You do if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you obviously ARE trolling.
The problem is that, even though that the explanation is not necessary to anyone possessive of common sense, I have already given it. Ok, let's go one more time.
Relation between a person doing a service job and a person for whom the service job is done is one between equals, one is service provider and the other is the customer. Employer and employee relation is something else, it is a hiearchical relation where the subordinate alienates his labor, and the superior takes a part of the product of the subordinate's labor.
But a laborer does. Thanks for proving my point.
Choosing one's boss doesn't make you control your work. Having direct and equal participation in the decision making that concerns your work means having control over your work.
But a laborer choosing his employer is.
Slave choosing his slaveowner or worker chosing his emplyer in no way contol their work, their only decision is to whom they will give contol of their work.
Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That's hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.
stsoc: Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That's hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.
Not so. The employee can be self-employed should he choose, or become an employer himself. He could hunter-gatherer for a living. What a false conception of choice you provide.
As for characterizing it as 'superior-subordinate' you make a critical error. That relationship exists only for purposes of setting company-wide strategy. In terms of the trade of labor for wage, both the employee and employer have the right to terminate the contract at any time or to try to renegotiate it. That is equal power.
If there was a law saying that the employee had to do what the employer said, THAT would be an inequal relationship, because it would no longer be free association but compulsory association. And THAT would be antithesis to liberty. But as things stand now, all employment contracts are entered into on the basis of free association and are in fact expressions of liberty.
Yeah, the landscaping company that trims the bushes around my house is my bitch! Damn landscaper only gets to choose which houses in town he's gonna take it from. Bend over and grab your ankles, you landscaping company owner!
Clayton -
BTW, BirthdayPony, why do you keep constantly changing nics??
stsoc:Choosing one's boss doesn't make you control your work. Having direct and equal participation in the decision making that concerns your work means having control over your work.
Would you say you have control over your work if no one's willing to pay you anything for it?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Why don't you define 'liberty' for us as you conceive it?
Libertarians typically define liberty as the state in which there is an absence of aggressive-coercion. A man alone on an island obviously has perfect liberty, for there is no one to coerce him.
Two men together living non-aggressively and respecting property rights thereby, also exist in a state of liberty. If one hires the other to dig a ditch and pays him in coconuts, the state of liberty has not been breached, for they have both agreed freely, without coercion, to do so.
For you to claim that hierarchy is the antithesis of liberty you must show how, in theory, aggressive-coercion is inherent to hierarchy.
I assure you however that you cannot show this, for it does not exist. No force exists in the employer-employee contract. It is a contract of mutual agreement and consent, the very expression of liberty. It is a trade as surely as any other trade, merely a trade of service for a trade of goods rather than goods for goods. Why trading service for good should so confuse leftist-anarchs is beyond me. And why mere land should be treated different from any other ownable good, a priori, is also a mystery, for neither are consistent in principle.
Under state capitalism the state has private property over, well, everything. Private property is a concept, it can be contrasted with socialistic notion of property, or communistic notion of possessions. It doesn't have private property over well, everything because what "it" is, is well, nothing. It is like saying the forest exerts control of all that inhabits the forest. But the forest doesn't exist outside of the individual specimens that compose the forest. "The ordered organization of coecion" cannot act of it's own will, it's own volition, thus it cannot own something, only individuals can "own" something, thus only individuals can exert notions of property. Classical Economics of thinking only in aggregates/classes leads perfectly to your line of reasoning, however it is essentially false.
Employer-employee relationship is that of peers, indeed the relation only exists if terms are acceptable and agreed upon by both parties.
The fact that both parties give their formal consent can them make fraud and also robbery a "relationship of peers". In fraud, the defrauded gives his consent, but in robbery, the threated one also gives his consent, he could always say no.
The laborer has his pick of whichever employer he is willing to work with.
To work for. He pick to whom to subordinate. That choice doesn't make the relation non-hierarchical.
I guess the simplest definition would be Mill's "to be able to do what one wants", but I'd say that best way to identify societal liberty is by not only absence of imposition of harm (which is much wider then NAP), but also absence of hierarchy, of there being no master who will boss you around.
Libertarians typically define liberty as the state in which there is an absence of aggressive-coercion.
Pretty nonsensical. Being that someone can lock you in a room and starve you to death, and that's "liberty" being that he has not aggressed on your property, neither in person, neither external.
