws of that country. Just because few people do that is no fault of the government. At least that is how the argument goes. Yes, this argument is the logical extension of the capitalist's argument that if the employee doesn't like the conditions offered by the employer, ze can leave, regardless of how low the wages are or how poor the working conditions.

Yes, this argument is the logical extension of the capitalist's argument that if the employee doesn't like the conditions offered by the employer, ze can leave, regardless of how low the wages are or how poor the working conditions.

I didn't make it that simple. I didn't want to, because ultimately that's a bad argument. It depends on the assumption that there are decent alternatives, which is not always the case (either in where to live or in the labor market.)

My argument is of a different character, Melkor Unchained misunderstood it. What I am saying is that taxation isn't theft, because it might as well be simply another condition on the exchange of money for labor. I contribute my labor in return for a set quantity of money; since labor has no inherent moral value, I cannot claim, solely from the right to reward from labor, that I deserve more than I received. I have been deprived of liberty at no point; I made my choice to contribute labor knowing exactly what I would receive from it. I thought it was worth it at the time; I can't suddenly claim that I have been betrayed.

The capitalist labor markets argument is generally concerned with the welfare of the worker. If an employer is not giving her a wage that effectively provides for her needs, she has the capability to leave and get another job.
I'm not concerned for the welfare of the tax-payer in this particular context; I don't have to be. I would be the first to agree that society has an obligation to have an economy that advances the welfare of its citizens, but we haven't even discussed the practical implications of taxation in that regard. The question is whether it constitutes theft. As long as the contribution of labor is voluntary, it doesn't.

I didn't make it that simple. I didn't want to, because ultimately that's a bad argument. It depends on the assumption that there are decent alternatives, which is not always the case (either in where to live or in the labor market.)I don't like the argument that a worker needn't worry about wages or working conditions, however I think the best way of combatting it is to carry it out to its logical conclusion. This way, if one accepts that employers shouldn't be required by law to raise their wages or working conditions, then they must also accept that nations can be dictatorships as long as they allow their citizens to emigrate.

My argument is of a different character, Melkor Unchained misunderstood it. What I am saying is that taxation isn't theft, because it might as well be simply another condition on the exchange of money for labor. I contribute my labor in return for a set quantity of money; since labor has no inherent moral value, I cannot claim, solely from the right to reward from labor, that I deserve more than I received. I have been deprived of liberty at no point; I made my choice to contribute labor knowing exactly what I would receive from it.

The capitalist labor markets argument is generally concerned with the welfare of the worker. If an employer is not giving her a wage that effectively provides for her needs, she has the capability to leave and get another job.
I'm not concerned for the welfare of the tax-payer in this particular context; I don't have to be. I would be the first to agree that society has an obligation to have an economy that advances the welfare of its citizens, but we haven't even discussed the practical implications of taxation in that regard. The question is whether it constitutes theft. As long as the contribution of labor is voluntary, it doesn't.Yes, this was your argument, I was wrong in implying that the argument I posited was yours. I like your argument, as well.

*Specifically the American Democratic Party

This is really a question that has long confused me. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform, which is very widespread in the political spectrum anyway, but it seems a large problem to be limited to that alone. The current administration is both fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative. These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.

Instead, when election 2004 rolls around I heard “A vote for a third party is a vote for Bush”. A statement which isn't even logical unless the person in question originally was going to vote democrat, which is an unfounded assumption. The democratic party has always been able to host a diverse range of opinions, why wont they meet the libertarians even on like issues?

Its not like the republicans have ever been great friends of libertarians. Most republicans I have debated on other sites associate libertarians with modern day hippies, smoking crack and rejecting common decency, while democrats associate them with backwoods gun-nuts who refuse to give money to the “gubbermint”. Both views are entirely separate and yet held with equal ferocity. The Democrats however, actually associate the the libertarians with Republicans, while the Republicans never made the same connection to the Democrats.

Another common misconception is that every libertarian holds the most extreme views of the philosophy, and that these will all be simultaneously be enacted the day the libertarians are in office. Democrats and Republicans have held radical views for decades that haven't even been discussed in congress, why would it be any different with the libertarians?

Really, my question is: What don't the democrats have to gain from libertarian alliance, and why is there such opposition to a supposedly “weak” party in the first place?

You left out the "I like waffles" option. You are evil! :mad: ;)

I don't like the argument that a worker needn't worry about wages or working conditions, however I think the best way of combatting it is to carry it out to its logical conclusion. This way, if one accepts that employers shouldn't be required by law to raise their wages or working conditions, then they must also accept that nations can be dictatorships as long as they allow their citizens to emigrate.
The default mode for a worker is not employed. However, the default mode for a citizen is taxed. The difference is that an employee goes out looking for a job with the knowledge that he or she will be expected to work for the money, whereas a citizen does not go out looking for government services only to be told that the cost of such services are taxes. The citizen is signed up for that system at birth without a choice in the matter.

The freedom to choose when to start working for a company is just as important as the freedom to choose when to stop working for a company, but government does not provide that freedom to choose when to start.

That might be why the analogy is weak. That said, I'm fine with a little taxation.

The default mode for a worker is not employed. However, the default mode for a citizen is taxed. The difference is that an employee goes out looking for a job with the knowledge that he or she will be expected to work for the money, whereas a citizen does not go out looking for government services only to be told that the cost of such services are taxes. The citizen is signed up for that system at birth without a choice in the matter.This is because the citizen is unable to make a choice in the matter at birth. Nonetheless, this choice is not made for the citizen by the government, it is made by the citizen's parents/guardians. Additionally, citizens, at birth, do not pay taxes, so that is not the default mode for them. Citizens are perfectly able to make the choice leave the country before they start to pay taxes.

Good to see you're fine with a little bit of taxation. Why is this?

Nice to see that you've taken the trouble to ignore giant chunks of my post [which, by the way, carried a few points that were nothing short of integral to the debate]. I guess I'll just take that to mean you can find no approriate retort for the bulk of my opening statements.

They do so both voluntarily (charity) and through government programs (food stamps.)
You may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that when it comes to producing things, by and large people prefer to engage in said production for their own benefit--if this weren't the case people taking jobs in order to get paid for them would probably not be a regular occurance. If human nature dictated that we work for the betterment of our neighbors [and not ourselves individually] both our lives and this argument would be radically different.

We are, for the most part, interested in our own survival.

I didn't say that life implied a right to life, I said that a right to life implies a right to the necessities of life.
I understand that much, and I did in fact answer that particular point, if you'd care to actually pay attention to my post. The majority of my first two paragraphs [which you chose to leave out of your reply] contain large chunks of text that deal with exactly this. Throwing your premise at me again after I've already answered it is hardly an intelligent way to make your case.

I don't think a fetus has any kind of right to life, negative or positive. For what it's worth, I do reject the pro-choice arguments that have gone along those lines - that even if a fetus has the moral worth of a human being, it's immoral to force the mother to harbor it.
That's fine if that's how you see the issue, but you've already contradicted the very premise that you've set forth [since a fetus is living] and there really isn't any way out of it [since the umbilical cord--whether it's part of the fetus or not-- is a tool of its life]. If it's immoral for a woman to harbor a living organism against her will [which I happen to agree with] its equally immoral for me to be forced to harbor one just because it happens to have fully formed body parts and can [presumably] operate autonomously from its mother.

The fact that it's impossible to achieve complete equality doesn't mean that it's impossible to achieve greater equality.
Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to carry the concept of equality way too far. Taking from me so that someone else [who presumably has less of a capacity for production] happens to be a manifestation of this.

Yes, I call it "democracy," probably accompanied by protections of some sort to guard the rights of the individual. Perfect? No. But workable.
Sorry, but last time I checked I live in a democratic country and our politicians are still capable of egregious abuses of power.

Also, "protections of some sort" is a little vague if you're trying to get people to go along with whatever your politics are [since you haven't exactly told me yet--although I'm guessing you're not far from a Left-Anarchist]. You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that if you are actually serious about putting together a government that works. If I point out that your politicians will be remarkably powerful, claiming that there will be protections of "some sort" does little to allay my [or any rational person's] fears.

Sure, under the right circumstances, many of the more severe problems can be averted, but that doesn't change the fact that "under capitalist systems of property... some people will not get goods necessary for life."
So who in America is not getting the goods necessary for life? Somehow I'm failing to see the throngs of starving homeless men in the streets. Basic Capitalist systems of property have done more for poor people in this country than welfare or social security could ever hope to acheive.

Doubtful, considering how much is wasted on the meat industry.
What? Are you even paying attention? What the hell has this got to do with anything?


There are plenty of societies that have operated without private property, so, no, private property is not a "necessity." Nor is "one's own self" the sort of private property that I am talking about, as you well know.
Name one.

Having something doesn't make it your property. As you've just admitted. You need a better explanation than that.
Two things:

First, you're dodging the real point I raised initially by nitpicking how one "Defines" their property. I specified in my footnote that it was a vague reply for a reason; since I didn't cover everything necessary to define what I was talking about at the time. In the context of our current discussion, actually, the real point was that prohibiting ownership of the most basic objects [ be it a toaster, a car, or a wad of cash] while granting the ruling class ownership over the citizen's resources [which is what you're doing if you're allocating the product of his labor somewhere else without his consent] is a complete and total philosophical farce, and ideas like that have no place in a well-developed, moral mind.

Secondly, in most cases, yes, having something does make it your property. Theft is the obvious exclusion to make here.

