Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Libertarian Socialism?

Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 177 Replies | 12 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
SkepticalMetal posted on Sun, Oct 7 2012 7:09 PM

Lately I have been curious to know about libertarian socialism. The two terms seem to contradict each other, as I have absolutely no clue how a socialist society could exist without government coercion. The same goes for libertarian communism.

Could someone give me a simple breakdown of how this could possibly work?

  • | Post Points: 95

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
247 Posts
Points 4,055
excel replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 9:14 AM

The slave sold himhelf. He is still entitled to himself, because selling oneself is illegitimate. Renting oneself likewise.

But the laborer didn't sell himself. He sold his labor.

Who else worked to build it?

Everyone from the mixer of the cement to the electrician and the interior decorator.

All those things would be done by workers who belong to the a building coop.

So what? They would still only own individual pieces of the finished product.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
630 Posts
Points 9,425

[sorry for double spacing, text editor sucks]

What about a means of exchange? Is that allowed in socialism or is that capitalists and would also be banned?

Who else worked to build it?


So this building coop would build my house and all the individuals that make up the coop will be reimbursed exactly how for their labour? How will the logistics of their payment to these individuals work exactly? What about a waiter who works at a restaurant, he does not own the restaurant. Would you then say that all restaurants would have to be owned by the waiters and the cleaners and so on? The waiters and cleaners might have no idea how to run a restaurant and everything that entails, they are specialist waiters and specialist cleaners, they don't know how to run a restaurant. This is what the division of labour does and without the employee and employer relationship this all breaks down. This is why past communist societies are always terribly under advanced and have a terribly low standard of living.

What is that job?


I work for an IT managed services company that has various clients in various industries. For example law firms, I do not work directly for the law firm. The law firm pays the company I work for an annual payment for the services, as a part of that services they get loads of benefits that they would not be able to get if i worked directly for the law firm. If the IT company had to be coop by fear of being banned as a result of socialists fraud laws that service would not be viable. An IT coop would also not be viable because businesses need hierarchical structures in order to efficiently run the business. The IT company needs the different layers of technical experience and different layers of managerial experience. An IT coop could not exist because the service of the IT is far too complicated to exists with only one tier of operational procedure.

What? Anarachism is socialism. There cannot be non-socialist anarchism.


Anarchism and socialism is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

What about fraudsters in a stateless capitalist society? They would be banned by laws. Likewise in socialism capitalism would be banned by law as a type of fraud.


Fraudsters would not be banned by law. They would be forced to pay compensation to their victims by commercial arbitration and would have their reputation negatively affected, but they would not be "banned by law". Ok so lets talk about the logistics of this mechanism. How would the socialist society enforce the ban and which organisations would create the laws that would be enforced by this organisation. What would stop people from ignoring the bans and who would prevent this enforcement agency from turning in to another state? Would these organisations have any competition? if they did not have any competition then would they not be especially at risk of becoming another state?



It would be impossible to avoid a form of hierarchy in your socialists society.


Why?

How could you possibly force people that do not want to comply without coercion and thus a form of hierarchy.


Prohibiting establishment of hierarchies is not hierarchical, it is by definition the opposite.


You don't seem to get it. To force people to do anything you have to use coercion. This means that some people will be coerced in your socialist society. You can not have coercion of that sort without a form of hierarchy. You can not ban hierarchy because that is a contradiction. As banning hierarchy would require hierarchy and thus it is not possible. There is no magic wand to ban hierarchy, that would require a standing army or a mass brainwashing machine.

But this is just your definition of anarchism that I am using against you. I do not even think that anarchism is defined as a ban of hierarchy, anachism means no rulers, not no hierarchy. Specifically referring to a political ruling class, a monarchy, a state and so on. Would your ban on hierarchy include petty hierarchy, say in your kids scout club or your local kids football team?

He has not contributed by labor.


Well surely the producer did not just magically make machines appear. Usually the producer will have to labour in his own life to either build up capital in the form of money to purchase the machines. Other times he has had to build up his capital in the form of knowledge in order to seek out capital investors and convince them that he is capable of making money for them. Some machines cost more money than an operator of the machine could ever earn in his life time. This is not to say that operator is under paid, just that the machines cost are high. Some machines also require multiple individuals in order to operate them safely and effectively. It is just not possible for the owner of that type of machine to operate and run the machines himself and thus needs to employ people to operate the machines. IF the producer was forced by your socialists system (by magic) to go in to a coop with the operators then it may not be viable for the producer to even own the machines. This is what occurred in other communism systems in the past and this is why they were never technologically advanced.