I do not have to. Aggression is not the only thing that is illegitimate, it is a small part of things illegitimate when interpersonal relations are concerned.
It is a trade as surely as any other trade, merely a trade of service for a trade of goods rather than goods for goods.
Employment is not a trade of service, but alienation of labor. Provider of service and his customer are equals and there is no alienation of labor; employer and employee are superior and subordinate where the subordinate alienates his labor, and the superior takes a part of his subordinate's labor (thus violation his right to the full product of his labor, which is the right to property).
And why mere land should be treated different from any other ownable good, a priori, is also a mystery
It's a mistery for those who are unable to practice critical thinking and leave the capitalist propaganda paradigm to think about first principles. Property comes into being as a product of labor (by "removing recources from the state of nature by mixing labor with them"). Being that land is not a product of labor, it cannot be property, but only possession; you cannot have a title over it, but only "occupancy-and-use".
It doesn't have private property over well, everything because what "it" is, is well, nothing.
The whole point of you propertarians to talk about how states should should not own anything, should not regulate the market, and should be abolished. But how can nothing do that, and how can nothing be abolished. Nonsensical.
however it is essentially false.
States exist, corporations exist, worker cooperatives exist, communes exist. Reality disproves you. Denying reality is a pathological delusion.
stsoc:Property comes into being as a product of labor (by "removing recources from the state of nature by mixing labor with them"). Being that land is not a product of labor, it cannot be property, but only possession; you cannot have a title over it, but only "occupancy-and-use".
You ignored my previous challenge to this idea, so I'll ask again. If I dump tons of rock and dirt into the ocean and produce an island, do I own that land?
so if a person scuba diver dives and harvests the botton on the ocean, he would own the botton, if rocks were then dumped on the botton by someone else forming land, the scuba diver would own the land as the rocks are a agression again the seabed the scuba diver owned?
Well, I just want to say I found this site yesterday I register Im reading Im liking, go on with this interesting debate.
Of course we really need the communist to contribute because he is the only one giving another point of view, or else everybody will be agreeing with everybody which would be kinda useless and boring.
Ok Ill say something, Im not an advanced expert on politics, neither I am on communism/marxism/socialism, whatever we might call it, but I really have some inocent curiosity about it, some was answered already along this posts.
But for example can you explain me better...how is the life of an artist imagine a musician under your "regime"? how do you look to artistic or intelectual labor and property? I mean things get so confusing under your "regime". You say that "land is not a product of labor, it cannnot be property" do you think the same about intelectual work? is it product of labor? can it be property? etc...Tks.
Welcome to the forums DemiProphet. Glad to hear that you are enjoying the debate. If you want to find other debates on mises.org, or look at some more resources, then follow this link and explore: The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread
Everyone agreeing with everyone on a subject isn't necessarily boring, sometimes it helps to hear responses without it becoming a debate.
The hard thing about this debate is that I find it hard to articulate the points that stosc is making. For the point on property that you are referencing, there is an apparent contradiction. He states that property is made by taking things out of a state of nature. However, that apparently contradicts with his statement that land cannot be property, because land can be used and changed.
I agree that this definition has holes in defining property, and needs to be explained further.
As for intellectual property, there have been big debates on this subject. For myself, I think that anything that is purely intellectual cannot be property. For example, a painting can be property, but an idea cannot (although ideas can certainly be revealed for a price). However, the absence of a copyright or patent does not doom these intellectual professions. But if this is what you want to discuss, I think it would be best on another thread.
Schools are labour camps.
Demiprophet, welcome to the forums. I'll save you months of time and jump-start you by pointing you to this book that every libertarian should read, and will read eventually in most cases:
Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
It's an easy and enjoyable read; he writes it for the masses not merely for intellectuals. It's available free as a digital download on this site. Enjoy.
You can also buy a physical copy from the Mises book store, or download a free audiobook of it here.
"Malachi"
no, it makes it a voluntary, consensual temporal peer-to-peer exchange relationship.
It makes it voluntary and consensual, not peer-to-peer. Slave choosing his owner makes it voluntary and consensual, but not non-hierarchical. Likewise with any subordination, to feudalist, capitalism, state, etc.
Its only hierarchy if you ignore the absolute veto power
Ih hierarchy is voluntary that doesn't magically makes it stop being a hierarchy.
Employment is trade of service,
You are wrong, it is not. If I'm a e.g. plumber, when I come to fix some pipes of yours, I am your service provider, and you are my customer. When you don't pay me, but my boss, that boss is my employer and I am his employee, you get a serice from me, but my alienated labor and the money I earned.
