NationStates Jolt Archive

Now the question for the socialists is, if they could not sell their ideas to the people in this manner, is their idea worth selling?

Yes.

Rich people do not have exclusive power to determine good and evil.

I just had an amusing thought. You will have to run on a hypothetical with me here.

Imagine a country which had progressed to anarcho-capitalism. All government services are provided by a competing freemarket of private firms. Including welfare. A thriving industry has developed around voluntary charity (not unlike it already has today). Charity firms spend billions of dollars advertising their cause, convincing consumers of the need to donate. The Charity firms compete with each other each trying to outmatch the developement of social capital of the other, then touting their higher points to potential customers.

Now let us say there is a strong social shift in favour towards the altruistic principles of socialism and benefit for all. However, there is no longer a government to hijack towards meeting the goals of the socialists. So instead they start preaching their vision to the general public (not at all unlike a religion trying to source converts). Lets say that the populace is quite receptive to the ideas of the socialists. Then more and more people will voluntarily donate their income towards welfare firms providing very competitive and efficient social developement.

Suddenly you have mainstream consensual socialism. In a capitalist market. Now the question for the socialists is, if they could not sell their ideas to the people in this manner, is their idea worth selling? Or to put it in a more straightforward phrasing, If you ideaology is truly the best than it shall find prominence in anarcho-capitalism. If, however, it is not than it shall be rejected by the market. Should this be the case, would that not mean that a society of the most concievably free people on earth made a verdict upon your 'pitch'. To continue to pursue it, would surely be an acknowledgement of your disdain for the idea that people know what is best for themselves, the founding concept of self-ownership and all negative rights.

So it seems that the question is not whether or not we can buy socialism, but whether or not you can sell it.

my communist squirel friend won't share:(

Conceivably it could - but it's a no sale for me.

Not rich people. The market as a whole.

So?

Why should we subject our economic policy to the decisions of those with the money... especially when the whole point is to ensure that the economy is NOT run by those with the money?

Yes.

Rich people do not have exclusive power to determine good and evil.
Not rich people. The market as a whole. That includes high, middle, and low income earners. Remember that these 'charity firms' would be targeting the middle-lower echelons of society, as that is where the vast majority of disposable income is.

So?

Why should we subject our economic policy to the decisions of those with the money... Firstly, there would be no economic 'policy' per se, as there is no government to adminster a policy. Now, the reason the economy should be in the hands of those 'with money' is because money is simply liquid capital. The economy should be in the hands of those 'with capital' because.. well because it is a capitalist market. Remember, that the fundamental unit of capital is not the dollar, but a human being. As such, in some basic way, everyone possesses capital. That is why the economy should be in the hands of those who possess capital. (as opposed to being in the hands of those who possess political power, sometimes a blurry line admittedly). especially when the whole point is to ensure that the economy is NOT run by those with the money? Supplanting the word 'money' for 'capital', that assertation is absurd. I would assume the 'point' of the economy would be the production, provision and distribution of goods and services. How this is done varies from system to system, but rarely impacts upon the primary goal (except in the case of a systematic failure).

the middle-lower echelons of society, as that is where the vast majority of disposable income is.

are you sure about that?

Conceivably it could - but it's a no sale for me.
Likewise.

The economy should be in the hands of those 'with capital' because.. well because it is a capitalist market.

That's why we want to destroy the capitalist market... not try in vain to make it resemble socialism.

As such, in some basic way, everyone possesses capital.

So?

That is why the economy should be in the hands of those who possess capital.

Some people, obviously, possess more capital than others... indeed, in modern capitalist economies, the super-rich possess the vast majority of it. So put the economy into the hands of those with capital, and you put it into the hands of rich. The objective of socialism is to put it in the hands of EVERYONE.

Even if the rich are generous with their money, why should we let our projects be contingent on their approval?

(as opposed to being in the hands of those who possess political power, sometimes a blurry line admittedly).

Virtually always a blurry line. And using hired gangs for law enforcement is not going to help in that respect. You're not abolishing the state... you're privatizing it. Political power, and abuses of political power, will remain.

Supplanting the word 'money' for 'capital', that assertation is absurd. I would assume the 'point' of the economy would be the production, provision and distribution of goods and services.

Obviously that is the point of THE ECONOMY, generally speaking.

I am talking about the point of the socialist transformation of the economy.

I just had an amusing thought. You will have to run on a hypothetical with me here.

Imagine a country which had progressed to anarcho-capitalism. All government services are provided by a competing freemarket of private firms. Including welfare. A thriving industry has developed around voluntary charity (not unlike it already has today). Charity firms spend billions of dollars advertising their cause, convincing consumers of the need to donate. The Charity firms compete with each other each trying to outmatch the developement of social capital of the other, then touting their higher points to potential customers.

Now let us say there is a strong social shift in favour towards the altruistic principles of socialism and benefit for all. However, there is no longer a government to hijack towards meeting the goals of the socialists. So instead they start preaching their vision to the general public (not at all unlike a religion trying to source converts). Lets say that the populace is quite receptive to the ideas of the socialists. Then more and more people will voluntarily donate their income towards welfare firms providing very competitive and efficient social developement.

Suddenly you have mainstream consensual socialism. In a capitalist market. Now the question for the socialists is, if they could not sell their ideas to the people in this manner, is their idea worth selling? Or to put it in a more straightforward phrasing, If you ideaology is truly the best than it shall find prominence in anarcho-capitalism. If, however, it is not than it shall be rejected by the market. Should this be the case, would that not mean that a society of the most concievably free people on earth made a verdict upon your 'pitch'. To continue to pursue it, would surely be an acknowledgement of your disdain for the idea that people know what is best for themselves, the founding concept of self-ownership and all negative rights.

So it seems that the question is not whether or not we can buy socialism, but whether or not you can sell it.

I think the best case would be a market-neutral Anarchism, in which those who wish to participate in the market may do so and those who wish to form communal non-market networks may do so.

The economy should be in the hands of those 'with capital' because.. well because it is a capitalist market.

not in socialism, which is the intended 'sell'

I think the best case would be a market-neutral Anarchism, in which those who wish to participate in the market may do so and those who wish to form communal non-market networks may do so.
I agree.

in which those who wish to participate in the market may do so and those who wish to form communal non-market networks may do so.

The relevant question is, do we leave major property-owners alone, or not?

If you do, you hamstring any attempt at libertarian socialism from the start, because the distribution of capital remains essentially capitalist.

are you sure about that?

Yes. What would rather be selling. Ferraris or Toyotas? Mansions or 1 bedroom units? Diamond rings or silver ear studs?

The money is in the masses.

Yes. What would rather be selling. Ferraris or Toyotas? Mansions or 1 bedroom units? Diamond rings or silver ear studs?