"Use" is distinct from "purpose." "Use" implies a more objective criterion, yet it is hardly relevant; the "use" of the labor of a worker in a factory is that it produces goods, goods which are certainly not returned to the worker (and you, I assume, have no problem with this.) "Purpose" is more what I was getting at; it is irrational to have the "purpose" of attaining something through your labor that you know you won't attain. That is the whole point of my "rational expectation" argument. If you are willing to contribute labor under certain terms, and those terms remain consistent throughout, you cannot complain that you have been stolen from.
I sure as hell can; and am doing so rather loudly. Just as you complain that it should be possible for us as a society to acheive "greater equality" I too suggest that a system of operation can be devised where I need not be stolen from.

Again, this argument amounts more or less to "Society has decided to tax you and you either have to deal with it or go somewhere else"--the legitimacy of such an argument I believed I have already covered [hint: it has none]. Just because the majority of people on this planet have decided to behave in an immoral fashion does not obligate me to accept it.

Let us for a moment pretend we're living in, say, Germany in 1938. You or I might complain at some point that we don't want the product of our labor going to a regime that ships dissidents off to labor camps, but under the "reasoning" you just deployed on me above, neither of us would have any moral recourse to complain about it since those are the conditions under which we must work--or leave Germany. Since they remain constant, this "reasoning" argues, our only proper choices are to do it anyway, starve, or move away, which may or may not even be possible. Under this line of "reasoning" advocacy for a proper system is out of the question [since that's what I was trying to do and apparently I shouldn't have].

For what it's worth, that applies just as much to the worker in a factory whose "product" is taken by the capitalist as it does to the worker who is forced to pay taxes. There is no intrinsic value to labor; the most you can demand as a "right" is what you rationally expected to gain from contributing it.
No, there is no "intrinsic" value to labor, since the value of labor depends entirely on what's being done and how fast. There's no way really to lump it all together [since labor can accomplish a lot of different stuff] but it does have value--if I spend 5 hours loading a semi truck with packages, my labor can be said to have the value of preparing these materials for shipment: what that's worth to me and to the employer is to be determined between us. Currently I'm getting $9 an hour [almost double minimum wage] and a shit ton of benefits: health, dental, prescription, vision, etc.

The injustice of capitalism lies not in its denial of the just rewards of labor (because there are no intrinsically just rewards of labor), but in its failure to be an economic arrangement that maximizes the public good along more or less egalitarian lines.
Again I invite you to examine the "public good" in the United States [which, last time I checked, was reasonably close to capitalism--moreso than any other industrialized nation on this planet at least]. Its true that no one is guaranteed a free ride under capitalism, and frankly I see that as a pro rather than a con, since it instills in the individual the motivation to succeed and produce as well as a human being can. If I don't have to work to feed myself, why bother?

Nothing is free: that's just how the universe works. Any object requires effort to collect, be it the effort of walking ten feet, or the effort of busting one's ass at $JOB for fifty years. The idiocy in "egalitariansim" lies in the fact that it attempts to ignore this axiom, or at the very least it tries to pawn said effort off on another person . Capitalism is correct because it acknowledges this and encourages it: that's why capitalism buried Fascism, Communism, and is currently having its way with the Welfare State.

Wrong. That's completely separate. The capability to attain the results of labor is not the same thing as to labor as one pleases.
Which is tantamount to saying "You can have whatever job you want, just don't expect to get anything out of it." Color me unimpressed.

How?
Answered in antecedant post. Please do us both a favor and don't reply to my posts until you understand them.

You traded the labor you own for a given quantity of money in return; if you were acting rationally, you took into account taxation.
Taking taxation into account doesn't invalidate my arguments against it. 70% of my money in the bank is still a little bit better than no money in the bank; I'm simply operating as best I can under the circumstances: that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see these circumstances changed.

That's not what I said.
Yes, it is, and you said it again in this very post. You're basically saying "If you don't like taxes, you have no right to complain because they're not going anywhere." The logic is identical to the people who claim dissidents should "leave the country" over their hostility towards certain policies [since you seem to imply that my only availible recourse it to not work until taxation is abolished, or to leave the country in protest even though pretty much anyone else would tax me a lot more]. If you're not seeing it I can't exactly make you [you can lead a horse to water...], but I'm sure a number of our friendly neighborhood readers will catch on. Remember: I'm not debating you for your benefit [since I doubt either of us are going to change our minds during this discourse] but rather for the people out there who are reading this and may have not made up their minds yet one way or another.

What I said was that you only have the right, in terms of the right to the rewards of one's labor, to that for which you contributed your labor. It follows that taxation is not a violation of that right; you made the exchange knowing its full terms, including the fact that the money your employer gave you would be taxed. To reuse an earlier example, if you agree to contribute your labor for $100 and you know 20% of it will be taxed, you are in effect agreeing to contribute your labor for $80. You could argue that $80 is not a fair wage, and that may be, but the basis for that claim cannot be that your labor has been stolen from you, or directly usurped from your control - you did, after all, trade it for that quantity. (I say "directly usurped" because it's conceivable that because of a lack of alternatives, you have been denied real freedom in where to contribute your labor. That, however, is a different argument.)
Except that you're forgetting that by its very nature taxation does not require the worker's consent, therefore I am "agreeing" to no such thing. I am contributing my labor because I like having food in my stomach; I am not agreeing to contibute it at a grossly discounted rate: that part is happening without my approval. Since all income in this country is supposed to be taxed, I have no choice in the matter; the idea that I've "agreed" to contribute my labor for $80 is fucking ridiculous because I still want the whole $120 anyway. The fact that it gets taken away from me before I see it doesn't retroactively alter the terms of my agreement. if I take a job for $9.50 an hour, I want $9.50 an hour, not $7 an hour. Just because there's no way for me to legally get it [yet] doesn't mean that I agreed to basically work for free for 20 or so percent of my shift.

Since I [i]did, actually, respond to it, you could hardly argue that.
You "responded" to it by repeating yourself nearly word for word from an earlier post. Let's run through this one more time:

You say "There are other ways to improve life for yourself beyond accumulating more material benefits than everyone around you."

I say " I'm not suggesting that it's an imperative that one must gather more resources than everyone around them."

You say "There are other ways to improve life for yourself beyond accumulating more material benefits than everyone around you."

I've always wondered how planter's warts taste. Is it as nasty as I think it is?

Who do you think enforces property rights? Who are you demanding refrain from taxing you?

Unfortunately, Government != Society.

You are demanding that society accept the money your employer gives you as the rightful product of your labor even though you contributed your labor with the knowledge that said money would be taxed.
Back to this again? Do you have any new material or are you just going to scream "you knew you were going to be taxed!" at me repeatedly like a hysterical child?

Prior to 1914, the United States did not have a mandatory income tax. Income tax is not axiomatic to government or society. For the duration of our debate, you've been laboring under the notion that it is.

Why should society accept that value as the rightful reward for your labor, rather than another? Why doesn't society have the right to decide for itself what reward you deserve for your labor?
Because society is not me; society is not my employer; they may be members of it but simply put Society has no such right because it is not directly involved in the transaction.

Edit: And if your problem is that society is interfering between you and your employer, then your problem isn't with socialism, it's with taxation under capitalism. Under socialism, society would be your employer. For some reason, you seem to have a problem with more than one party determining the rewards for your labor (in this case, both your employer and society), yet you have never explained why that aspect should matter.
I am nothing short of astounded as to why you would expect me to have no problem with a mob of complete strangers telling me what my labor is worth and what I should get for it. Since its my labor, the only people that need interest themselves with this situation is myself and whoever I'm laboring for. If he wants to pay me 6 cents an hour and give some other guy 60 dollars an hour that's his perogative: as long as we're living in a Capitalist society I am under no compulsion to actually work for him.

You said that capitalism enables us to make differences in the world. I agree, at least for some of us. You also implied that having trouble with this is the motive behind disliking capitalism. I disagree.
Care to explain why? You have no idea how frustratng it is to write out my opinions and consistently clarify them only to encounter an opponent who promises "protections of some sort" and indicates that he "disagrees" without bothering to qualify either statement. If you want to play with the big boys, you might want to try watching first.

The motive for some socialists is altruism, as is the motive for most charity-givers. The principles under which the two efforts operate are nevertheless vastly different. Those socialists motivated by altruism are attempting to help others by fighting to restructure society into what they see as a more just arrangement; charity-givers motivated by altruism, on the other hand, are attempting to help others by giving more directly.
Hogwash. Charity and socialism both operate under the assumption that distributing [or giving up] resources is a nobler feat than acquiring them for yourself. There may be differences about how some people choose to express it [and it's also possible for someone to embrace both capitalism and charity, since under capitalism charity is not something you're compelled by threat of force to do], but the above is basically a moral splitting of hairs.

No, that's not (necessarily) the moral edict of either. Both charity and socialism can be just as easily advocated on the basis of justice.
Ummmmm......

Wow. I really thought you were a bit smarter than this. Let's dissect this statement shall we? You claim that distributing resources [as opposed to gathering them] is "not (necessarily) the moral edict of either [socialism/charity]." If a redistribution of resources is not a moral edict of socialism, I don't know what is. Socialism cannot exist without a redistribution of resources, as it wouldn't be socialism without these programs.

Simply that the virtue of charity, as advocated by many religions, often diverges from the actions advocated by socialists.
And this has anything to do with our argument.... how?