The other way around. No workers = capitalists starve to death unless some of them become workers.

No capitalist = workers are free to be the masters of their own productive life. Like it happened in Revolutionary Spain.


In a capitalists system individuals are free to become producers, employees, investors, owners, renters whatever they want. There is nothing stopping individuals in a capitalists system from creating their own coop, from starting their own business, from becoming a producer. But in your socialists system opportunity is restricted to one type of business model. Surely by restricting opportunity to one type of model that will increase unemployment. Not all businesses will be viable under one type of business model.



USSR was dismissed as state capitalist by all anarhists and orthodox marxist groups as state capitalism as soon as bolsheviks abolished worker coucils and established state control. All mutualists, anarcho-collectivists, and anarcho-communist (and their sub-type anarcho-syndicalists), with the marxists groups souch as council communist, de leonists, world socialists, decists, workers' opposition, workers' truth, even the esers, dismissed the bolsheviks as state capitalists.

Bakunin said that state controling the economy to bring about socialism is nothing then state capitalism, and he said that many years before Bolshevik even existed.


No that was real communism and a result of marxist influenced individuals that got in to power and enacted marxist based policies. That did not resemble capitalism so therefore it was not capitalism. So where would italian fascism fit in to your wonderful set of definitions?

Marxists realy are another breed. I bet you would have no problem with murdering people because they advocate capitalism.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Still waiting on your definition of "hierarchy", stsoc.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 11:00 AM

So what? They would still only own individual pieces of the finished product.

Being a collective means they own the product of their collective work as a collective.

What about a means of exchange? Is that allowed in socialism or is that capitalists and would also be banned?

Please read what I write and do not ask redundant questions. I have said multiple times that IMO the bulk of economic activity in socialism will be conducted or mututalistic principles. That means a free market in currency, but I guess it would mostly be mutual credit. (interest would be banned)

So this building coop would build my house and all the individuals that make up the coop will be reimbursed exactly how for their labour?

When they sell you the house, they will share that money as they democratically agree to, as does any workers' cooperative that exists today.

I work for an IT managed services company that has various clients in various industries.

Your company fill be a coop that provides services to customers. When you do that services and recieve recompensation you agreed for, you workers in that firm will share the earnings the way you have all agreed on.

Anarchism and socialism is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

It's a pleonasm.

Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA1.html#seca13

Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html

How would the socialist society enforce the ban

By the same mechanism law enforcment agencies would enforce it's law in a stateless capitalism system- threat of force.

which organisations would create the laws that would be enforced by this organisation.

Plebiscite.

What would stop people from ignoring the bans

Law enforcment agency and most people around them.

who would prevent this enforcement agency from turning in to another state?

Armed populace who by majority support socialism.

Would these organisations have any competition?

Law enforcment would be a branch of industry that would be controlled by the community.

To force people to do anything you have to use coercion.

How about forcing people not to murder? Or to steal? Or to commit fraud? Making profits (in the classical economics sense) would be banned as a type of fraud, and someone trying to be a capitalist would be regarded as being a swindler.

This means that some people will be coerced in your socialist society.

Just like most people today are "coerced" into a liberal (no-slavery and no-serfhood) society. Damn, what a loss for a free society- people are not free to be or own serfs or slaves.

You can have coercion of that sort without a form of hierarchy. You can not ban hierarchy because that is a contradiction. As banning hierarchy would require hierarchy and thus it is not possible.

First you say you don't need hierarchy for banning something ("coercion") [which is true, it just takes organization, and organization can be non-hierarchical], and they you say you bann something without a hierarchy. Talk about contradictions

There is no magic wand to ban hierarchy, that would require a standing army or a mass brainwashing machine.

An army can be non-hierarchical, such armies have established socialism twice in Europe. They are voluntary and organized as a direct democracy where the officers are elected by the soldiers as representatives (without delegation of authority). Zapatista Army of National Liberation is such an army that exists today, and it defends socialist territories of Chiapas from the surrounding Mexican state, and also enforces the law in those territories (laws are determined on plebiscites).

anachism means no rulers, not no hierarchy.

Anarchism means no rulers of any kind, and that includes no state, no slavery, feudalism or capitalism, no patriarchy, no racism or nationalism etc etc, no subordination of other people.