Only here we are not dealing with consumer goods, but with capital invested in the means of production (for how else do you presume to switch to worker ownership of the means of production?)

There, the distribution is radically slanted toward the super-rich.

To continue to pursue it, would surely be an acknowledgement of your disdain for the idea that people know what is best for themselves, the founding concept of self-ownership and all negative rights.

A laughably false dichotomy.

The money is in the masses.

laughable

That's why we want to destroy the capitalist market... not try in vain to make it resemble socialism. The only difference between my hypothetical and 'actual' socialism is that mine is voluntary. Rather than focibly tax people for the benefit of society, why not sell them the idea? To the average man, it will be a way to feel better aout his worthless self, but to the super rich, in addition to this, there is the very real economic benefit of lifting entire markets out of poverty.

Some people, obviously, possess more capital than others... indeed, in modern capitalist economies, the super-rich possess the vast majority of it. I contest. The super-rich possess vast capital, but the vast majority of capital lies in the masses. Remember, untapped capital is still capital nonetheless. If this were not the case, the average person would not be bombarded with advertising. Instead you would find all market focus on the few select 'upmarket' districts. Collectively, the masses possess far more capital than all of the super-rich put together. This is also why the super-rich few are at the mercy of the masses. The moment the super-wealthy corporations no longer meet the demands of the people, they are left to rot. It is like a virtual guarantee of loyalty (provided there is competition). What the people get may not be good, for many reasons, but it will ultimately be what they asked for. So put the economy into the hands of those with capital, and you put it into the hands of rich. The objective of socialism is to put it in the hands of EVERYONE. Let us clarify, the economy is not something one demographic or entity can truly control (not the market economy, command economies, though infinitely inferior, can be 'owned'). As such, nobody will dominate or own it. The most one can hope for is a popular influence. This is why it is important that a near total proportion of the population possesses capital (a body), for with this capital they hold a real and tangible check to the vast money-power of those that benefit from that capital (including themselves). In this system, the economy would be, for the first time, truly in the hands of everyone (except the unfortunate few who are completely and helplessly retarded). If people wanted socialism, they could have it. If they wanted dog eat dog capitalism, they can have that too. If they want to be protected by trained hippopotomuses, they can have that. Everybody's greed for their desires creates a morbid equilibrium wherein all can be satiated.

Even if the rich are generous with their money, why should we let our projects be contingent on their approval? Remember, the rich will not be the focus of these projects so much as the masses and masses of middle-classers. Why should your plans be contingent on their approval? Because your plans can only come to fruition by the fuel of the capital they provide (money or labour). A fundamental ideaology to which we adhere for (largely) economic expediency is that of human rights, particularly the right to self-ownership, which leads to self-determination. What I do with my body is my choice. Now if you forcibly take money from me without my consent you are essentially contraveneing this fundamental right (without even going into property, because I know you have issues with that too). If my money is a liquid representation of the capital I possess, and all capital is ultimately sourced from my sole insturment of capital (my body) to take my money is to infringe upon my right to do what I will with my body. It is simply abstracted by representative currency. To simplify, to make a man build a bridge for you without his consent is slavery. To steal a lumberjack's wood to build a bridge (forgetting theft) is slavery, because you are making him cut trees (labour) for your benefit without his consent. To forcibly tax an individual's money to build a bridge (perhaps for the benefit of all) is slavery, for the accrual of capital in labour that created this money was forcefully misdirected towards your bridge. If you tax me 29% of my wage to build this bridge, I might as well stop doing 29% of my work and go to work building your bridge (apart from reasons of efficiency). However this could all be solved by a simple voluntary agreement on my behalf to fund the bridge. If you cannot get me to agree, then your bridge is not worth building... to me. Even if I don't use the bridge, you might still convince me to pay for it, but you would need a good reason. Thus springs philanthrocapitalism, and the idea of convincing people that it is a good idea to donate to charities.




Virtually always a blurry line. And using hired gangs for law enforcement is not going to help in that respect. You're not abolishing the state... you're privatizing it. Political power, and abuses of political power, will remain.This is true. I am not abolishing the state, I am selling it's market share (total) to an unlimited private market. This in effect fragments what was once 'the state' into countless unrelated smaller competing firms. Political power cannot exist anymore, as there is no administration of policies in which to have influence. However, there is an increased capacity for money-power. I think what you mean is corruption will remain. This I agree with, but note that corruption within an economic entity which is economically accountable via a market does not impact negatively upon anyone in the economy. As long as everyone and thing is in the economy, one could say corruption is no longer a bad thing, but merely another form of business.

Obviously that is the point of THE ECONOMY, generally speaking.

I am talking about the point of the socialist transformation of the economy.Right. However, I am asking if it is possible to reduce and dissolve the economy to such a point that it no longer is possible to manipulate it to infringe upon others' rights (through the sheer decentralised nature of a stateless market), and then be turned to altruistic goals (once it is immune from corrupt government commissars). This, as I understand is the inverse approach to increasing the unity of the economy until there is only one economic unit (being the government) with the ultimate hope of phasing it out all together.

The only difference between my hypothetical and 'actual' socialism is that mine is voluntary.

The masters voluntarily cede their power, yes.

So?

Rather than focibly tax people for the benefit of society, why not sell them the idea?

I've told you why already.

to the super rich, in addition to this, there is the very real economic benefit of lifting entire markets out of poverty.

Socialism calls for a classless society... it isn't, and will never be, to the economic benefit of the super-rich.

I contest. The super-rich possess vast capital, but the vast majority of capital lies in the masses.

Have you seen any statistics on the distribution of wealth recently? :rolleyes:

The moment the super-wealthy corporations no longer meet the demands of the people, they are left to rot.

Because unemployment is such a great option?

Let us clarify, the economy is not something one demographic or entity can truly control (not the market economy, command economies, though infinitely inferior, can be 'owned'). As such, nobody will dominate or own it.

What wishful thinking.

The people who control the means of production and distribution pretty clearly dominate any economy.

This is why it is important that a near total proportion of the population possesses capital (a body), for with this capital they hold a real and tangible check to the vast money-power of those that benefit from that capital (including themselves).

"Real" and "tangible", maybe... but not very effective.

In this system, the economy would be, for the first time, truly in the hands of everyone

But not on equal terms.

The people with the actual power over the economy will remain the super-rich.

Remember, the rich will not be the focus of these projects so much as the masses and masses of middle-classers.

Then the projects will fail.

"Why should we live in the poverty of your utopian dream when we can make more at Wal-Mart?"

A fundamental ideaology to which we adhere for (largely) economic expediency is that of human rights, particularly the right to self-ownership, which leads to self-determination. What I do with my body is my choice. Now if you forcibly take money from me without my consent you are essentially contraveneing this fundamental right (without even going into property, because I know you have issues with that too). If my money is a liquid representation of the capital I possess, and all capital is ultimately sourced from my sole insturment of capital (my body) to take my money is to infringe upon my right to do what I will with my body.