Oh wait, it doesn't. Also, I'd like to point out that since most religions predate socialism, it's very likely that the opposite is true. The concepts of charity and selflessness were advertised by the church centuries before socialist thought emerged.


Because the fact that it isn't objectively true doesn't mean that it doesn't apply within reality. Similarly, the statement that "this food tastes good" is subjective, but that doesn't mean that the judgment is irrelevant to reality, or that I can't make decisions based on that judgment.
For something to be pertinent to reality, it must first exist within it. Subjectivity does exist in one's own opinions , but my point is that subjective opinions need not dictate the terms of proper morality--since liking a certain painting or dish is not the same thing as acting in a morally correct fashion. Subjective judgements only exist inside your skull, and shouldn't be applied to other people unless they happen to agree with you.

My point here is that morality isn't simply what you choose to make of it--if that were the case there could be no rational disagreement with my choice to, say, rub my sweaty ass up against some poor conveinence store clerk's face or go postal in a school assembly with a TEC-9. If there are lines [and there are--even you cannot possibly be prepared to suggest there are none, else every action conceivable is morally acceptable] they're objective ones. Morality and subjectivity are therefore completely seperate fields.

Yes, it is. So? It isn't a moral statement (it doesn't say that we ought to do something, or that a given action is right or wrong), it's a statement [i]about moral statements.
So Morality is Objectively Subjective? How cute.

This is because the citizen is unable to make a choice in the matter at birth. Nonetheless, this choice is not made for the citizen by the government, it is made by the citizen's parents/guardians. Additionally, citizens, at birth, do not pay taxes, so that is not the default mode for them. Citizens are perfectly able to make the choice leave the country before they start to pay taxes.

Good to see you're fine with a little bit of taxation. Why is this?
I am fine with individuals being responsible for what I believe to be their own actions. I am fine with my high school colleagues who used to guilt trip/threaten me into helping them with their homework etc. flunking out of university and getting crappy jobs because they never learned how to study. I am fine with the market determining how much labour is worth.

I am not, however, fine with the failures of fathers and mothers being passed on to their sons and daughters, which means I support universal health care and education so that kids get a more level playing field to suceed or fail on their own merits, and don't get weighed down by the stupidity of their parents did.

I am not, however, fine with the failures of fathers and mothers being passed on to their sons and daughters, which means I support universal health care and education so that kids get a more level playing field to suceed or fail on their own merits, and don't get weighed down by the stupidity of their parents did.Well, that's good. There are plenty of people who have no problem with the idea of punishing children for the mistakes of their parents; good to see you're not one of them.

Nice to see that you've taken the trouble to ignore giant chunks of my post [which, by the way, carried a few points that were nothing short of integral to the debate]. I guess I'll just take that to mean you can find no approriate retort for the bulk of my opening statements.

No. It means that you were diverting the argument with irrelevant nonsense, and as such I chose to ignore it.

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that when it comes to producing things, by and large people prefer to engage in said production for their own benefit--if this weren't the case people taking jobs in order to get paid for them would probably not be a regular occurance. If human nature dictated that we work for the betterment of our neighbors [and not ourselves individually] both our lives and this argument would be radically different.

We are, for the most part, interested in our own survival.

Most people do indeed prefer to live, and to live in decent conditions. A society which makes such conditions conditional on labor contributions will indeed be a society in which people contribute labor in order to attain decent living conditions. It does not follow that that is the only motive effective at getting people to contribute labor.

I understand that much, and I did in fact answer that particular point, if you'd care to actually pay attention to my post. The majority of my first two paragraphs [which you chose to leave out of your reply] contain large chunks of text that deal with exactly this. Throwing your premise at me again after I've already answered it is hardly an intelligent way to make your case.

Do you always ignore context so flagrantly, or do you just do it when arguing with me? I was responding to a specific subset of your argument with this point - namely, your accusation of hypocrisy for advocating a positive right to life and also being pro-choice. I was not contesting your argument that capitalism in the US has guaranteed most people the necessities of life. It is beside the point.

That's fine if that's how you see the issue, but you've already contradicted the very premise that you've set forth [since a fetus is living] and there really isn't any way out of it [since the umbilical cord--whether it's part of the fetus or not-- is a tool of its life]. If it's immoral for a woman to harbor a living organism against her will [which I happen to agree with] its equally immoral for me to be forced to harbor one just because it happens to have fully formed body parts and can [presumably] operate autonomously from its mother.

Are you paying attention to anything I'm saying?

A right to life does indeed imply a right to the necessities of life. Mere life, however, does not imply a right to life. Do you hesitate before stepping on an ant?

Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to carry the concept of equality way too far. Taking from me so that someone else [who presumably has less of a capacity for production] happens to be a manifestation of this.

Which is a different argument from the fallacious one to which I was replying.

Sorry, but last time I checked I live in a democratic country and our politicians are still capable of egregious abuses of power.

Semi-democratic.

Also, "protections of some sort" is a little vague if you're trying to get people to go along with whatever your politics are [since you haven't exactly told me yet--although I'm guessing you're not far from a Left-Anarchist]. You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that if you are actually serious about putting together a government that works. If I point out that your politicians will be remarkably powerful, claiming that there will be protections of "some sort" does little to allay my [or any rational person's] fears.

"Not far," yes. Perhaps more like "so close as to be mostly indistinguishable." Though I have my differences with most of them, but that's another subject.

The two key elements are radical democracy and free association. Politicians would be rotated and continually subject to recall; their decisions would be open to acceptance or rejection by the direct democratic organs of the community. Anyone who wished to leave would be capable of doing so, and ideally at least the society would be pluralistic enough to have numerous alternatives.

So who in America is not getting the goods necessary for life? Somehow I'm failing to see the throngs of starving homeless men in the streets.

They exist. Charity and government programs tend to give them a capability for continued existence. They are still deprived, however, of meaningful freedom.

Basic Capitalist systems of property have done more for poor people in this country than welfare or social security could ever hope to acheive.

Economic development has, probably (though it has also displaced people in ways that have caused horrific poverty, in addition to ultimately alleviating the worst cases.)

What? Are you even paying attention? What the hell has this got to do with anything?

The simple fact that we have sufficient food to feed everyone already.

Name one.

The Kibbutzim. Indigenous societies in numerous places.

Two things:

First, you're dodging the real point I raised initially by nitpicking how one "Defines" their property. I specified in my footnote that it was a vague reply for a reason; since I didn't cover everything necessary to define what I was talking about at the time. In the context of our current discussion, actually, the real point was that prohibiting ownership of the most basic objects [ be it a toaster, a car, or a wad of cash]

I don't actually support prohibiting such varieties of ownership. I do deny that such ownership is necessitated by the right to the fruits of one's labor, but I think there are other rights that are violated by state ownership and regulation of that kind of personal property.

while granting the ruling class ownership over the citizen's resources [which is what you're doing if you're allocating the product of his labor somewhere else without his consent] is a complete and total philosophical farce, and ideas like that have no place in a well-developed, moral mind.

You are doing an awful job explaining why.

Secondly, in most cases, yes, having something does make it your property. Theft is the obvious exclusion to make here.

No, the concepts are wholly separate. I can "have" a car that I rent. I can own a factory that I've never seen. And so on.

I sure as hell can; and am doing so rather loudly.

True, but as you obviously know that I meant "can" in the sense of moral legitimacy, not physical capability. I "can" steal things too.

Just as you complain that it should be possible for us as a society to acheive "greater equality" I too suggest that a system of operation can be devised where I need not be stolen from.

I don't think you should be stolen from, except in extreme circumstances.

Again, this argument amounts more or less to "Society has decided to tax you and you either have to deal with it or go somewhere else"--the legitimacy of such an argument I believed I have already covered [hint: it has none]. Just because the majority of people on this planet have decided to behave in an immoral fashion does not obligate me to accept it.

No, it's not the same argument at all. I'm arguing from free exchange - I am exchanging something I own (my labor) for a given price (the wages or salary my employer gives me, minus tax.) How can I complain? I didn't have to make the deal.

See my reply to Jello Biafra for a little more elaboration on the difference.

Let us for a moment pretend we're living in, say, Germany in 1938. You or I might complain at some point that we don't want the product of our labor going to a regime that ships dissidents off to labor camps, but under the "reasoning" you just deployed on me above, neither of us would have any moral recourse to complain about it since those are the conditions under which we must work--or leave Germany. Since they remain constant, this "reasoning" argues, our only proper choices are to do it anyway, starve, or move away, which may or may not even be possible. Under this line of "reasoning" advocacy for a proper system is out of the question [since that's what I was trying to do and apparently I shouldn't have].

Not exactly. You would indeed have no right to complain about being taxed. You would have the right to complain about the repression and brutality of the regime; that is an evil independent of taxation. It is wrong to kill innocent people regardless of from where the money used to kill them comes.

No, there is no "intrinsic" value to labor, since the value of labor depends entirely on what's being done and how fast.

The two have nothing to do with one another. Labor has no intrinsic value ever, regardless of what's being done and how fast. It only has value if you choose to give it value - if you choose to sell it for a price.

There's no way really to lump it all together [since labor can accomplish a lot of different stuff] but it does have value--if I spend 5 hours loading a semi truck with packages, my labor can be said to have the value of preparing these materials for shipment:

That's its value to the employer, and to society; it's what that labor is accomplishing for them.

what that's worth to me and to the employer is to be determined between us. Currently I'm getting $9 an hour [almost double minimum wage] and a shit ton of benefits: health, dental, prescription, vision, etc.