"Anenome"
If I dump tons of rock and dirt into the ocean and produce an island, do I own that land?
Guess so.
"DemiProphet"
But for example can you explain me better...how is the life of an artist imagine a musician under your "regime"?
In socialism, in the communities functioning by mutualism, they would function as producers and sellers of their products. If people want to buy them, they're buy them. In communities functioning by collectivism or communism, he'd have to contribute vitally important work to the community and could do art in his free time, or would have to convince the community fo accept that his art is enough of contribution to the community that he should take part in community's food and similar products on the basis of providing art.
how do you look to artistic or intelectual labor and property?
There is no such thing as intellectual property. It cannot be property because it is in contradictioin with other people's legitimate property (in hampers the freedom of use of your legitimate property that neither harm not limits the freedom of anyone else).
He states that property is made by taking things out of a state of nature. However, that apparently contradicts with his statement that land cannot be property, because land can be used and changed.
Areas of land cannot be changed, because they are intangible.
"In economics, land comprises all naturally occurring resources whose supply is inherently fixed. Examples are any and all particular geographical locations, mineral deposits, and even geostationary orbit locations and portions of the electromagnetic spectrum."
The first problem is with the "geographical locations" part, you cannot own intangible things.
The second problem here is that when you stop tilling soil and don't use it, it will return to it's untilled state of nature, meaning that it returns into the category outside property.
Property means exclusive use until the transfer of title. Possession means exclusive use during use. So land can be only possession, not property.
Likewise with similar natural recourses, e.g. in quarries. You own what you mine, but when you stop mining, someone else can start mining there, you can't legitimately stop him because you have a paper that says that that quarry is yours because you mined it.
Well first of all thanks to Anemone and Eliotn for the welcome and Stsoc for reply.
Eliotn about intelectual property I also hate the "quotings" for example, as if ideas really belong to anyone, I mean I already thought so many stuff that I see quoted, sometimes they quote people to say that "the sky is blue"... even Libertarianism I never heard about it, but my ideas seem to be close to it, actually even comunism when I was a kid I thought the government could own all factorys and share the profits with everyone, later I found out comunism said something similar (much more in detail). But I think there should be intelectual property till some extent to reward the "thinkers" or artists, because that is a labor harder than any other.
About Stsoc, I was hoping you would contradict youserlf, you realize when you say "land doesnt come from labor, it cant be property" and you say intelectual work cant be property, you are saying that intelectual work doesnt come from labor, just like when you say that artists (philosophers etc) would have to lets say farm (DO THE REAL LABOR) and do their stuff on their free time (imagining they would have free time) . Which doesnt surprise me, the whole problem with Marxism is the materialism. I dont want to talk much about it and make a huge text about it, but for me labor is not just sweating, thinking is imaterial labor and the most effective labor of all, thanks to that labor we talking about marxism here, actually thanks to that labor we using internet, and everything around us.
And Eliotn, I know intelectual property (or labor) can be a specific topic, but this post its about socialism in general so we talking about everything I guess. They were talking about property so it made sense.
actually even comunism when I was a kid I thought the government could own all factorys and share the profits with everyone
That's state capitalism, communism is an economy where the community controls it's economic life by direct democracy, there is no state or central planning, and there is no hierarchy; like in any socialist form of organization.
About Stsoc, I was hoping you would contradict youserlf, you realize when you say "land doesnt come from labor, it cant be property" and you say intelectual work cant be property, you are saying that intelectual work doesnt come from labor, just like when you say that artists (philosophers etc) would have to lets say farm (DO THE REAL LABOR) and do their stuff on their free time (imagining they would have free time)
I said that intelectual property is impossible because it is contradicts the notion of property. Property comes into being when you mix labor with recourses, and that gives you a title over it. E.g. I chopp tries or mine ore, and that timber and ore are mine, because I have labored to make them. If you have a patent on making a house, that's basically saying I can't build a house without your permission, and that means you are controling what I can do with my timber which is my legitimate property, even though I would use it in a way that would not harm anyone or limit their freedom.
Which doesnt surprise me, the whole problem with Marxism is the materialism.
I'm neither marxist nor materialist.
but for me labor is not just sweating, thinking is imaterial labor and the most effective labor of all
Intelectual and physical labor exist, and no one will deny it. The main thing that socialists instist upon is that you must apply constant labor in order to be entitled to constant income. Patents are for intellectual labor the same thing that usury (as Proudhon called it, meaning investment and renting) are for physical labor.