This is nonsense.

Self-ownership requires that the choice of when and how to allocate one's labor is free (a freedom contravened by capitalist property, but that is another discussion), not that all of my property is inviolable.

To simplify, to make a man build a bridge for you without his consent is slavery.

Maybe. I'll give you that.

To steal a lumberjack's wood to build a bridge (forgetting theft) is slavery, because you are making him cut trees (labour) for your benefit without his consent.

No, that is not at all the same thing.

The lumberjack CHOSE to cut the wood. I didn't make him.

If you tax me 29% of my wage to build this bridge, I might as well stop doing 29% of my work and go to work building your bridge (apart from reasons of efficiency).

So?

You still choose where you work, and how you work... and you knew from the start that your labor would be taxed. You made your choice anyway.

You have the right to free allocation of labor... but not to whatever you may consider to be its "product." That is not assumed in self-determination.

This is true. I am not abolishing the state, I am selling it's market share (total) to an unlimited private market. This in effect fragments what was once 'the state' into countless unrelated smaller competing firms. Political power cannot exist anymore, as there is no administration of policies in which to have influence.

Um, yeah, there is.

Companies have policies too.

Right. However, I am asking if it is possible to reduce and dissolve the economy to such a point that it no longer is possible to manipulate it to infringe upon others' rights (through the sheer decentralised nature of a stateless market),

No.

and then be turned to altruistic goals (once it is immune from corrupt government commissars).

Economic altruism when the economy is defined by market exchange is a rare commodity.

That is one of the reasons the market is a fundamentally depraved abomination... but that is a discussion for another day.

This, as I understand is the inverse approach to increasing the unity of the economy until there is only one economic unit (being the government) with the ultimate hope of phasing it out all together.

I am not a Leninist.

The relevant question is, do we leave major property-owners alone, or not?

Depends if they are natural persons or not, and how "coporate personhood" is dealt with.

If you do, you hamstring any attempt at libertarian socialism from the start, because the distribution of capital remains essentially capitalist.

An across the board corporate death penalty and proper prossecution of "corporate" criminals would be a major step towards a just market.

An across the board corporate death penalty

Wow. Could you elaborate?

I'm assuming you don't mean execute everyone who works for a corporation, that'd be a bit savage. And you can't execute a corporation, no matter what it does, since it doesn't exist in any 'real' way.

So you must be talking about executing a representative of said corporation if that corporation (as an entity) is found to be responsible of a capital crime (murder I'd assume)? But a corporation can't be guilty of murder, only individuals can be held responsible for their actions and an individual found guilty of a capital crime (in a jurisdiction in which the death penalty still exists) would already face execution, wouldn't they?

So, in short, WTF?!

Wow. Could you elaborate?

Sure. "Execute" the un-natural corporate "persons" by revoking their charters and "personhood" privilages.

Here's an article that goes ionto more detail: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1810

I'm assuming you don't mean execute everyone who works for a corporation, that'd be a bit savage.

Not at all. Not I'm calling for a Corporate death penalty, not one for natural persons.

And you can't execute a corporation, no matter what it does, since it doesn't exist in any 'real' way.

Certainly you can. As above, revoke the charter and deprive the corporation of it's legal fiction of personhood.

So you must be talking about executing a representative of said corporation if that corporation (as an entity) is found to be responsible of a capital crime (murder I'd assume)?

Not of a corporation, as corporations will be "dead". But in the case where the owners are found to have commited misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance, the owners (ans that includes stock holders) ought to be held accountable. No limited liability.

But a corporation can't be guilty of murder, only individuals can be held responsible for their actions and an individual found guilty of a capital crime (in a jurisdiction in which the death penalty still exists) would already face execution, wouldn't they?

Sure they can. Unfortunately, current US and common law essentially does nothing to enforce what limited statutes there are for Corporate Manslaughter or Homocide.

So, in short, WTF?!

In short, Corporate death penalty, not natural persons. I hold an anti-corporate free-mrarket stance, in which I hold current corporate structures to inhibit free and just market stucturing.

Sure, but why should we want to? I don't oppose convincing people that communism will work for them and that they should voluntarily choose it, but this manner would be more difficult than others.

To the average man, it will be a way to feel better aout his worthless self, but to the super rich, in addition to this, there is the very real economic benefit of lifting entire markets out of poverty.There isn't going to be an economic benefit to the super rich in socialism, since their wealth will be redistributed.

This is also why the super-rich few are at the mercy of the masses. The moment the super-wealthy corporations no longer meet the demands of the people, they are left to rot.Until they create more demands for the masses, that is. (i.e. Advertising)

A fundamental ideaology to which we adhere for (largely) economic expediency is that of human rights, particularly the right to self-ownership, which leads to self-determination. Who is 'we'?

Have you seen any statistics on the distribution of wealth recently? :rolleyes:

or ever?

since market anarchy is not the most conceivably free society there is the question is irrelevant. when people are slaves to marketing psychology and their livelihoods are destroyed and made at the whims of their employers they cannot make reasonably informed choices.

The masters voluntarily cede their power, yes.
If you mean by 'masters', 'capitalists' and by 'capitalist's you mean 'those who own the means to production', and by 'those who own the means to production' you mean every person with a working mind and/or body. Then yes, the 'masters' (i.e. general public) voluntarily cede their power.

I've told you why already. So tell me again.

Socialism calls for a classless society... it isn't, and will never be, to the economic benefit of the super-rich. I would say that the pursuit of a classless society by manipulating the primary aspect upon which these socially percieved classes are built (wealth) is folly. If you really want to chase the rainbow of equality, you should probably go after peoples' inequality of perception, not the specific way in which this habit manifests itself. Prior to capitalism, classes were based upon the integrity of your bloodline. Apart from that, classes have been based upon intelligence, race, strength, respect, skill, divinity (percieved). Now it is all about wealth (and the consequences thereof). Stop trying to mop the water, and start trying to turn off the tap (not that you can, but that is where your efforts should be directed).

Have you seen any statistics on the distribution of wealth recently? :rolleyes:[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Because unemployment is such a great option? Right, it sucks for both parties, the company needs to find and train someone else, and the worker needs to find and be trained somewhere else. You have to remember 'workers' as they are called are no different to the capitalists they work for. They are capitalists who own a means to production (their body, time and skills) which they trade in return for money. If I wanted to be petty, I could say the workers hold the corporations at ransom by owning the means to production. The poor corporations are being expolited! [/Sarcasm] There is no exploitation in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.

What wishful thinking.You are accusing me of wishful thinking?? :confused:

The people who control the means of production and distribution pretty clearly dominate any economy. Right. That is everyone, by default. Everyone controls a means to production.