You're exchanging your labor in order to attain certain things, yes. You make this exchange knowing that it will be taxed at a certain amount; any such taxation is merely a part of the deal.

Again I invite you to examine the "public good" in the United States [which, last time I checked, was reasonably close to capitalism--moreso than any other industrialized nation on this planet at least].

Sure - 12% poverty, tens of millions without health insurance, long working hours, etc.

Its true that no one is guaranteed a free ride under capitalism, and frankly I see that as a pro rather than a con, since it instills in the individual the motivation to succeed and produce as well as a human being can. If I don't have to work to feed myself, why bother?

If the only reason people worked was to feed themselves, capitalism wouldn't work. There are millions of people who work more and harder because they want more than bare necessities (and for other reasons, too.)

Nothing is free: that's just how the universe works. Any object requires effort to collect, be it the effort of walking ten feet, or the effort of busting one's ass at $JOB for fifty years. The idiocy in "egalitariansim" lies in the fact that it attempts to ignore this axiom, or at the very least it tries to pawn said effort off on another person .

Some people require less "effort" to attain wealth than others, due to both natural differences and social inequalities. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Which is tantamount to saying "You can have whatever job you want, just don't expect to get anything out of it." Color me unimpressed.

Don't expect to be able to dictate the terms, no. Just like in capitalism. Only in socialism such decisions are made on a democratic basis; you have more power over such things, not less.

Answered in antecedant post. Please do us both a favor and don't reply to my posts until you understand them.

I did. You have yet to provide an effective reply, perhaps because as of yet you have not yet understood my argument.

Taking taxation into account doesn't invalidate my arguments against it. 70% of my money in the bank is still a little bit better than no money in the bank; I'm simply operating as best I can under the circumstances: that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see these circumstances changed.

Sure; I want lots of things, too. That doesn't mean I have a right to them.

Yes, it is, and you said it again in this very post. You're basically saying "If you don't like taxes, you have no right to complain because they're not going anywhere." The logic is identical to the people who claim dissidents should "leave the country" over their hostility towards certain policies [since you seem to imply that my only availible recourse it to not work until taxation is abolished, or to leave the country in protest even though pretty much anyone else would tax me a lot more]. If you're not seeing it I can't exactly make you [you can lead a horse to water...], but I'm sure a number of our friendly neighborhood readers will catch on. Remember: I'm not debating you for your benefit [since I doubt either of us are going to change our minds during this discourse] but rather for the people out there who are reading this and may have not made up their minds yet one way or another.

Not exactly, because taxation is not a deal between you and society (in capitalist society), it is a deal between you, your employer, and society. All society does is put conditions on the deal between you and your employer. Since you retain choice of employment, you still have meaningful freedom in terms of what you earn (the most significant adjustment of taxation). You also have the freedom not to work at all, though that carries with it consequences that you have been arguing for a long time now are completely necessary and justified.

The problem is that you are still so consumed in the notion of the "product of your labor." If you have the right to a certain quantity of money, it is true that it is immoral for the state to take it from you without your consent, and I would also agree that the argument that "you could leave" is not sufficient. However, if you do not have the right to that money, but merely to the money you expected to earn - as I have been arguing - then there is nothing immoral about taxation. You agreed to trade your labor for a certain quantity of money; you thought it was worth it, otherwise you wouldn't have done it.

Except that you're forgetting that [i]by its very nature taxation does not require the worker's consent, therefore I am "agreeing" to no such thing. I am contributing my labor because I like having food in my stomach; I am not agreeing to contibute it at a grossly discounted rate: that part is happening without my approval.

By the same logic, any worker can claim that she deserves a million dollars an hour. "I am contributing labor because I like having food in my stomach; I am not agreeing to contribute it for less than a million dollars an hour: that part is happening with my approval."

Since all income in this country is supposed to be taxed, I have no choice in the matter; the idea that I've "agreed" to contribute my labor for $80 is fucking ridiculous because I still want the whole $120 anyway.

So? I want a million dollars an hour. Won't get that, either.

The fact that it gets taken away from me before I see it doesn't retroactively alter the terms of my agreement. if I take a job for $9.50 an hour, I want $9.50 an hour, not $7 an hour. Just because there's no way for me to legally get it [yet] doesn't mean that I agreed to basically work for free for 20 or so percent of my shift.

You didn't take a job for $9.50 an hour, you took it for $7.00 an hour, assuming you knew about taxation (and I'm sure you did.)

You "responded" to it by repeating yourself nearly word for word from an earlier post. Let's run through this one more time:

You say "There are other ways to improve life for yourself beyond accumulating more material benefits than everyone around you."

I say " I'm not suggesting that it's an imperative that one must gather more resources than everyone around them."

Yes, that's what you said. How is it relevant?

Unfortunately, Government != Society.

It's society's legitimate representative, at least in a democracy.

Back to this again? Do you have any new material or are you just going to scream "you knew you were going to be taxed!" at me repeatedly like a hysterical child?

I will repeat my argument as long as you choose to repeat yours.

Prior to 1914, the United States did not have a mandatory income tax. Income tax is not axiomatic to government or society. For the duration of our debate, you've been laboring under the notion that it is.

I didn't say it was axiomatic. I said it was there, and everyone knows it's there.

Because society is not me; society is not my employer; they may be members of it but simply put Society has no such right because it is not directly involved in the transaction.

You'll have to do better than that. Society clearly can put money to good uses (whether or not it does is another question). The notion that it should not because it is someone else's money requires a justification for property rights. The only one you've given me is the "fruits of labor" one, to which I have already replied: since labor does not intrinsically have value, society can set whatever conditions on its reward that it chooses to (including the condition that such property, when transferred, can be taxed).

You don't seem to be understanding this point, so I'll elaborate on it a bit more. No activity, in and of itself, demands reward, whether it's digging a ditch or mere breathing. They are just activities. Why should anyone be obligated to reward them? The obligation comes in when there is an agreement. I agree to dig this ditch for $10. If I am denied that $10, I have been cheated; that is immoral, that is theft, that is a violation of my right to the fruits of my labor. However, if I meet someone who says that he will pay me $12.50, and I know that a fifth of that will be taken by the government in taxes, if I agree to dig the ditch for him I am essentially agreeing to do it for $10. The fact that it is the state that is withholding $2.50 from me instead of the employer is immaterial to my freedom.

What about that $10? As long as I know the restrictions, society has the right to restrict my use of that as well. It can ban my purchase of certain things or put conditions on my owning them (though this is limited by my right to basic personal freedom - but not by my right to the fruits of my labor.) It can demand that if I hire someone, I permit that exchange to be taxed.

That is not the only obligation society has to me. It has the obligation to pursue my welfare, and everyone else's as well. As such, if society taxes me and uses the money harmfully (say, to commit aggression), that is wrong not because I had a right to that $2.50 as the "product of my labor," but because it would have better served the general welfare to give the $2.50 to me than to use it to kill people needlessly.

I am nothing short of astounded as to why you would expect me to have no problem with a mob of complete strangers telling me what my labor is worth and what I should get for it.

Oh, like a corporation?

Since its my labor, the only people that need interest themselves with this situation is myself and whoever I'm laboring for. If he wants to pay me 6 cents an hour and give some other guy 60 dollars an hour that's his perogative: as long as we're living in a Capitalist society I am under no compulsion to actually work for him.

I replied to this above.

Care to explain why? You have no idea how frustratng it is to write out my opinions and consistently clarify them only to encounter an opponent who promises "protections of some sort" and indicates that he "disagrees" without bothering to qualify either statement. If you want to play with the big boys, you might want to try watching first.

I do tend to not like spending lots of time on irrelevancies. I don't see why you obsess over them so much.

I disagree, quite simply, because most socialists have never included "it gives people the capacity to change the world" in their criticisms of capitalism. Of course, considering your lack of familiarity with socialist thought, you may not be aware of this.

Hogwash. Charity and socialism both operate under the assumption that distributing [or giving up] resources is a nobler feat than acquiring them for yourself.

Both a socialist and an advocate of charity could easily say that redistribution is only necessary under the present unjust system, and that a just society that treated people justly would need neither charity nor a welfare state.

There may be differences about how some people choose to express it [and it's also possible for someone to embrace both capitalism and charity, since under capitalism charity is not something you're compelled by threat of force to do], but the above is basically a moral splitting of hairs.

No, it's not. Look at the conflicts between Liberation Theology and the traditional Roman Catholic Church if you insist on missing the point.

Ummmmm......

Wow. I really thought you were a bit smarter than this. Let's dissect this statement shall we? You claim that distributing resources [as opposed to gathering them] is "not (necessarily) the moral edict of either [socialism/charity]." If a redistribution of resources is not a moral edict of socialism, I don't know what is. Socialism cannot exist without a redistribution of resources, as it wouldn't be socialism without these programs.

"Redistribution" implies a prior distribution. In socialism, there would be no redistribution, because the original distribution would be (theoretically) just.

And this has anything to do with our argument.... how?

It's a difference between some of the motives behind charity and some of the motives behind socialism.

Also, I'd like to point out that since most religions predate socialism, it's very likely that the opposite is true. The concepts of charity and selflessness were advertised by the church centuries before socialist thought emerged.

Which, if anything, only serves to strengthen my point.