Well surely the producer did not just magically make machines appear.

Neither did the capitalist. And surely it wasn't the capitalist that build them, but workers.

Usually the producer will have to labour in his own life to either build up capital in the form of money to purchase the machines.

Or can be just born with property over means of production (like land, mines, factories, a bunch of money, etc).

This is what occurred in other communism systems in the past and this is why they were never technologically advanced.

During socialism in Spain, in Catalonia, many new trams were build, also trucks and cars (mostly for military use, but nonetheless), also many agricultural machines to be sent to rural areas. It was a modern, industrial society, fully functioning and successful by organizing itself as a mix of anarcho-syndicalism (which is type of anarcho-communism, meaning most stuff were free for people who contribute to production) and of anarcho-collectivism, meaning some stuff (of which there were not enough to be available for free) were bought from the community by labor vauchers (which were earned by duration and difficulty of labor done, and on the number of family members not capable for work); and that sort of a economy, even though it warred againt Franco's fasctists and USSR supported troops, and even thought it didn't have any economic help from outside (the western countries financied Franco), experienced a boom and a rise of productivity in every branch.

In a capitalists system individuals are free to become producers, employees, investors, owners, renters whatever they want.

Serfs, slaves. You are advocating a society that would tolerate slavery and serfhood, I don't see can there by any justification for calling yourself an anarchist or a libertarian; slavetarian would be more fitting than those. Voluntaryism is somewhat suitable, under the definition of "no direct coersion".

Surely by restricting opportunity to one type of model that will increase unemployment.

Under socialism people will organize into coops, bakuninist collectives or kropotkian communes (and of course communes in the modern sense of the word, but those are small scale units). Land will be possessed only by it's "occupancy-and-use", so there would plenty of land for everyone unemployed to go and use, or they could could be a self-employed artisan, if they wouldn't want to join some coop, collective or commune. That's anogh options, there's is not need to add options of buying slaves or other subordinates to carry out your orders and make you money.

No that was real communism

Why is "state socialism" just state capitalism:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH3.html#sech313

hat did not resemble capitalism so therefore it was not capitalism.

Capitalism is defined by the notion of private property. In USSR and similar states, state held private property over land, factories and firms. Therefore- state capitalism.

I bet you would have no problem with murdering people because they advocate capitalism.

Wow, what an amount of bigotry, I suspected you were brainwashed, but not this much. Even socialist that do not, like me, accept a form fo deontological ethics, but are utilitarians, would not suggest a thing like that. Murder (aggressive killing) is never justified.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
432 Posts
Points 6,830
Groucho replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 11:09 AM

Autolykos:

Still waiting on your definition of "hierarchy", stsoc.

It's no use, he is Borg. Guinan can tell you all about them....
 
An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 11:43 AM

It's no use, he is Borg. Guinan can tell you all about them....

I'd be more of a Syrranite Vulcan. Autolykos would be something of a Cairnite, who don't use words like everyone else does, so there's difficulties in communication between them and other races.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 11:47 AM
...says the guy who thinks "anarchism" and "socialism" are synonymous....
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,258 Posts
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 11:49 AM
 
 

stsoc:
(interest would be banned)

I thought you were advocating stateless socialism. Who is doing the banning and enforcing in your scenario?

stsoc:
When they sell you the house, they will share that money as they democratically agree to, as does any workers' cooperative that exists today.

What happens when someone decides they want to keep the money and not share with the cooperative?

stsoc:
Your company fill be a coop that provides services to customers. When you do that services and recieve recompensation you agreed for, you workers in that firm will share the earnings the way you have all agreed on.

For you, democracy is a god that makes everything right, and hierarchy the mortal enemy. But its useless, because democracy is also inherently aggressive (in the sense of using coercion unethically).

stsoc:
How would the socialist society enforce the ban

By the same mechanism law enforcment agencies would enforce it's law in a stateless capitalism system- threat of force.

But who made the ban, and how are other such laws made?

stsoc:
which organisations would create the laws that would be enforced by this organisation.

Plebiscite.

Ah, so democracy once again. Fail. Democracies force laws on minorities, and are thus unethically coercive. They are dictatorships by majorities.

stsoc:
To force people to do anything you have to use coercion.

How about forcing people not to murder? Or to steal? Or to commit fraud? Making profits (in the classical economics sense) would be banned as a type of fraud, and someone trying to be a capitalist would be regarded as being a swindler.