Ok I might still be confused about the terminology but that’s not what is important for me right now, and I also don’t want to discuss that (Ill take your word) neither I want to define who you are exactly even thou I still think you are materialist.
About the intelectual labor issue. For me its all about the end product, I really don’t care if resources are mixed with labour, I can call the things that I hear and see…my intelligence MY BRAIN, as a resource, mixed with a hard time of learning, focusing and actually using it (my brain), I would get an end product (just like Marx did).
But even in writing a book for example, Im using the pen and paper or computer (resources) mixing it with my labor and producing something, same thing with music somebody uses the drum, guitar, etc etc. So I still don’t see how you make those distinctions, and I don’t see the need for distinctions its all about end product and letting the market decide what is valuable or not, if it has labor (however you define it) or not that’s irrelevant, labor is subjective and irrelevant, you can labor all your life (WITH “CONSTANT LABOR”) to have the same end product I make in 5 minutes, that doesn’t make your product better than mine, and therefore my 5 minutes labor should give me equal amount of rights to your life long CONSTANT LABOR, because we have both the same end product. Wrong?
You wanted to focus on patents, but that’s a more complicated subject, you don’t have to pay Marx everytime you want to have a Marxist partie or share his thoughts. Im in favor of a fair reward to those that make patents not a never-ending reward for eternity. But again forget the patents...
even thou I still think you are materialist.
Sure, you are free to be delusional.
I really don’t care if resources are mixed with labour,
If you reject the notion of property (and property comes into being by mixing labor with recources), but it's contradictory then to say that there should be property.
But even in writing a book for example, Im using the pen and paper or computer (resources) mixing it with my labor and producing something, same thing with music somebody uses the drum, guitar, etc etc.
And you are entitled to your book, and to the recording of your music. But if you sell your book or the recording of your music to someone, you are not entitled to give them orders on what they mustn't do with their own property, when they are not hurting anyone or limiting they're freedom. They are free to do print or burn copies of their own property.
Ok stsoc I know you doing the most that you can, but try not to avoid the hardest questions or the hardest quotings.
I made in 5 minutes (thanks to my amazing mind labor) the same product that took a lifetime of constant labor for you to produce, my product its equally valid and "good" for society as yours, actually its exactly the same: should I get the same retribution for my 5 minutes labor as you get for your constant life labor?
If you say no you automaticaly saying that mind/intelectual labor is not labor at all, what is behind your theory all along, and the only thing that can sustain all that you said till now, and thats why I call you materialist (amongst other reasons) would appreciate if you could answer this question.
And about intelectual property of course in your conception there is absolutelly nothing wrong with me getting a book that took you 20 years of hard research, isolation in a cave or any imaginable drama/sacrifice possible, copy it and sell millions of copys like if it was mine.
Moraly there is nothing wrong with that of course, yet there is something wrong with the boss supposedly taking a part of the profit of your labor...why? because intelectual labor is no labor! (and has no resources) therefore cant be property and deserves no reward, therefore thinking is a useless activity that you do on your spare time as an hobby after your permanent life of "constant farming and fishing"...
Is like you can enjoy others creations but your creations go unrewarded and you necessarily need to create for free, because its no labor. Im not even saying that you shoud do intelectual works to profit from it, Im just stating that what is fair is fair, what is labor is labor and what is moral is moral.
And "property" Im not contradicting anything since I didnt give any definition, I dont agree with that definition end of story. Property? is just something you hold in your posession, or that belongs to you (like your mind and body). Either is resource mixed with labor or it fell from the sky like a meteor or the water that falls from the clouds or a piece of land or the product of your talents, its irrelevant to me therefore I cant imagine where do you find a contradiction. UNLESS you saying I cant have a diferent definition of property and need to share the same complicated divisional perspective that envolves resources mixed with labor (which its funny).
should I get the same retribution for my 5 minutes labor as you get for your constant life labor?
Retribution?
If you say no you automaticaly saying that mind/intelectual labor is not labor at all,
Which I didn't say.
If you buy it, it is yours. I have no say in what you do with your property (if you don't harm someone or limit their freedom), and if I sell you my book, you can do with it whatever you want- read it, burn it, sell it, reprint it.
why? because intelectual labor is no labor! (and has no resources) therefore cant be property
For the fourth time, intellectual property is not impossible because intellectual labor is not real, but because it is in contradition with the notion of property.
deserves no reward
It deserves a reward. You write a book, you print it, and sell it. What you earn is yours.