For something to be pertinent to reality, it must first exist within it. Subjectivity does exist in one's own opinions , but my point is that subjective opinions need not dictate the terms of proper morality--since liking a certain painting or dish is not the same thing as acting in a morally correct fashion. Subjective [i]judgements only exist inside your skull, and shouldn't be applied to other people unless they happen to agree with you.

Why shouldn't they? In most cases, I would agree that they shouldn't be, but that's because in most cases my subjective judgments do not have universal application. I dislike watching football, but I don't really care if other people do it. I dislike murder, and I do care if other people do it, because the taking of human life is wrong whoever does it.

My point here is that morality isn't simply what you choose to make of it--if that were the case there could be no rational disagreement with my choice to, say, rub my sweaty ass up against some poor conveinence store clerk's face or go postal in a school assembly with a TEC-9. If there are lines [and there are--even you cannot possibly be prepared to suggest there are none, else every action conceivable is morally acceptable] they're objective ones. Morality and subjectivity are therefore completely seperate fields.

Why must the lines be objective ones? Some actions are not morally acceptable; that's my subjective point of view, but it's still a standard, it's still a line.

So Morality is Objectively Subjective? How cute.

Yes, precisely. Morality is objectively subjective. Similarly, my tastes in food are objectively subjective.

"I like apples" is a subjective statement, but the statement "'I like apples' is a subjective statement" is an objective statement. In the same way, "Murder is wrong" is a subjective statement, but the statement "'Murder is wrong' is a subjective statement" is an objective statement.

Well, that's good. There are plenty of people who have no problem with the idea of punishing children for the mistakes of their parents; good to see you're not one of them.
If I honestly believed that high taxes, subsidies, tariffs, and other left-wing economic policies would help the poor more than right-wing economic policies, I would pay high taxes etc. gladly because it was for a good cause. I just honestly believe that the free market guarantees the greatest benefits for the greatest number. I was taught to care about those who are less fortunate than myself, but I believe I can do that best through the free market.

If I honestly believed that high taxes, subsidies, tariffs, and other left-wing economic policies would help the poor more than right-wing economic policies, I would pay high taxes etc. gladly because it was for a good cause. I just honestly believe that the free market guarantees the greatest benefits for the greatest number. I was taught to care about those who are less fortunate than myself, but I believe I can do that best through the free market.

Unfortantely, many people who stand to benefit from the "free" market don't see the world the same way you do. To many, private charity is just a public relations tool to look good to the consuming/voting public. The "free" market cannot guaruntee the greatest benefits for the most people because the people who control the economic power tend to have a Machiavellian view of the world. The power that they have is very corrupting, and they tend to view the people effected by their policies much like pawns on a chess board, not like the individuals they are.

Unfortantely, many people who stand to benefit from the "free" market don't see the world the same way you do. To many, private charity is just a public relations tool to look good to the consuming/voting public. The "free" market cannot guaruntee the greatest benefits for the most people because the people who control the economic power tend to have a Machiavellian view of the world. The power that they have is very corrupting, and they tend to view the people effected by their policies much like pawns on a chess board, not like the individuals they are.
I'm not sure how you mean Machiavellian in this case, but even in cases of simple self-interest, many charitable things, like paying workers higher wages and using materials that do not damage the environment, have benefits to the person who chooses that course of action.

There is a simple dichotomy in free market economics. Either 1) the people want you to engage in action x (higher wages, etc.), in which case they will reward your virtue by buying your product over those of the competitor and government intervention will be unnecessary or 2) the people don't want you to engage in action x because they prefer lower prices or are just apathetic, in which case the government really is not acting in the interest of its people anyway.

The greatest obstacle to a better world, from a free-market point of view, is consumer apathy.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is the vested interests of the powers that be. Under capitalism, or any authoritarian system for that matter, the people at the top don't have to care for the well being of the people below them. Consumers exist in their mind only to buy their products, and workers exist only to do labor. That's what I mean by Machiavellian. The decisionmakers and the prime benefactors of the system are detached from the effects of their decisions on individuals. They don't have to care about anything as long as the shareholders are getting paid a dividend.

"Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron. Many if not most libertarians are anti-political and find the idea of political parties in general to be repulsive, even when they're used to implement libertarian policy.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is the vested interests of the powers that be. Under capitalism, or any authoritarian system for that matter, the people at the top don't have to care for the well being of the people below them. Consumers exist in their mind only to buy their products, and workers exist only to do labor. That's what I mean by Machiavellian. The decisionmakers and the prime benefactors of the system are detached from the effects of their decisions on individuals. They don't have to care about anything as long as the shareholders are getting paid a dividend.
By all accounts, I am one of the people at the top, as are my parents. You can demonize us all you want, but we really aren't out to screw you over. In fact, if I had one problem with socialists, this would be it. I can't stand that smug populist attitude that tries to tell people that it's the rich people's fault they are poor. My parents are two very successful lawyers. They pay taxes like everyone else. They are not required to do more, but they do, including giving extensively to charities and helping out in the community, and yet you want more. Last year, they paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. They paid their fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. They're happy to because that's the only way it's going to work, and it's in their best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but they don’t get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to our house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of our faucets twenty-seven times hotter. In 2000, The top one percent of wage earners in the United States paid for twenty-two percent of the country, and while I don't know the exact stats in Canada, where I live, I assume it would be similar. My parents don't mind paying their taxes, but let's not call them names while they're doing it, okay?

I have heard many people talk about a ‘just distribution of resources’ and that once this distribution has been made, any later redistribution would not be needed.

Let us ignore how someone determines what a ‘just’ distribution is, and simply focus on the ‘we wont have to redistribute later’ argument.

Even if we distributed all materials equally to everyone, equality would only last a moment. Those who are better able (the intelligent, the strong, those with a good work ethic, or whatever) will soon become better off than those who are less capable (the stupid, the indolent, etc.). Right away you will have inequalities surface – the only way to ‘correct’ this would be to constantly take from the productive to give to the unproductive (aside from harming the productive to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator).

Inequalities are inherent in life – there is a natural hierarchy of men.

There is no way (without grossly immoral acts) to ensure the productive are no better off than the unproductive – and when you do everyone will starve and society will collapse because the lowest common denominator is not capable of sustaining any kind of standard of living.

There will always be rich and there will always be poor – these are relative terms. What you can do is make sure people have at least a minimal standard of living – this should be your goal and not ‘lets screw over those with more money than me’.

I believe that it is my moral obligation to help my friends and family as best I can, but I find it highly immoral to be forced to work even harder to provide for others against my will.

When the founding fathers wrote that all men were created equal – they meant that in the eyes of the law there will be no distinction between individuals. They often discussed the natural hierarchy of men in their personal letters, as only someone truly and willfully obtuse would suggest that everyone was of equal ability.

Everyone should have the opportunity to succeed but it is immoral to forcibly deprive me of the fruits of my labors in an attempt to provide for those who do not provide for themselves.

–just because I know I will be accused of being a heartless bastard-
I split my time working for corporations and non-profits. The non-profits because I like to do what I can (of my own free will) to make the world a better place, and the corporations because I need to be able to provide for myself before I can provide for others.

I do a lot of volunteer work, discount my professional work for charities, and try to make the world a better place. I find this to be a far superior position to those who are very vocal about their belief that we should use tyranny to exploit people for the benefit of the indolent.

Even if we distributed all materials equally to everyone, equality would only last a moment. Those who are better able (the intelligent, the strong, those with a good work ethic, or whatever) will soon become better off than those who are less capable (the stupid, the indolent, etc.). Right away you will have inequalities surface – the only way to ‘correct’ this would be to constantly take from the productive to give to the unproductive (aside from harming the productive to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator).

"Productive" does not imply "better at amassing property" - that is true in our society, generally, but not necessarily in all. It implies "better at producing more goods for less labor," but it is not intrinsically the case that such goods should go to their producer. In fact, in our society they generally do not.

Inequalities are inherent in life – there is a natural hierarchy of men.

There is no "natural hierarchy." There are natural differences, but it is society, not nature, which chooses to turn such differences into sources of inequality.

There is no "natural hierarchy." There are natural differences, but it is society, not nature, which chooses to turn such differences into sources of inequality.
One such natural difference would be a difference in intellect. Some people are geniuses. Others are mentally challenged. Can you honestly tell me that in nature a mentally challenged person would be just as likely to survive as a genius?

If I honestly believed that high taxes, subsidies, tariffs, and other left-wing economic policies would help the poor more than right-wing economic policies, I would pay high taxes etc. gladly because it was for a good cause. I just honestly believe that the free market guarantees the greatest benefits for the greatest number. I was taught to care about those who are less fortunate than myself, but I believe I can do that best through the free market.Ah, I see. I suppose I am surprised mostly because I would have thought that someone with your political compass score would have a different perspective on it.
I do admit that (regulated) capitalism has done more for the poor than any other system, but I would say that it's because there really isn't much for it to compete against.

Ah, I see. I suppose I am surprised mostly because I would have thought that someone with your political compass score would have a different perspective on it.
I do admit that (regulated) capitalism has done more for the poor than any other system, but I would say that it's because there really isn't much for it to compete against.
The political compass has relatively few questions about what I consider the big three: health care, education and welfare. Instead, it has many questions about things like government aid for the arts or for farmers, which I do not support. It also has many questions that test whether or not you believe that the market efficiently allocates resources in theory, which I do. I have a great deal of faith in the market's ability to take into consideration everything but youth and the effect parenting has on them, simply because the market treats people as rational adults. As a result, my score tends to be skewed rightwards.