Here's the problem with that. In murder and theft and fraud you have a victim. Someone who direly doesn't want the other to take advantage of them. In capitalism, or employment, you have no victim at all.

You should really think deeply about that. Personally, I support the right of someone to freely engage in a transaction that they think would be good for them but that I think would be negative for them, as long as there's no outright fraud or deception going on, which always means not giving what was promised in the transaction.

In employment there is no fraud and there is no victim. By banning it, you'd be banning two people from associating who, if you were not there to ban it, would continue to associate, perhaps happily, for years on end.

The problem is you don't have clarity on ethical matters and think employment is somehow wrong. But, stick around here long enough, and read enough material outside the socialist echo-chamber, and maybe you'll find the sticking point in your thinking. Just know that it's dangerous to your current world-view to stay here. There are contradictions in your way of thinking and they will be rooted out inevitably. There's never been a more consistent ideology than libertarianism.

Suppose some people wanted to step outside your system and begin employing others, and both employee and employer do so willingly, will you still stop them or will you leave them alone?

I suggest you read Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard.

stsoc:
This means that some people will be coerced in your socialist society.

Just like most people today are "coerced" into a liberal (no-slavery and no-serfhood) society. Damn, what a loss for a free society- people are not free to be or own serfs or slaves.

But coercion without a victim is wrong. You're in favor of a police-state that can do whatever it wants if you base your theory of justice on the idea that the police can bring charges when there is no victim.

stsoc:
An army can be non-hierarchical, such armies have established socialism twice in Europe. They are voluntary and organized as a direct democracy where the officers are elected by the soldiers as representatives (without delegation of authority). Zapatista Army of National Liberation is such an army that exists today, and it defends socialist territories of Chiapas from the surrounding Mexican state, and also enforces the law in those territories (laws are determined on plebiscites).

Listen, it's not hierarchy that is wrong, it's compulsory hierarchy. It is not cooperation that libertarians are against, it is compulsory cooperation.

stsoc:
anachism means no rulers, not no hierarchy.

Anarchism means no rulers of any kind, and that includes no state, no slavery, feudalism or capitalism, no patriarchy, no racism or nationalism etc etc, no subordination of other people.

Wrong, you've conflated social justice with societal justice. Anarchism means people are free to voluntarily associate and build whatever associative structures seem best to them. That -would- allow for hierarchy, it would also allow for racism--though the anarchist believes racism is its own punishment and that the market would tend to weed out such mindsets, and thus there is no need for coercion to weed them out directly. Furthermore, as a corollary of individual ownership, one has the right to free speech and freedom of association. Without law, without society-derived moral concepts, neither patriarchy, nor racism, nor nationalism can be legally instituted. It's the legal institution of these things that is wrong.

stsoc:
Well surely the producer did not just magically make machines appear.

Neither did the capitalist. And surely it wasn't the capitalist that build them, but workers.

You sure about that? There's never been a capitalist in history that built anything with his hands first, prototyped the first device? How did the capitalist get his money to invest? Out of thin air? Or did he have to work for that?

stsoc:
Usually the producer will have to labour in his own life to either build up capital in the form of money to purchase the machines.

Or can be just born with property over means of production (like land, mines, factories, a bunch of money, etc).

And where did his ancestors get the money to give him? And if it's their money, why should you have any say in what they do with it or who they give it to?

stsoc:
Serfs, slaves. You are advocating a society that would tolerate slavery and serfhood, I don't see can there by any justification for calling yourself an anarchist or a libertarian; slavetarian would be more fitting than those. Voluntaryism is somewhat suitable, under the definition of "no direct coersion".

Please define slavery for us. I don't think you know what it is.

If you can quit your job, you're not a slave. Don't mistake the derisive metaphor of calling a job 'slavery' for actual slavery. Such would be grossly irresponsible thinking and a complete insult to actual slaves who could not quit their jobs and received no pay for their work.

stsoc:
That did not resemble capitalism so therefore it was not capitalism.

Capitalism is defined by the notion of private property. In USSR and similar states, state held private property over land, factories and firms. Therefore- state capitalism.

When the state owns everything, it's either pure communism or fascism. Not state capitalism :\ When the state owns something, it's no longer "private" property, but public.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 12:19 PM

...says the guy who thinks "anarchism" and "socialism" are synonymous....

Socialism means economic anarchy, that is- non-hierarchical economy.