"Real" and "tangible", maybe... but not very effective. It is effective as they make it. A man who only knows how to dig holes possesses a lot less capital than if he learned how to operate a bobcat, or even less again than if he learned how to make one. If you adapt your skills to the demands of the market, you will never have a problem selling access to your means of production. If you are a labourer, and there are millions of other labourers who can do your job just as well as you, and the market does not demand labourers due to oversupply, then you have a choice; learn to do something people need, or shake your fist in the air at 'the system'. Companies who fail to market themselves to the demands of the economy also suffer. Workers are not special.



But not on equal terms. Again, if you want to defet inequality, you should chase that rainbow at the root of the problem (i.e. perception of inequality), not the manifestation (The way in which we percieve inequality).

The people with the actual power over the economy will remain the super-rich. Wrong. The people who create the most demand for goods and services will share *actual power*. Unfortunately the wealthy few cannot match the average masses in demand, so they will have to continue bitching that they "don't make things like they used to" while the rest of the market gets cheap and efficient goods and services.

Then the projects will fail.

"Why should we live in the poverty of your utopian dream when we can make more at Wal-Mart?" That is your job as a socialist. Convince people that social welfare is worthwhile. If they don't agree, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

This is nonsense.

Self-ownership requires that the choice of when and how to allocate one's labor is free (a freedom contravened by capitalist property, but that is another discussion), not that all of my property is inviolable. I am not suggesting all property is inviolable. I am saying the fruits of your labour (usually liquid capital i.e. money) is inviolable as it is a direct representation of the work you have done. To take it is no different (except in abstraction) to forcing someone to work for you as a slave.

Maybe. I'll give you that.Ok. Good we have common ground. Forcing a man to work for you is slavery.

No, that is not at all the same thing.

The lumberjack CHOSE to cut the wood. I didn't make him.However the lumberjack chose to cut the wood for whatsoever reasons he chose (perhaps to build a toilet, or to burn for warmth, or to grind and eat, whatever). By taking the wood you are essentially going back in time and telling him to cut wood for you bridge as a slave. Just because you do it later doesn't change the fact that the lumberjack cut that wood for your bridge when he didn't want to. Also remember whatever wood you take he will have to go and cut again.

You still choose where you work, and how you work... and you knew from the start that your labor would be taxed. You made your choice anyway. So if the lumberjack knows that there is a gang of bandits 'taxing' local residents for their own projects, it is his fault for cutting the wood if it gets 'taxed', and he has implicitly given conset to them 'taxing' it simply by cutting the said wood with knowledge that they do this? I disagree, Soheran. I would have to say that knowledge of something doesn't equate to acceptance and provision of consent. Likewise, the failure to struggle does not equate to consent either. Remember we are not talking about money as property here, but as abstracted representation of your work. To take it without consent is to take work without consent. Slavery.

You have the right to free allocation of labor... but not to whatever you may consider to be its "product." That is not assumed in self-determination. So the lumberjack has not right to any of the wood he cuts? Why cut it at all? Why tax him 29% when you can, tax him 100%? It's not his wood. May I ask, if the lumberjack does not have rights to the wood he cuts, who does?

Um, yeah, there is.

Companies have policies too. However this is irrelevant, as not company has a monopoly on domestic affairs anymore. Who cares what a company's policies are (apart from the shareholders) when all of it's competitiors have seperate policies. Policy will not longer be a public concern. There will no longer even be a 'public'. Everything will be a private matter.

Economic altruism when the economy is defined by market exchange is a rare commodity. Indeed, as the driving force of all transactions is a mutually beneficial exchange. What does someone gain by donating to a money that provides loans to students, or counselling to single mothers, or housing for orphans? I say two things. 1- self gratification. 2- real benefit from living in a society which will be improved by your contribution to it.

That is one of the reasons the market is a fundamentally depraved abomination... but that is a discussion for another day. I find it fascinating.

I am not a Leninist.Noted.

You can't buy an idea.

Unless it's electronic.

It's not sellable because if Socialists had their way, everything would be provided by the government.

If you mean by 'masters', 'capitalists' and by 'capitalist's you mean 'those who own the means to production', and by 'those who own the means to production' you mean every person with a working mind and/or body. Then yes, the 'masters' (i.e. general public) voluntarily cede their power.

You equivocate.

So tell me again.

Some people, obviously, possess more capital than others... indeed, in modern capitalist economies, the super-rich possess the vast majority of it. So put the economy into the hands of those with capital, and you put it into the hands of rich. The objective of socialism is to put it in the hands of EVERYONE.

Even if the rich are generous with their money, why should we let our projects be contingent on their approval?

Those are my exact words from a prior post that addressed this question... I'm sorry, I'm lazy. :)

I would say that the pursuit of a classless society by manipulating the primary aspect upon which these socially percieved classes are built (wealth) is folly.

You misunderstand the notion of a classless society.

We are not talking about abolishing "socially perceived" classes... we are talking about abolishing actual classes, actual inequality.

Now it is all about wealth (and the consequences thereof).

Because wealth is power. The class which controls the vast majority of the wealth is thus the ruling CLASS.

They are capitalists who own a means to production (their body, time and skills) which they trade in return for money.

You don't understand the notion of "means of production" as socialists use it.

It refers to that which enhances human labor, not human labor itself.

If I wanted to be petty, I could say the workers hold the corporations at ransom by owning the means to production. The poor corporations are being expolited! [/Sarcasm]

The difference, of course, is that most big capitalists are not dependent on their workers. (Their PROFITS might be... their basic economic security is not.)

Right. That is everyone, by default. Everyone controls a means to production.

Again, you equivocate.

If you adapt your skills to the demands of the market, you will never have a problem selling access to your means of production.

This statement illustrates perfectly your misunderstanding of the concept.

The worker does not sell "access" to her means of production; she actually does the work herself. The capitalist does not.

If you are a labourer, and there are millions of other labourers who can do your job just as well as you, and the market does not demand labourers due to oversupply, then you have a choice; learn to do something people need, or shake your fist in the air at 'the system'.

The contrast is not between workers who satisfy demand and workers who do not; the contrast is between capitalists who satisfy the needs of workers for employment, and workers who satisfy the desire of capitalists for profit.

Suddenly what we have is a relationship defined by inequality of power; there is a one-sided dependence here. The worker needs the job more than the capitalist needs the additional profit; the capitalist can walk away with far more ease than the worker.

Again, if you want to defet inequality, you should chase that rainbow at the root of the problem (i.e. perception of inequality), not the manifestation (The way in which we percieve inequality).

Spreading the delusion that equality exists is not the aim of those who advocate a classless society.

Making equality a reality is.