The political compass has relatively few questions about what I consider the big three: health care, education and welfare. Instead, it has many questions about things like government aid for the arts or for farmers, which I do not support. It also has many questions that test whether or not you believe that the market efficiently allocates resources in theory, which I do. I have a great deal of faith in the market's ability to take into consideration everything but youth and the effect parenting has on them, simply because the market treats people as rational adults. As a result, my score tends to be skewed rightwards.Ah, fair enough, I never thought of it that way, but you're probably right.

By all accounts, I am one of the people at the top, as are my parents. You can demonize us all you want, but we really aren't out to screw you over. In fact, if I had one problem with socialists, this would be it. I can't stand that smug populist attitude that tries to tell people that it's the rich people's fault they are poor. My parents are two very successful lawyers. They pay taxes like everyone else. They are not required to do more, but they do, including giving extensively to charities and helping out in the community, and yet you want more. Last year, they paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. They paid their fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. They're happy to because that's the only way it's going to work, and it's in their best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but they don’t get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to our house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of our faucets twenty-seven times hotter. In 2000, The top one percent of wage earners in the United States paid for twenty-two percent of the country, and while I don't know the exact stats in Canada, where I live, I assume it would be similar. My parents don't mind paying their taxes, but let's not call them names while they're doing it, okay?

I have no problem with you. Your family is not part of the capitalist group by definition. Your parents primary source of income is their labor, as you said, they are well paid lawyers. That just makes them well of members of the proletariat. A capitalist is someone who makes their income primarily off of the ownership of property, like the CEO of a large corporation or the large investors of the US's financial elite. Large property owners are the ones who I have a problem with. They get extremely wealthy off of the labor of other people- your parents included, and the only reason they earn so much is that they own productive property.

I have no problem with you. Your family is not part of the capitalist group by definition. Your parents primary source of income is their labor, as you said, they are well paid lawyers. That just makes them well of members of the proletariat. A capitalist is someone who makes their income primarily off of the ownership of property, like the CEO of a large corporation or the large investors of the US's financial elite. Large property owners are the ones who I have a problem with. They get extremely wealthy off of the labor of other people- your parents included, and the only reason they earn so much is that they own productive property.
It's odd that you mention the large investors. I'm considering becoming an investment banker (that or a tax lawyer). Investors serve a vital function in our society. They look at all the various things that people would like capital for, constructing a dam, curing HIV/AIDS, etc. and decide which one provides the best returns. The ones that provide the best returns, in a capitalist society, are the ones that people like you and me are most willing to spend money on. The items that we as a society are most willing to spend money, in a capitalist society, are the items that we as a society value the most. Therefore, the best returns for the individual investor are provided by the projects that society values the most.

That's why consumer apathy is such a big deal to capitalists like myself. When people stop caring about protecting the environment or labour rights, they start buying from companies with the cheapest goods rather than the ones that are produced morally, which in turn signals to investors that they should invest in companies with immoral but cost-cutting practices. It's tempting to blame investors for the rise of unethical corporations like Walmart, but if you trace the problem right back to the very beginning, it has its roots in the fact that people like you and me talk big and then don't follow through by purchasing from companies that reflect the morals we hold dear.

As for people who own property, they are a lot like artists who write songs. Technically, the song the artist is writing is already out there: an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time would eventually put sounds together in a way that would produce it. The artist merely provides access to that resource for the general public. Similarly, a person who stumbles across land is not claiming he or she created the land. Rather, they are recognizing that they have taken the initiative to uncover the land, and in turn they can provide access to that resource for the general public. It's useful to think of the work that all people do as providing conduits between the resources we have available and the wants and needs that people feel. In return for being such a conduit, they are rewarded.

When land changes hands, say a factory is sold to a new owner, the process is similar to cashing in your lottery winnings (say 10000 dollars a year for twenty years) for a single lump sum. The previous owner has decided it is more valuable for her to have a lump sum of money right now than it is to continue receiving the rewards for being the conduit between the resource of land and the people who use it to make things. By that same token, the new owner has decided that it is more worthwhile for him to give up a single lump sum now in return for the rewards associated with being that conduit. Thus, the land that is in the hands of the elite you are deriding has been obtained through a series of fair transactions that for the most part go back to the individual who took the risk to discover the land in the first place and deserves the reward for uncovering the land and providing it for others.

It's odd that you mention the large investors. I'm considering becoming an investment banker (that or a tax lawyer). Investors serve a vital function in our society. They look at all the various things that people would like capital for, constructing a dam, curing HIV/AIDS, etc. and decide which one provides the best returns. The ones that provide the best returns, in a capitalist society, are the ones that people like you and me are most willing to spend money on. The items that we as a society are most willing to spend money, in a capitalist society, are the items that we as a society value the most. Therefore, the best returns for the individual investor are provided by the projects that society values the most.

But with capitalist investment, here lies the problem. Investments are not made unless a profit can be turned on them. Some things that people want or need are not profitable. There are no cures being developed for HIV because it is far more profitable to delay the disease with expensive anti-virals then it would be to cure in one vaccine.

The assumption that consumers are apathetic and really don't care about corporations ruining the envioronmment is a false assumpiton. In reality, there is no choice. All corporations are almost exactly the same. They deal with problems in the same way. They price products as high as possible, and cut the costs as much as possible. IF the consumer doesn't like it, he/she can turn to another, nearly identical company that follows the same policies. There is no choice for a consumer to support corporations that really do support the environment, or ending job outsourcing. If you lived down here, you'd be apathetic too.

As for people who own property, they are a lot like artists who write songs. Technically, the song the artist is writing is already out there: an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time would eventually put sounds together in a way that would produce it. The artist merely provides access to that resource for the general public. Similarly, a person who stumbles across land is not claiming he or she created the land. Rather, they are recognizing that they have taken the initiative to uncover the land, and in turn they can provide access to that resource for the general public. It's useful to think of the work that all people do as providing conduits between the resources we have available and the wants and needs that people feel. In return for being such a conduit, they are rewarded.

Property owners don't stumble across land. They obtain property so that others can work it in order for the capitalist to make a profit. Capital is completely useless without labor. A shovel cannot dig holes unless there is a worker using the shovel to dig holes. This same concept applies to capital (i.e., productive property). You don't pay your tools for helping you work, so why should property owners be rewarded for merely owning the means of production. In order for a capitalist to make a profit, he must therefore not pay his laborers the true value of their labor. The capitalist gets the surplus value of the labor.

When land changes hands, say a factory is sold to a new owner, the process is similar to cashing in your lottery winnings (say 10000 dollars a year for twenty years) for a single lump sum. The previous owner has decided it is more valuable for her to have a lump sum of money right now than it is to continue receiving the rewards for being the conduit between the resource of land and the people who use it to make things. By that same token, the new owner has decided that it is more worthwhile for him to give up a single lump sum now in return for the rewards associated with being that conduit. Thus, the land that is in the hands of the elite you are deriding has been obtained through a series of fair transactions that for the most part go back to the individual who took the risk to discover the land in the first place and deserves the reward for uncovering the land and providing it for others.

You are assuming that all transactions are done with perfect knowledge, and perfect balance of power. Inevitably, someone has more coercive power, better knowledge about the productivity of capital or the moves of the market, and so in trade, he/she makes a profit off of the others weakness. Capitalists love to talk about the risks involved with property owning, but in reality. If a capitalist mis-estimates, or doesn't make as much profit, he doesn't bite the bullet. More often then not, the result of a capitalist's failure is the laying off of wage laborers. Thus, the laborer, who is far more numerous than the capitalists who employ him/her, pays the price for the capitalist's mistake.

But with capitalist investment, here lies the problem. Investments are not made unless a profit can be turned on them. Some things that people want or need are not profitable. There are no cures being developed for HIV because it is far more profitable to delay the disease with expensive anti-virals then it would be to cure in one vaccine.
That's a common, but untrue, talking point. The first company to come up with a cure for HIV/AIDS has an unmistakable competitive edge over every other pharmaceutical. In addition, any company that treads water on the issue and just develops anti-viral drugs runs the risk of having their whole product line rendered obsolete when somebody really does come up with a cure. It's a misapplication of basic financial analysis to state that it is more profitable to keep people suffering.

The assumption that consumers are apathetic and really don't care about corporations ruining the envioronmment is a false assumpiton. In reality, there is no choice. All corporations are almost exactly the same. They deal with problems in the same way. They price products as high as possible, and cut the costs as much as possible. IF the consumer doesn't like it, he/she can turn to another, nearly identical company that follows the same policies. There is no choice for a consumer to support corporations that really do support the environment, or ending job outsourcing. If you lived down here, you'd be apathetic too.
There is a reason I shop at Safeway rather than Walmart and am trying to convince my dad to buy a Toyota/Lexus rather than a car from another company. These companies make it their business to care about the world, and I'm doing my part by rewarding them for those actions. I imagine we're going to get into a chicken and egg argument, but it's probably best summed up that I believe there are limited options in your country because the people there are apathetic, and you believe that the people in your country are apathetic because there are limited options.