What happens when someone decides they want to keep the money and not share with the cooperative?

He is free not to join a coop. Belonging to a coop means contributin to collective labor, of which the product is collective.

For you, democracy is a god that makes everything right, and hierarchy the mortal enemy.

Democratic organisation / absence of hierarchy is an a priori norm of discource (or as you call it here- argumentation).

because democracy is also inherently aggressive (in the sense of using coercion unethically).

Scope of democracy is limited by ethics, which is objective. Democratically deciding that murdering someone is ok is as legitimate as democratically deciding that 2+2=5.

They are dictatorships by majorities.

Democracies that I'm for are "dictatorship by majority" in the same way a society of non-murderers is dictatorial towards murderers.

In capitalism, or employment, you have no victim at all.

Employee is denied the full product of his labor.

Personally, I support the right of someone to freely engage in a transaction that they think would be good for them but that I think would be negative for them

Fraud falls under that.

as long as there's no outright fraud or deception going on

Why not? There's no coercion in lying, is there?

In employment there is no fraud and there is no victim.

The capitalist decieves the laborer that he is entitled to a part of the product of his labor, but he isn't, everyone is entitled to the full product of his own labor.

There are contradictions in your way of thinking and they will be rooted out inevitably.

I'd like to see that claim demonstrated and soundly argumented. I've was as a younger a social-democrat, but turned socialist by various dialectics (you call them debates) with lots of people.

Suppose some people wanted to step outside your system and begin employing others, and both employee and employer do so willingly, will you still stop them or will you leave them alone?

If there were to physically "step oustide the system" where socialism has been established, socialist from that system have nothing to do going there. Maybe only to agitate for a revolution.

I suggest you read Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard.

I've read it, and was not convinced. I will maybe write a response once, but I've only started (to participate in) writing, I have to first finish that. I found Hoppe much more inspirational, with his merger of the action axiom with the discourse ethics; I totally disagree with his counclusions, but the framework is great.

Listen, it's not hierarchy that is wrong, it's compulsory hierarchy.

I disagree.

Wrong, you've conflated social justice with societal justice.

Which is what is the meaning of anarchism that has been used by the Enrages, Proudhon, Dejackue, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, and every anarchist to the 70s, when some capitalists in USA started to call themselves that, even thought anarchism came into being as a movement against capitalism.

And where did his ancestors get the money to give him?

Concquest, wars, state connections.

Please define slavery for us. I don't think you know what it is.

A person holding another person as property. In stateless capitalism, voluntaryism, slavery that is not coerced is "ok".

When the state owns everything, it's either pure communism or fascism. Not state capitalism

Communism is community owning property, not the state. Fascism is a type of mix between state and market (laissez faire) capitalism.

When the state owns something, it's no longer "private" property, but public.

It is the same notion of property that socialism (in it's forms of mutualism, collectivism or communism) wants to abolish.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

stsoc:
I'd be more of a Syrranite Vulcan. Autolykos would be something of a Cairnite, who don't use words like everyone else does, so there's difficulties in communication between them and other races.

Could you please tell me what "everyone else's" definition of "hierarchy" is?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
233 Posts
Points 4,440
Cortes replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 1:13 PM

Capitalism is defined by the notion of private property. In USSR and similar states, state held private property over land, factories and firms. Therefore- state capitalism.

 

So private landowners can hold a legal monopoly over everyone else in the area by demanding taxation at the threat of imprisonment or execution?

Damn those McDonald's collection agencies! keepin me down with their audits.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,258 Posts
Points 34,610
 
 

stsoc:
Socialism means economic anarchy, that is- non-hierarchical economy.

Economic anarchy and non-hierarchy are not synonymous. All economic anarchy means is ad hoc free association. People are free in a market anarchy to form themselves into whatever complex of associations they wish to, and yes, that can mean hierarchical relationships.

To then try to use force of law to end hierarchies would be to actually inject government back into anarchy, because you'd be injeting coercion into a situation where none exists, which is the root evil of government.

stsoc:
For you, democracy is a god that makes everything right, and hierarchy the mortal enemy.

Democratic organisation / absence of hierarchy is an a priori norm of discource (or as you call it here- argumentation).