Wrong. The people who create the most demand for goods and services will share *actual power*.

Right - the super-rich.

Again, check the statistics on the distribution of wealth sometime.

That is your job as a socialist. Convince people that social welfare is worthwhile.

Right - convince PEOPLE in general.

Not those who have the money to make it happen.

I am not suggesting all property is inviolable. I am saying the fruits of your labour (usually liquid capital i.e. money) is inviolable as it is a direct representation of the work you have done. To take it is no different (except in abstraction) to forcing someone to work for you as a slave.

Perhaps the worst error of libertarianism is in making no distinction between regulation or seizure of the labor-product and regulation or leisure of labor and autonomy itself.

They are not the same. At all.

However the lumberjack chose to cut the wood for whatsoever reasons he chose (perhaps to build a toilet, or to burn for warmth, or to grind and eat, whatever). By taking the wood you are essentially going back in time and telling him to cut wood for you bridge as a slave.

Only if I do it after misleading him (actively or passively.)

If I tell him before he cuts any lumber that I will take, say, 20% of it, then by going ahead and cutting the lumber anyway he has consented to the totality of the situation. (Obviously he doesn't like the fact that I will take his lumber, but he is not a slave, because he has not been FORCED to do anything. He has been given a free choice to cut the lumber knowing that I will take 20%, or to not cut the lumber at all. There is no coercion involved.)

And what claim does he have to the trees he cut down in the first place? Did he make those, too?

Just because you do it later doesn't change the fact that the lumberjack cut that wood for your bridge when he didn't want to.

Not in and of itself, no. But things happen that we don't want to happen all the time. Since his freedom of choice (cut the wood or don't) has not been infringed, he is not a slave.

Also remember whatever wood you take he will have to go and cut again.

"Have"? Really? Where do I force him to do anything?

So if the lumberjack knows that there is a gang of bandits 'taxing' local residents for their own projects, it is his fault for cutting the wood if it gets 'taxed', and he has implicitly given conset to them 'taxing' it simply by cutting the said wood with knowledge that they do this?

He hasn't given consent to the taxation itself, no. He has given consent to the labor WITH the taxation. His activity is uncoerced; no one forced him to cut the lumber, and no one misled him into it (which amounts to the same thing). He is free.

I would have to say that knowledge of something doesn't equate to acceptance and provision of consent.

But it is not taxation that requires consent... that has been my whole point. LABOR does. And his labor was perfectly free.

Remember we are not talking about money as property here, but as abstracted representation of your work.

I know what we are talking about. I've had this argument a million times.

So the lumberjack has not right to any of the wood he cuts?

Not springing from self-determination or self-ownership, no.

However this is irrelevant, as not company has a monopoly on domestic affairs anymore. Who cares what a company's policies are (apart from the shareholders) when all of it's competitiors have seperate policies.

Because it has guns.

Indeed, as the driving force of all transactions is a mutually beneficial exchange.

Not really. The driving force behind most transactions is exclusive benefit... whether or not the other person benefits is incidental. If the other person can be misled or manipulated into doing something that does not benefit her, it will be done.

I find it fascinating.

For the quick version - it is rooted in the character of the exchange.

Both parties do what they can to maximize their own benefit, treating the other merely as a means to this end... and the result is not only unspeakable atrocities (like psychologically manipulating people into poisoning themselves) but also moral depravity that spills over into other walks of life.

The commodification of labor and the cultivation of economic dependence also severely impede personal autonomy, but that is less relevant to the point I was making earlier.

The objective of socialism is to put it in the hands of EVERYONE.

The goal of Socialism is to tax me blind to pay for pointless social programs as to reward the lazy for being lazy and punish those with drive to succeed and provide for themselves/loved ones by taxing them mercilessly. Of course that's how I see it.

the root of the problem (i.e. perception of inequality)

perceiving reality accurately can never itself be the root of a problem

I think the only way you could "buy" socialism is in a post-scarcity* economy, where the cost of raw materials and the manufacturing/design process for them is done on an individual scale through the use of molecular manufacturing and things like that...obviously, we're talking very high-tech, and even then there is no guarantee that those technologies would allow such a system to develop. After all, you'd still have to buy these things for a price set by the market even if the supply is almost totally elastic.

*Obviously, there are some things that will always be scarce, but there's a world of difference between the effects of food scarcity and Matisse painting scarcity on the economy...

is in a post-scarcity* economy

...where it would be utterly superfluous, like any other economic system.

Of course, "post-scarcity" will never happen through increased productivity. Artificial wants are infinite.

...where it would be utterly superfluous, like any other economic system.

Well, not necessarily. Those resources do still need to be allocated somehow even if they are effectively free.

Of course, "post-scarcity" will never happen through increased productivity. Artificial wants are infinite.

It would require a shift in the way goods are produced, among other things.

Well, not necessarily. Those resources do still need to be allocated somehow even if they are effectively free.

And if the allocation costs something, then the economy is not post-scarcity; the resources for allocation are limited.

If the allocation costs nothing, then why would an economic system be necessary?

It would require a shift in the way goods are produced, among other things.

In thousands of years of increased human productivity, we're not even close to "post-scarcity"; why should that change now... or in a hundred, two hundred years, even?

I hold an anti-corporate free-mrarket stance, in which I hold current corporate structures to inhibit free and just market stucturing.

State sponsored corporate mercantalism certainly sucks, but on Planet Ancap there'd be no state protection of corporations. This, imo, would instantly put a stop to 90% of the bullshit they get up to today. It'd also put a stop to you revoking their charter, as they wouldn't have one.

I am, however, going to have to ponder that one further. I may return with more questions/comments.

If I tell him before he cuts any lumber that I will take, say, 20% of it, then by going ahead and cutting the lumber anyway he has consented to the totality of the situation. (Obviously he doesn't like the fact that I will take his lumber, but he is not a slave, because he has not been FORCED to do anything. He has been given a free choice to cut the lumber knowing that I will take 20%, or to not cut the lumber at all. There is no coercion involved.)

Help me out here. Surely, if a capitalist tells me, before I accept a job, that s/he will pay me, say 20%, less than the revenue my labour generates then by going ahead and accepting the job I have consented to the totality of the situation? (Obviously, I don't like the fact the s/he will take 20% of the value of my labour, but I'm no more a slave than our lumberjack friend because I've not been FORCED to do anything. We've both been given a free choice to work for 80% of the value of our labour or not work at all. There is no coercion involved.)

I haven't given consent to the capitalists profiteering, no. But I have given consent to the labour WITH the profiteering. My activity is uncoerced; no one forces me to work any more than they have forced Steve (sorry, I've named the lumberjack) and no one's misled me. I am free?