Property owners don't stumble across land. They obtain property so that others can work it in order for the capitalist to make a profit. Capital is completely useless without labor. A shovel cannot dig holes unless there is a worker using the shovel to dig holes. This same concept applies to capital (i.e., productive property). You don't pay your tools for helping you work, so why should property owners be rewarded for merely owning the means of production. In order for a capitalist to make a profit, he must therefore not pay his laborers the true value of their labor. The capitalist gets the surplus value of the labor.
That's another common misconception. Labour is nothing without the various other departments that help it to become value.

Here's something I wrote earlier in the thread:
I know you'll cry foul at me for using this example, but consider for a moment the USSR, because while it was not communist, it does still contain lessons to be learned. The workers at the factories in the USSR were very capable of running the factories. They could produce thousands of light bulbs. If a machine broke down they could order a new one. If they needed more materials they could get a supplier to send them more materials. What they couldn't manage was translating that production into something valuable for society. Thousands of light bulbs would be defective. Thousands more would sit around in warehouses. Why? Because it's not just the workers that make a business.

First, you have your marketing and sales divisions. These people are required in order to make sure that your product actually reaches the hands of those who need it. A product contains no value if no one wants it. If no one knows about it, no one can want it. Consider, if you will, the ancient healer in the Amazon rainforest who knows that crushing a certain root and adding water will cure malaria. Unfortunately, everyone thinks he is crazy. They will not listen when he talks and they will not try anything he has concocted. The genius of the idea alone is not enough to create value. The idea needs people to be aware of its existence before it serves any practical use. Workers might be trained to make light bulbs, but people need to know they are making light bulbs before the light bulbs become worth anything. Before you say that workers can market on their own, consider this: if that were true, current factories would not bother to hire marketing and sales staff.

Next, you have your accounting and finance divisions. These people are required to make sure that you are not wasting resources that could be better used elsewhere. After all, as any environmentalist will tell you, there are a limited amount of resources on this planet, and we need to decide how to allocate them. It's not a good idea to requisition more raw materials to turn into light bulbs when everybody already has a lifetime supply of light bulbs. Similarly, it's not a good idea to requisition materials for candles when everyone is using light bulbs. It goes beyond just that, however. Why would you build another machine for filaments when the bottleneck in production is caused by a shortage in glass making machines? These are the kinds of things that your accounting and finance divisions sort out every day to keep the factory runing both smoothly and efficiently. Before you say that workers can do advanced financing and accounting on their own, consider this: if that were true, current factories would not bother to hire finance and accounting staff.

Finally, you have administration. This is probably the division you have the least respect for. After all, they don't work: they watch other people work and tell them to do better. I might be of the same mind, had I not met the average worker. I work at a grocery store in the deli. I have coworkers, and we have supervisors. If there's one thing I've learned, it is that we need that supervision. For starters, a lot of the people working at my store are just not intelligent people. They need to be told what to do and in what priority because left to their own devices they are not capable of correctly prioritizing on their own. Heck, I can think of numerous examples that I could go into, but I don't want to leave a written record of my discontent with the incompetence of some these people. Sometimes you need smart people around to lead the stupid people, simple as that. Some managers are dumb, admittedly, but they get fired or ignored because they harm productivity. In the end, the smart people set out goals and priorities for other people to follow through on, which is just as valuable as the actual work itself.

You are assuming that all transactions are done with perfect knowledge, and perfect balance of power. Inevitably, someone has more coercive power, better knowledge about the productivity of capital or the moves of the market, and so in trade, he/she makes a profit off of the others weakness. Capitalists love to talk about the risks involved with property owning, but in reality. If a capitalist mis-estimates, or doesn't make as much profit, he doesn't bite the bullet. More often then not, the result of a capitalist's failure is the laying off of wage laborers. Thus, the laborer, who is far more numerous than the capitalists who employ him/her, pays the price for the capitalist's mistake.
First, no I'm not. We make transactions all the time without perfect knowledge. When you hire a lawyer, they likely know whether or not they can get you off the hook, but you do not. By your definition, that puts the lawyer in a position of power. In reality, it does not work like that. The lawyer may have the specialized knowledge, but you have the money. You can choose to hire another lawyer. Similarly, the person who wants to buy your property because they think it would make a wonderful golf course that would make them a lot of money, has no obligation to tell you that they plan to make huge sums of money off of your land, just like you have no obligation to tell them that the patch of land has a nasty tendency to flood like crazy every spring. These are all risk factors that go into the price that you and the person you are trading with agree upon. As for the second part, the labourer does not have a right to work at the plant or factory or wherever. He is working there because the capitalist has a contract with him to work there. They both have the ability to end the contract whenever they so choose. When the capitalist has to lay off workers, however, profits go down, which means less money for the capitalist too.

OK, i havent posted here(or on jolt) in a while, so I'll just answer the original question: the democrats consider the libertarians enemies because they consider them WRONG. There are a few reasons for this:

1. The environment. Not only does libertarianism have no effective way to deal with pollution, it also discourages laws on things that not only does nobody need, but are genuinely idiotic to let people have. I'm talking more about SUVs for everybody than drug laws.

2. Drug laws. The libertarians oppose them and the democrats think that if they didnt exist America would grind to a halt and everyone would be a cokehead and we'd be governed by Colombia.

3. Guns. The libertarians define the right to them as a manifestation of the right to self-defense and a corollary of the right to life, and I have to say I agree with this. But the democrats don't, because they think that they only cause problems, and are in denial about the proven-oh-so-many times fact that general gun ownership reduces the crime rate. Additionally, the minority among minorities, i.e. educated blacks, generally opposes gun ownership because it has given rise to so many modern anti-black stereotypes, and because they are a culture built around exploiting their victimhood. And once someone has guns, they can defend themself, and can no longer claim victim status.

4. Privatizing. The hypocritical democratic hypocritical portion hypocritical of hypocritical Congress hypocritical is hypocritical statist hypocritical and hypocritical generally hypocritical thinks hypocritical that hypocritical private hypocritical enterprise hypocritical does hypocritical far hypocritical more hypocritical harm hypocritical than hypocritical good hypocritical for hypocritical society. hypocritical This hypocritical is hypocritical of hypocritical course hypocritical totally hypocritical hypocritical hypocritical when hypocritical you hypocritical look hypocritical at hypocritical people hypocritical like hypocritical John hypocritical Kerry. hypocritical

I'll post others later, because I have to leave now.

And once someone has guns, they can defend themself, and can no longer claim victim status.Of course you can still be a victim and have a gun; if you're carrying a concealed weapon and someone shoots you, you're still a victim of murder.

4. Privatizing. The hypocritical democratic hypocritical portion hypocritical of hypocritical Congress hypocritical is hypocritical statist hypocritical and hypocritical generally hypocritical thinks hypocritical that hypocritical private hypocritical enterprise hypocritical does hypocritical far hypocritical more hypocritical harm hypocritical than hypocritical good hypocritical for hypocritical society. hypocritical This hypocritical is hypocritical of hypocritical course hypocritical totally hypocritical hypocritical hypocritical when hypocritical you hypocritical look hypocritical at hypocritical people hypocritical like hypocritical John hypocritical Kerry. hypocritical Perhaps Kerry is one of the ones who doesn't think this? (You did say 'generally')

They don't really like Republicans or Democrats. Both of those parties want to spend tax dollars telling you how to live your life.

Either they want to spend tax dollars taking away your guns, or taking away your right to have an abortion.

Libertarians aren't big on telling you how to live your life.
I like to think we're the most chilled-out party. I almost can't imagine what the US would be like if we took control. I feel there'd be a lot of "When'd they start selling opium at 7-11?", but that'd subside eventually.

1. Gay Marriage and the Patriot act have nothing to do with each other...so I dont know why you stuck that in there.

2. I will bet you $1,000,000 that a Right Wing Economy..a free market..is more important to Libertarians in a country than Gay Marraige. I guarantee you.
Dude. You owe that guy a million bucks. Were you at the Libertarian Party National Convention in Portland, or did you miss that one? From the speeches I heard and the people I met, Gay Marriage was way more important than our economic policy. In the gracd scheme of things, we believe that people will be more ready to accept total economic freedom once they've been exposed to total social freedom.

First of all I'm not old enough to vote, and second of all, I'm perfectly happy with American voting and having the Conservatives in power.:)
I'm of the opinion that if you're one of the following:
Unable to vote
Eligible to vote, but don't
You need to shush. If you don't vote, you're perpetuating so many different things, ruining our system of government, etc. If you can't vote, it's with good reason. You're either a felon, mentally incapable, or too young. You're the third, and you're annoying the adults. You know, the ones who aren't the legal property of someone else, and can do cool things like smoke, gamble, and actually choose our government. So, why don't you run along and watch some more Digimon or some such shit?

One such natural difference would be a difference in intellect. Some people are geniuses. Others are mentally challenged. Can you honestly tell me that in nature a mentally challenged person would be just as likely to survive as a genius?

No. So? "Nature," if it is defined as lacking any kind of social structure whatsoever (as you seem to be using it), is not only unnatural for human beings but would also severely impede our welfare and freedom.

Property owners don't stumble across land. They obtain property so that others can work it in order for the capitalist to make a profit. Capital is completely useless without labor. A shovel cannot dig holes unless there is a worker using the shovel to dig holes. This same concept applies to capital (i.e., productive property). You don't pay your tools for helping you work, so why should property owners be rewarded for merely owning the means of production. In order for a capitalist to make a profit, he must therefore not pay his laborers the true value of their labor. The capitalist gets the surplus value of the labor.

But even if the workers possessed the capital necessary to start, say, a factory on their own, they still would benefit from using that of the capitalist.