How do discourse ethics have anything whatsoever to do with hierarchy? This is a gross perversion of Hoppe's discourse ethics, which have nothing to do with hierarchy. For hierarchy to have anything to do with discourse ethics I would have to be violating the principle of hierarchy by speaking against it, much as one would be obviously wrong to say that he is dead since one must be alive to communicate (to give an extreme and silly example). That's what discourse ethics means, that you must affirm a thing in the process of denying it. How exactly am I violating the idea that hierarchy is not okay by speaking against it?

stsoc:
because democracy is also inherently aggressive (in the sense of using coercion unethically).

Scope of democracy is limited by ethics, which is objective. Democratically deciding that murdering someone is ok is as legitimate as democratically deciding that 2+2=5.

What is your a prior basis for an objective ethic?

stsoc:
They are dictatorships by majorities.

Democracies that I'm for are "dictatorship by majority" in the same way a society of non-murderers is dictatorial towards murderers.

Ah, but democracies do not limit themselves to regulating merely aggressions against other people. If they did, they would be at best decent. When democracies force laws on others that have nothing to do with ethical concerns, like passing taxes, or placing fines for speeding, they are aggressors themselves and break ethical law themselves.

stsoc:
In capitalism, or employment, you have no victim at all.

Employee is denied the full product of his labor.

Then why is the employee willing to continue working for the employer? Again, does the distributor not add value to a product by bringing it from worker to buyer efficiently?

stsoc:
Personally, I support the right of someone to freely engage in a transaction that they think would be good for them but that I think would be negative for them

Fraud falls under that.

Fraud would, but other kinds of transactions would not. If I see a fat guy buying doughnuts, he's not being defrauded but he is doing something ultimately that I think he shouldn't. But the point is, in a free society he gets to make that choice. If you deny that choice to the fat guy then you are the criminal. By injecting yourself between the freely chosen contract of employer and employee you become the criminal.

There is no fraud going on in an employment contract. If the employee really felt he was being defrauded, not getting the "full value of his labor" he could up his terms to make up for that before agreeing to the contract. At that point the employer would say, well, hey, there's no room left in the contract for me to benefit too, so I won't agree to it.

In a free society, both sides mutually benefit from any contract or it doesn't happen, since either side can pull out or sue after the fact.

stsoc:
as long as there's no outright fraud or deception going on

Why not? There's no coercion in lying, is there?

Wrong, lying to complete a contract is an indirect coercion known as fraud, because the outcome is identical to direct physical coercion: the obtaining of a good against another's will, because if the person knew the full facts they would not have turned over the good. In both cases title to something is obtained illegitimately.

stsoc:
In employment there is no fraud and there is no victim.

The capitalist decieves the laborer that he is entitled to a part of the product of his labor, but he isn't, everyone is entitled to the full product of his own labor.

This is only your belief. The employee does not accept that he is being wronged. You cannot force your value choice on him in a free society! The employee may put whatever price on his labor he chooses and trade it at will. Who are you to come in and stop a freely chosen service contract?

stsoc:
There are contradictions in your way of thinking and they will be rooted out inevitably.

I'd like to see that claim demonstrated and soundly argumented. I've was as a younger a social-democrat, but turned socialist by various dialectics (you call them debates) with lots of people.

Well you've come to the right place.

stsoc:
Listen, it's not hierarchy that is wrong, it's compulsory hierarchy.

I disagree.

Yet you offer no supporting rationale for this disagreement.

stsoc:
Wrong, you've conflated social justice with societal justice.

Which is what is the meaning of anarchism that has been used by the Enrages, Proudhon, Dejackue, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, and every anarchist to the 70s, when some capitalists in USA started to call themselves that, even thought anarchism came into being as a movement against capitalism.

Anarchism originally did not have any problem with private ownership of capital. It wasn't until Godwin that that occurred. We are the original anarchs.

stsoc:
And where did his ancestors get the money to give him?

Concquest, wars, state connections.

And that's true in all cases? There's zero rich people that earned their wealth purely by free exchange? Think again.

stsoc:
Please define slavery for us. I don't think you know what it is.

A person holding another person as property.

And property means sovereign control over and the ability to make decisions over. An employee, however, is free to make their own decisions.

stsoc:
In stateless capitalism, voluntaryism, slavery that is not coerced is "ok".

Non-coercive slavery is a contradiction in terms, as what distinguishes slavery from any other arrangement is coercion in the relationship.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
432 Posts
Points 6,830
Groucho replied on Sat, Oct 20 2012 12:06 AM

Jack Roberts:

What about a means of exchange? Is that allowed in socialism or is that capitalists and would also be banned?