To continue to pursue it, would surely be an acknowledgement of your disdain for the idea that people know what is best for themselves, the founding concept of self-ownership and all negative rights.But people don't know what best for them. Just look at their diet, their smoking and drinking habits, their refusal to submit to my rule, etc.

It's not sellable because if Socialists had their way, everything would be provided by the government.
You missed the point. The result would be a different thing altogether to socialism, but produce the same result and echo the same values. It is like capitalising socialism. That is why I called it 'consensual socialism'.

You equivocate.Oh contrare, I elucidate.
Now allow me to cut and paste your responses into 5 clear groups.

1)On the Idea that rich people will/are more of an economic influence than average/below average income earners (and the consequences thereof in relation to the context):
Some people, obviously, possess more capital than others... indeed, in modern capitalist economies, the super-rich possess the vast majority of it. So put the economy into the hands of those with capital, and you put it into the hands of rich. The objective of socialism is to put it in the hands of EVERYONE.

Even if the rich are generous with their money, why should we let our projects be contingent on their approval?

Those are my exact words from a prior post that addressed this question... I'm sorry, I'm lazy. :)

Because wealth is power. The class which controls the vast majority of the wealth is thus the ruling CLASS.

Right - the super-rich.

Again, check the statistics on the distribution of wealth sometime.
Wealth is rather irrelevant when it comes to determining the dominating force of the economy, because what really counts is demand. Consumer wealth is of no interest to a merchant firm, but the amount they will spend(demand) is. For example, a person with $1,000,000 dollars in assets (say liquid capital- money) is worth much much less in demand of goods and services as compared to 100 people worth $10,000. Even though both parties have enough wealth to purchase the same amount of goods and services, the group of less wealthy people are worth much more to the economy (for 2 reasons). Firstly, there are more of them, and so they will be buying the same things each, whereas the rich person will only buy 1 of everything he needs (being a significantly smaller minority).However, this is a mere mathematic reason, let us get into the socio-economic reason. Even the most opulent rich person who bought 100 of everything he purchased, would not add up to the influence of the other group for this key reason: poor people are willing to spend much much more in ratio to what they have/earn. The poorer group will be paying much more of a percentage of their total holdings and earnings than the rich person not only because they are buying in smaller amounts and forced into paying for convenience, but also for the simple reason that they have a sociological tendency to spend whatever they get, rather than invest in capital. This is for many reasons, none the least being debt-culture, psychological advertising, high minimum costs of living (leaving little for capital investment), and many more. At the end of the Day, the group will have spent nearly all of their collective $1million, whereas the individual will have spent much much less than this. Spending is I nice equivalent for demand. That is why Anarcho-capitalist will not be tyranny of the rich, so much as rule by market trends. The rich will have it very very good, but they'll hardly be in charge (far from it).

2) The definition and implications of inequality and a classless society:
You misunderstand the notion of a classless society.

We are not talking about abolishing "socially perceived" classes... we are talking about abolishing actual classes, actual inequality.


Spreading the delusion that equality exists is not the aim of those who advocate a classless society.

Making equality a reality is. First note that inequality and socio-economic classes are separate problems. Conterminous, but separate. Socio-economic classes are a form of inequality (among other things), but inequality reaches far beyond socio-economic classes. As such, to clamp down on socio-economic classes in order to 'make equality a reality' (forgoing that you will probably fail in doing so), is to lack foresight that inequality will still exist, only to manifest, develop, and widen in a different form. To combat inequality itself is folly, for the simple reason that 1) People are not equal in all regards, and 2) the virtues upon which equality could be guaged are both countless and incomparable. This basically means that equality cannot be achieved without some omniscient guidance beyond human capacity of measure. However, what is a more realistic goal is the elimination of 'unfair inequality', such as across-the-board human rights, ending slavery, discrimination based upon gender, age, religion, ideology, social class, etc. As such, whilst it is a noble quest to try to eliminate unfair inequality present within socio-economic class structures, it is fruitless to try to eliminate them altogether in the aim of achieving the said goal. It truly is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

3)On the 'means of production' as a term:

You don't understand the notion of "means of production" as socialists use it.

This statement illustrates perfectly your misunderstanding of the concept.

It refers to that which enhances human labor, not human labor itself. However socialists choose to use the term, 'the means of production' is a fancy term for capital. That is why capitalists are called such, as they own the means to production (not originally someone who simply subscribes to their system). Given this, workers are capitalists just like their employers. Whether you like to use the term in such a way (or subscribe to a private definition) is immaterial, for that is the logical, legitimate and literal usage of the term. Which leads me to the next point..


4) On the nature of the economic relationship shared between companies and skill/labour traders (or 'workers', if you will):

The difference, of course, is that most big capitalists are not dependent on their workers. (Their PROFITS might be... their basic economic security is not.)

The contrast is not between workers who satisfy demand and workers who do not; the contrast is between capitalists who satisfy the needs of workers for employment, and workers who satisfy the desire of capitalists for profit.

Suddenly what we have is a relationship defined by inequality of power; there is a one-sided dependence here. The worker needs the job more than the capitalist needs the additional profit; the capitalist can walk away with far more ease than the worker.

The worker does not sell "access" to her means of production; she actually does the work herself. The capitalist does not. First allow me to clarify again. 'Workers' are capitalists too. Small time capitalists. They trade their time in skills in return for money just as the companies they work for trade their goods and services. As such, all that truly exists is a business relationship between 2 capitalists, each seeking to make some kind of profit. Each party has their expenses and bottom lines, and each party wants to walk away with as much as is possible. In the end it all comes down to a balance of marginal benefits, and marginal costs, in tandem with the relevant demand and supply ratios. As such, if it so happens to be the case that one party is in a far better off position to trade (possessing a large and/or near-exclusive supply of what is demanded, without having a great demand for what the other party inexclusively supplies) it is only logical that he said party will walk away from such a deal in a better relative position than the other party. This is why it is in everybody's interest to specialise in the production/provision an exclusive as is possible in demand good/services.

5) On the nature of consent:

Only if I do it after misleading him (actively or passively.)

If I tell him before he cuts any lumber that I will take, say, 20% of it, then by going ahead and cutting the lumber anyway he has consented to the totality of the situation. (Obviously he doesn't like the fact that I will take his lumber, but he is not a slave, because he has not been FORCED to do anything. He has been given a free choice to cut the lumber knowing that I will take 20%, or to not cut the lumber at all. There is no coercion involved.)

But it is not taxation that requires consent... that has been my whole point. LABOR does. And his labor was perfectly free.

"Have"? Really? Where do I force him to do anything?

He hasn't given consent to the taxation itself, no. He has given consent to the labor WITH the taxation. His activity is uncoerced; no one forced him to cut the lumber, and no one misled him into it (which amounts to the same thing). He is free.

Perhaps the worst error of libertarianism is in making no distinction between regulation or seizure of the labor-product and regulation or leisure of labor and autonomy itself.