Firstly, there's the matter of time preference. By using her money to buy a factory, the capitalist pays the opportunity cost of not being able to use it to buy something else - say, a new house. Any pleasure she will get from the house is delayed; she will likely have to wait for years (at least if she wants to make a decent profit) before she can sell the factory and use the money to buy that house. Most people prefer to have their desires fulfilled sooner rather than later. The workers might prefer to use the money they could use to buy a factory on some immediate pleasure instead, and the capitalist offers them an opportunity to do precisely that.

Secondly, there's the matter of risk. When the capitalist invests there is always the possibility that the business in which she invests will fail, and she will lose her money. The workers, however, have no such risk. They may lose their jobs, but since they have not invested their money in the company, their loss is less, if the business fails, than it would be it they owned it and kept the profits for themselves.

To both of these benefits can be attached a material value. A worker could conceivably be willing to make less money, and thus provide what Marx calls "surplus-value" to the capitalist, in trade for the lack of risk and delay. That is not exploitation; there is absolutely nothing unjust about it. It is simply a free exchange that may well be between equals. Because it is impossible to know the exact value a given person will put on these benefits, the mere existence of profit, at any quantity, cannot be necessarily attributed to exploitation. There is no "true value" of labor that can be expressed in monetary terms; it is subjective.

It is quite true that in the actual labor market, it does not work this way; pre-existing inequalities in wealth and power tend to make the exchange unfair and exploitative. That is one reason why capitalism is an abominable economic system that should be abolished. Nevertheless, the mere existence of profit is not a confirmation of this truth.

If you can't vote, it's with good reason. You're either a felon, mentally incapable, or too young. You're the third, and you're annoying the adults. You know, the ones who aren't the legal property of someone else, and can do cool things like smoke, gamble, and actually choose our government. So, why don't you run along and watch some more Digimon or some such shit?

If you really think people who can't vote because of age are "too young" to have sensible political views, it should be quite easy to pick them apart. If you think he's wrong, demonstrate it instead of unnecessarily making broad generalizations regarding the capability of people under 18.

No. So? "Nature," if it is defined as lacking any kind of social structure whatsoever (as you seem to be using it), is not only unnatural for human beings but would also severely impede our welfare and freedom.
Then what did you mean when you said it?

Then what did you mean when you said it?

I said that inequality was a social choice. And it is.

Asking what happens independent of any kind of society is irrelevant; human beings do not live alone in the wilderness, and never have.

I said that inequality was a social choice. And it is.
1) Could you expand on that?
2) What's the difference between a social choice and a choice?

1) Could you expand on that?

Inequality is the decision of people in a society to give somebody privileges denied to others for some reason.

2) What's the difference between a social choice and a choice?

It's a choice society makes.

A minor disclaimer: The concepts of what rights are natural or what society constitutes or for that matter any concepts that are notably cerebral are not my strong suit, so please bear with me if I ask stupid questions:

Inequality is the decision of people in a society to give somebody privileges denied to others for some reason.
Wait, I'm getting confused. When I said that inequalities exist in nature, you said that we weren't talking about nature. You didn't say I was wrong. In fact, there's a very good case to be made that some people are naturally smarter, stronger, more adaptable, etc. than others, which even without society condoning it or condeming it would lead to inequality. As soon as you accept that, it becomes apparent that society is not the ultimate gatekeeper in whether or not inequality exists, but rather a passive observer that documents such inequality.

It's a choice society makes.
I've never understood the treatment of society as a separate entity from the individuals that make it up. I mean, I faked it well enough for an A+ in Intro Sociology, but it's really never really held much import to me.

A minor disclaimer: The concepts of what rights are natural or what society constitutes or for that matter any concepts that are notably cerebral are not my strong suit, so please bear with me if I ask stupid questions:

Your questions have been fine so far.

Wait, I'm getting confused. When I said that inequalities exist in nature, you said that we weren't talking about nature. You didn't say I was wrong. In fact, there's a very good case to be made that some people are naturally smarter, stronger, more adaptable, etc. than others, which even without society condoning it or condeming it would lead to inequality. As soon as you accept that, it becomes apparent that society is not the ultimate gatekeeper in whether or not inequality exists, but rather a passive observer that documents such inequality.

But human beings are not situated in nature. We are situated in society. The privileges we enjoy - property rights, political power, social esteem, opportunities - tend to be socially enforced or socially based rather than natural. It is true that if you have two individuals living on opposite sides of the planet, and one is a physically fit genius and the other a weakling of below-average intelligence, the physically fit genius will have a much higher standard of living. That is not, however, how human beings live.

Even in the most primitive of societies, the notion that "what I gather and kill is mine" is a social choice as opposed to a natural imposition. It requires a notion of property rights - if I gather these berries, I have the exclusive right to them. Somehow, society - not nature - enforces that exclusive right.

Furthermore, in liberal capitalist societies different traits are used as sources of inequality than would apply in nature.

I've never understood the treatment of society as a separate entity from the individuals that make it up. I mean, I faked it well enough for an A+ in Intro Sociology, but it's really never really held much import to me.

A society is the individuals that make it up, plus the relationships between them and the institutions they create.

But human beings are not situated in nature. We are situated in society. The privileges we enjoy - property rights, political power, social esteem, opportunities - tend to be socially enforced or socially based rather than natural. It is true that if you have two individuals living on opposite sides of the planet, and one is a physically fit genius and the other a weakling of below-average intelligence, the physically fit genius will have a much higher standard of living. That is not, however, how human beings live.

Even in the most primitive of societies, the notion that "what I gather and kill is mine" is a social choice as opposed to a natural imposition. It requires a notion of property rights - if I gather these berries, I have the exclusive right to them. Somehow, society - not nature - enforces that exclusive right.

Furthermore, in liberal capitalist societies different traits are used as sources of inequality than would apply in nature.
Don't plenty of animals claim property as their own though? Wolves, lions, others that I can't think of at the moment...

Isn't the only difference that society brought some civility to the process by enforcing the naturally occuring phenomenon in a way that tries to prevent violent acquisitions of territory?

What traits are used as sources of inequality in liberal capitalist societies?

A society is the individuals that make it up, plus the relationships between them and the institutions they create.
So when you say social choice, you mean the choice of a significant enough number of the the individuals in society that opposition to that choice is ignored or repressed?

Don't plenty of animals claim property as their own though? Wolves, lions, others that I can't think of at the moment...

They use things, and protect them from those who might interfere with that use, so in a sense, yes.

Isn't the only difference that society brought some civility to the process by enforcing the naturally occuring phenomenon in a way that tries to prevent violent acquisitions of territory?

The "naturally occuring phenomenon" involves and has always involved the violent (or at the very least forcible) acquisitions of territory. Indeed, it is in large part based on the principle. By replacing this system with a codified one where disputes are resolved by reference to the rules rather than violence, property becomes a socially-guaranteed right.

What traits are used as sources of inequality in liberal capitalist societies?

Intelligence, charisma, and other kinds of "socially useful" talents are privileged way above the physical fitness that would be essential in an individual living alone in the wilderness.

So when you say social choice, you mean the choice of a significant enough number of the the individuals in society that opposition to that choice is ignored or repressed?

More or less, yes.

Okay.

An exhausting torrent of single-sentence responses, characteristic of someone who is not paying attention to me and has no perceivable desire to do so.

Seeing as how our debate has devolved [for you at least] to one party "responding" to the other without much in the way of clarification or moral backing, I believe the time has come for me to take my leave of this discussion. I'm fairly certain that the readers have already drawn the necessary conclusions, and given the political climate of these fora, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the majority of them end up agreeing with you despite the sophistry you have ceaselessly deployed against me above and in the previous pages of this thread.

In closing, I would like to present [for the reader, not so much for Soheran since he clearly does not understand them] my basic philosophical outline for labor and its rewards, since it may have gotten lost in the course of our discussion:

--We only are alive for a relatively short amount of time. Presumably, this time [since it represents our lives] is of value to us.

--Labor represents the time you take out of your life to provide a service to others. It is not time spent lounging around or socializing; this is why it's work. It usually has the function of creating something or perpetuating a system that does, be it a product or service [goods].

--If time = life, then there should be no exception when an individual enters the workplace.
---Therefore, it is immoral to deprive the laborer of his right to be a negotiating party when the issue of his wage is discussed. Thus, the only legitimate value of labor is decided via a consensus of the worker and his employer. No third party has the right to tell either of them what he should work for; or pay out to his workers.

--Wages are the direct manifestation of time spent at work. It is an exchange made voluntarily between both the employer and the employee, since in many industries the worker has little or no use for the products he actually makes.
---Therefore, any attempt to seperate the worker from his salary [or any portion thereof] amounts to a theft of his time--which, as indicated by the axioms above, is essentially his life. Taxes and wealth redistribution programs thus earn the status they deserve as thoroughly evil.

I'm fairly certain that the readers have already drawn the necessary conclusions, and given the political climate of these fora, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the majority of them end up agreeing with you despite the sophistry you have ceaselessly deployed against me above and in the previous pages of this thread.
Rubbish. You have always "debated" in a very aggressive fashion.

Rubbish. You have always "debated" in a very aggressive fashion.
Aggressiveness trumps sophistry in a debate any day. One's aggressiveness [or lack thereof] has precisely no bearing when it comes to the validity of one's points. I'll freely admit that I'm aggressive: it's my style.

It doesn't make me wrong.