I think money would be impossible, since whoever worked at the place that minted coins would immediately claim it all for himself as "the product of his labor"... right before he smashed all the mint stampers for being "means of production" (and hence "illegitimate").

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Sat, Oct 20 2012 6:08 AM

anarchy and non-hierarchy are not synonymous.

Yes, they are.

What does "anarchy" mean?  http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca11  Also look at the next chapter What does "anarchism" mean?

How do discourse ethics have anything whatsoever to do with hierarchy?

They don't - that's the point. Discourse (or argumentation) is a libertarian socialist setting- there is no imposition of harm and no hierarchy; if any of those would to manifest itself, that would invalidate argumentation, and would become something else (violence or giving/taking orders), which means that absence of imposition of harm and absence of hierarchy are a priori norms of discourse.

This is a gross perversion of Hoppe's discourse ethics

Actually, Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" is a gross perversion of his teacher's (Habermas) "discourse ethics".

What is your a prior basis for an objective ethic?

No imposition of harm and no hierarchy.

When democracies force laws on others that have nothing to do with ethical concerns, like passing taxes, or placing fines for speeding

Is socialism (direct democracy), there would be no taxes (being that they are robbery), but society could make for itself rules that it thinks will prevent (or reduce the risk) of harm. As Mill said- all rational people do that, so there is no reason for a society not to.

Then why is the employee willing to continue working for the employer?

Because employers have property over means of production. In socialism, where everyone would be free to go till unused land, and to join one of many coops, (Bakuninist) collectives or (Kropotkian) communes, and where there are easily available (in the case you go bankrupt) interest-free loans (mutual credit), I would like to see, just for kicks, how many people would want to seek employment.

Again, does the distributor not add value to a product by bringing it from worker to buyer efficiently?

Distrubutor, transporter, seller, those are workers.

By injecting yourself between the freely chosen contract of employer and employee you become the criminal.

In the same way that would be a criminal by injecting myself between a swindler and someone about to be defrauded.

There is no fraud going on in an employment contract.

The employee is denied the full product of his labor, which means that his right to property is violated, which is what theft is. Being made to think that the capitalist is legitimate in taking a part of the fruits of his labor doesn't make that ok, it makes it fraud.

If a slave-to-be is made to think by his future owner that slavery is ok, and agrees to sell himself, that doesn't make slavery okay, just makes the slave defrauded.

If the employee really felt he was being defrauded

Not being defrauded doesn't depend on the defrauded "feeling that he was defrauded", that's the whole point of fraud, to get the defrauded to agree with the theft, so that no physical coercion need be exerted.

Wrong, lying to complete a contract is an indirect coercion known as fraud

Where is any coersion? What force have I exerted?

because the outcome is identical to direct physical coercion

So, in order to explain addind coersion to the deontological principle you accept, you have to go utilitarian.

In both cases title to something is obtained illegitimately.

I thought that for something to be illegitimate it must be non-consensual. Even slavery is legitimate if it is consensual, but lying is not legitimate?

This is only your belief.

That is the aplication of the labor theory of property. Property comes into being by labor, right to the full product of one's labor is the same thing as right to property.

The employee does not accept that he is being wronged.

Likewise with many other defrauded.

The employee may put whatever price on his labor he chooses and trade it at will.

Or put a price on himself, and sell himself at will.

Yet you offer no supporting rationale for this disagreement.

As I said, absence of hierarchy is an a priori norm of discourse; there is no need for I don't know how complicated a rationale, you only have to consciously accept what you allready perfomatively accept.

Anarchism originally did not have any problem with private ownership of capital.

Before the Enrages and Proudhon (Enrages were communist, Proudhon was the main propagator of mutualism; both forms of socialist organisation), no one ever called himself an anarchist. It was a colloquial word for "chaos".

An employee, however, is free to make their own decisions.

He is a slave left "free" to chose his own master.

Non-coercive slavery

Selling oneself into slavery is by definition non-coercive.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sat, Oct 20 2012 7:52 AM

Birthday Pony, it would help if you provided your working definition for "hierarchy", as Autolykos already asked you to do twice. 

Is sex hierarchical? Is anyone being defrauded there without them being enlightened about it? After all, a party gets physically penetrated (aggression?) by another, for crying (Prudhonian Ethics) outloud!

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 7 of 12 (178 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next > ... Last » | RSS