Not in and of itself, no. But things happen that we don't want to happen all the time. Since his freedom of choice (cut the wood or don't) has not been infringed, he is not a slave. It seems you are trying to make a distinction between labour and the fruits thereof, whilst also highlighting the lack of coercion in his choice to cut wood. Allow me agree. I have deliberately avoided labour-produce and the related notions of property rights for 2 reasons ( 1. It is not neccessary in the illustration of my point 2. In fear of an imminent wave of pwnage via argumentum ad nauseum based upon my memories of a socialist 'beef' with property rights. Another fight for another day). However, it is not the taxing of the wood (as a labour product) that I am drawing attention to. Rather, it is the fact that that wood is representative of a set amount of work. To take it is essentially command the lumberjack to do the said set amount of work for free, back through time. You could come and take the 20% wood after he cuts it, or you could come and make him cut it before he does it for himself. In the end, you are still forcing nonconsensual work upon the lumberjack. Regardless as to whether the fruits of his produce belong to himself or not, you are forcibly redirecting them to your own ends. Even if you rightfully own the fruits of his produce, to take them forcibly from him is still slavery, unless he gives his consent to work for free.

Now to consent. To decide to cut wood knowing that tax exists does not in any way legitimise the said tax, nor provide consent to its application. We have t assume as a self-responsible, self-owning, self-determining human, the lumberjack can, and has, formed his own reasons for cutting wood. Maybe it is for his own gain, or someone elses, or even for your bridge. Nevertheless, as long as the lumberjack is entitled to his own motives, and possesses them, to pervert his labour to your own ends (even if they match with those of your own) without his consent is slavery pure and simple.

There need not be coercion or force to constitute slavery, though I argue in socialism there would be anyhow. For example, what would become of the lumberjack if he refused to surrender the 20% of his wood? If anything negative were to apply, that is coercion through threat of force.

And finally, a few miscallaneous odds and ends:
Again, you equivocate. I assure you, my only intention is to communicate my points in a persuasive, clear, and logical manner. What purpose would I have for equivocation?

And what claim does he have to the trees he cut down in the first place? Did he make those, too?
If he does not, he would be paying for it (to whomsoever owns the plantation and/or land upon whic the trees he is cutting are growing).

I know what we are talking about. I've had this argument a million times.Appeal to authority, or just chit chat?

Because it has guns.Irrelevant. Lots of people/companies have guns. This does not make their policies a domestic concern. It is clearly and expressly well within any company's interests to trade instead of steal and enslave (stealing carries too much of a risk and likely drawback, and slavery yields slaves whereas trading yields capital generating consumers).

Not really. The driving force behind most transactions is exclusive benefit... whether or not the other person benefits is incidental. If the other person can be misled or manipulated into doing something that does not benefit her, it will be done.
Indeed, but we must assume that people have the responsibility to make their own informed decisions on what is good for them and what is not. This is while the driving force of all transactions is mutually beneficial trade, for both parties would not agree if it were not in some way beneficial to both. The fact that this process can be perverted by dishonesty does not mar it's brilliance.

For the quick version - it is rooted in the character of the exchange.

Both parties do what they can to maximize their own benefit, treating the other merely as a means to this end... and the result is not only unspeakable atrocities (like psychologically manipulating people into poisoning themselves) but also moral depravity that spills over into other walks of life. Indeed, however an unusual equilibrium is formed by the opposite forces of every party seeking to maximise their own benefit, wherein people see the clear benefits for themselves in honesty and co-operation.

perceiving reality accurately can never itself be the root of a problem
Or it is the root of every problem. This is especially applicable when it comes to philosophical problems, such as inequality.

But people don't know what best for them. Just look at their diet, their smoking and drinking habits, their refusal to submit to my rule, etc.
I agree. However, whether or not human rights are truly deserved by all is a different topic for a different thread. In short, the general consensus is that it is better to overestimate the deservedness of all in the hope of avoiding the most unfair underestimation of worth of one.

Or it is the root of every problem.

that's clearly insane

Wealth is rather irrelevant when it comes to determining the dominating force of the economy, because what really counts is demand.

What I am concerned about is not what is produced (a function of demand), but how it is distributed.

As such, to clamp down on socio-economic classes in order to 'make equality a reality' (forgoing that you will probably fail in doing so), is to lack foresight that inequality will still exist, only to manifest, develop, and widen in a different form.

That simply doesn't follow. It's like saying that combatting murder under the broad goal of combatting violations of rights means that rape and theft will be ignored.

This is not either/or.

To combat inequality itself is folly, for the simple reason that 1) People are not equal in all regards,

They are not the same, no, but this has no bearing on political or economic equality - which, as you know, is what socialists are talking about, whatever straw men you like to conjure with equivocation.

and 2) the virtues upon which equality could be guaged are both countless and incomparable.

What are you talking about?

As such, whilst it is a noble quest to try to eliminate unfair inequality present within socio-economic class structures, it is fruitless to try to eliminate them altogether in the aim of achieving the said goal.

Socio-economic class structures IN AND OF THEMSELVES are unequal.

However socialists choose to use the term, 'the means of production' is a fancy term for capital.

Not exactly. If I have a huge bank account, I have access to capital... I do not own any means of production.

Given this, workers are capitalists just like their employers.

No, they aren't.

for that is the logical, legitimate and literal usage of the term.

Only if you do not understand the way socialists use it.

Advocates of capitalism love to do this... take an obvious class structure and deliberately blur it, speak in general, vague terms about "people trading for mtuual benefit" and so on, without considering the way these things actually happen.

First allow me to clarify again. 'Workers' are capitalists too. Small time capitalists. They trade their time in skills in return for money just as the companies they work for trade their goods and services.

Everyone trades.

The difference, as you would know if you had ever paid attention to socialist class analysis (even from a position of opposition), is that the service the worker provides is labor, and the service the capitalist provides is access to the means of production.

You can blur the lines as much as you want by using more general terms, or by equivocating on the meaning of "means of production"... but those don't eliminate the actual difference this represents. They merely serve to obscure the class nature of the capitalist market - perhaps because you are incapable of defending it.

As such, if it so happens to be the case that one party is in a far better off position to trade (possessing a large and/or near-exclusive supply of what is demanded, without having a great demand for what the other party inexclusively supplies) it is only logical that he said party will walk away from such a deal in a better relative position than the other party.

In other words, the power imbalance in the worker-capitalist relationship logically implies, in the capitalist market, that the capitalist will be in a much better position than the worker.

That is precisely my point... which means, as I have said, that the super-rich (the big capitalists) dominate a capitalist economy.

However, it is not the taxing of the wood (as a labour product) that I am drawing attention to. Rather, it is the fact that that wood is representative of a set amount of work.

I am not concerned for "labor" in and of itself.

I am concerned for the free allocation of labor. Slavery violates this. Taxation does not.

To take it is essentially command the lumberjack to do the said set amount of work for free, back through time. You could come and take the 20% wood after he cuts it, or you could come and make him cut it before he does it for himself. In the end, you are still forcing nonconsensual work upon the lumberjack. Regardless as to whether the fruits of his produce belong to himself or not, you are forcibly redirecting them to your own ends. Even if you rightfully own the fruits of his produce, to take them forcibly from him is still slavery, unless he gives his consent to work for free.

Let's change the situation slightly.

Imagine that we live in your anarcho-capitalist paradise, and the trees are owned by the local landowner. The lumberjack asks her for permission to cut them down and make lumber from them. The landowner agrees, but on one condition: the lumberjack gives 20% of the lumber to the landowner. Is that "slavery"?

Of course, you might object that the government does not own the trees... but then what occurs here is, at most, merely theft. Not slavery.

I assure you, my only intention is to communicate my points in a persuasive, clear, and logical manner. What purpose would I have for equivocation?

Perhaps it is simply misunderstanding, but if it is, then you should stop arguing with me and instead read a little on what socialists actually claim.

If he does not, he would be paying for it (to whomsoever owns the plantation and/or land upon whic the trees he is cutting are growing).

And where does their claim come from?

Appeal to authority, or just chit chat?

I suppose it fits into the latter category... I simply wanted to say that you do not have to spell out every point as if I were incapable of following your argument.

As I said, I have heard it before.

Irrelevant. Lots of people/companies have guns. This does not make their policies a domestic concern.

You are reading what I said too literally... which I suppose might be my fault for being frivolous. The risk is not mere gun ownership, but the use of force to coerce people into following rules (which, after all, is what any government does... public or private.)

slavery yields slaves whereas trading yields capital generating consumers).

Why are these mutually exclusive?

Indeed, but we must assume that people have the responsibility to make their own informed decisions on what is good for them and what is not.

Perhaps, but we need not create unnecessary obstacles in that path... like restrictions on information (what company wants to publicize the bad consequences of its products?) or various kinds of manipulation (do you really think that commercial advertisements are appeals to reason?)

This is while the driving force of all transactions is mutually beneficial trade, for both parties would not agree if it were not in some way beneficial to both.

"In some way," perhaps - but we all have done things that we have known were not beneficial to us overall.

Perhaps it is beneficial to liberty to permit us to do so, but the problem with the market that I refer to is that the other party encourages and manipulates us into doing so in every possible way within the limits of the law... indeed, some industries (like tobacco) are built entirely on this principle.

The fact that this process can be perverted by dishonesty does not mar it's brilliance.

There is nothing "brilliant" about it. The few people who treat their friends and family, or even strangers they meet on the street, in such ways are widely and rightly regarded as depraved.

Mere nominal consent is not an excuse to do whatever you please to someone.

I am free?

In that respect, yes. The mere fact that the capitalist walks away with 20% of the revenue does not make you unfree.

The fact that you do not meaningfully participate in the decisions made by the power-brokers in the economy, however, might - as might other kinds of unfreedom perpetuated by the capitalist-worker relationship.

I think we have differing definitions of 'meaningful participat[ion]'.

I think we have differing definitions of 'meaningful participat[ion]'.What would you consider meaningful participation to be, and why?

What would you consider meaningful participation to be, and why?

Now I'm a little confused.

I'm sure I originally read Soherans post to claim that, whilst the capitalist denies me any opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision making process that leads to him/her pocketing 20% of the product of my labour, democracy does allow me meaningful participation in the process that leads to my being taxed at 20%.

I was merely saying that whilst the state may allow me to vote, I don't think they'd ever allow that participation to be meaningful. Who was it that said 'If voting changed anything they'd ban it'? Well, anyway. she was right.

The end result is I've lost 20% of the product of my labour, without my explicit consent. At least the capitist has provided me with access to the means of production and distrubution, without which my labour would be worthless.

What have the government provided me with? The NHS? A social safety net? A load of other bolllocks that I neither want nor qualify to receive? Maybe, but did they tax me in order to provide those things or provide those things in order to justify taxing me?

Now I'm a little confused.

I'm sure I originally read Soherans post to claim that, whilst the capitalist denies me any opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision making process that leads to him/her pocketing 20% of the product of my labour, democracy does allow me meaningful participation in the process that leads to my being taxed at 20%.

I was merely saying that whilst the state may allow me to vote, I don't think they'd ever allow that participation to be meaningful.Ah, I see.

Who was it that said 'If voting changed anything they'd ban it'? Well, anyway. she was right.Emma Goldman, an anarcho-communist.

What have the government provided me with? The NHS? A social safety net? A load of other bolllocks that I neither want nor qualify to receive? Maybe, but did they tax me in order to provide those things or provide those things in order to justify taxing me?Good question. I suppose it depends upon the character of the government official imposing the taxation.

I was merely saying that whilst the state may allow me to vote, I don't think they'd ever allow that participation to be meaningful.

Centralized, hierarchical state control of the economy is also a violation of the right to self-determination.

The end result is I've lost 20% of the product of my labour, without my explicit consent.

The "product of your labor" is irrelevant.

At least the capitist has provided me with access to the means of production and distrubution, without which my labour would be worthless.

And the state provides you with access to its sovereign territory.

Some people, obviously, possess more capital than others... indeed, in modern capitalist economies, the super-rich possess the vast majority of it. So put the economy into the hands of those with capital, and you put it into the hands of rich. The objective of socialism is to put it in the hands of EVERYONE.
Again, you misrepresent the market.

A truly free society puts power over others, economic or otherwise, into the hands of no one.

If your proposal includes placing broad power over society in the hands of any group, regardless of size, I soundly reject it.


...Oh and labour isn't free. Labour carries opportunity costs.

Emma Goldman, an anarcho-communist.
LOL. I didn't say she was right about everything!

Good question. I suppose it depends upon the character of the government official imposing the taxation.

But isn't it in the character of all governments to gradually grow and grow, using the common good as a justification?

Centralized, hierarchical state control of the economy is also a violation of the right to self-determination.


So who, exactly, is imposing this tax?

The "product of your labor" is irrelevant.


Not to me it's not. I like eating.



And the state provides you with access to its sovereign territory.

By what right is it the states sovereign territory?

LOL. I didn't say she was right about everything!I know. ;)

But isn't it in the character of all governments to gradually grow and grow, using the common good as a justification?Perhaps, but whether or not they're doing it to maximize the common good or to simply get more power would depend upon the government officials in charge.

There's a difference between giving to charity and creating a socialist state. A huge difference. Learn about it, then come back and talk about socialism.