Im just stating that what is fair is fair, what is labor is labor and what is moral is moral.
And what is contraditory is contradictory. Intellectual property is contradictory to the notion of property itself.
Property? is just something you hold in your posession, or that belongs to you (like your mind and body)
And which you have the right to do what you want (as long as you don't hurt anyone or limit their freedom). And intellectual property is in contradiction with that.
NLESS you saying I cant have a diferent definition of property
You cannot have a definition of property that doesn't have in it the part that says that you have the right to do whatever you want with your property. If somone else besides you can control your property, then it is not your property, calling it your property becomes nonsensical.
I have to give you props STSOC for sticking with the interrogation, it obviously must mean a great deal to you, but I'm still no closer to understanding how your positions could in any way lead to a more just society, or how any society could survive at all under these ideals.
You don't believe in any separability of property rights, one owns something completely or not at all? I cannot own land so all my possessions I must carry with me at all times because I cannot exclude others from any parcel of land. Restaurants cannot exist because to allow someone to eat at a table is a separation of property rights, the right to the use of the table for a portion of time. Those allowed to eat at a table could destroy it or take it as their own? If I plant a field of corn others are free to take my crops? Noone can help me harvest because I am alienating their labor by not allowing them to take everything they harvest. Division of labor breaks down because one cannot excel at planting while another harvests more efficiently?
I assume your position is that one laboring to plant the field gives them property in the harvesting of the field, but this in itself is a separation of property rights, they cannot own the land but they own the right to the harvest, they own its use for a period of time. If this is legitimate, what makes surther separations illegitimate, for instance the division of profits between the planter and harvester?
More than that, the one planting the field could not later on keep anyone at all from harvesting it.
Thus, any long-term operation becomes impossible, and theft is institutionalized. Society becomes marked by high-time preference activity, and thus civilization revert back to what was possible before low-time preference individuals created the modern world. The number one means of civilizing: investment, becomes impossible.
It's probable that what he actually wants is indeed a reversal of civilization back to pre-industrial levels. People like him often choose these theories because they think pre-industrial civ somehow better.
Ragnar, looks like didn't even read what I wrote, or you just don't want to understand it.
I cannot own land so all my possessions I must carry with me at all times because I cannot exclude others from any parcel of land.
You can by leaving your property on that parcel of land. Land cannot be property, but things you make (or stuff others made and you bought) are your legitimate property, and no one has the right to take them without your permission. Land can be possession, meaning be used by your property to exist. When you till the soil, it is yours, because you have removed it from the state of nature by mixing labor in it, but you have not, and cannot mix labor witht he intangible area that the soil occupies. So, when he soil returns in it's untilled state of nature, you cannot legitmately deny anyone else the right to till that parcel of land, being that you do not have ownership of the area of land, and there is no property of yours occupying that parcel of land to phisically stop someone else from using it.
Restaurants cannot exist because to allow someone to eat at a table is a separation of property rights
They would exists, you can allow anyone to use your property.
If I plant a field of corn others are free to take my crops?
Where could you get this idiotic idea from? I have never said anything similar.
Noone can help me harvest because I am alienating their labor by not allowing them to take everything they harvest.
He can help you harvest if you cooperate as equals. You together decide how to share the work, the ownership of the product of your collective labor is collective, and you toghether decide what to do with that product, e.g. for how much to sell that corn (of whatever) and how to share the earnings. No alienation of labor is present because you are both in direct control of your labor and it's product, and no one else takes any part of that product.
“For the fourth time, intellectual property is not impossible because intellectual labor is not real, but because it is in contradition with the notion of property.”
And its in contradiction with YOUR notion of property because you don’t consider it labor. My brain is the resource which I cultivate (labor) and get an end product.
Even thou you don’t want to admit it EVERYTHING you said till now points to the idea of “mind labor” not being labor, even the fact that you don’t consider the “boss” as entitled to any right or profit. Not to mention the “you could be an artist in your free time after doing the REAL LABOR like everyone else” (not exact quote).
About the book I think I am very clear about your sense of justice you sacrificed 20 years of your life researching to make a book, and you sell me one book, and its ok if I get rich and make millions with the PRODUCT OF YOUR LABOR! Oh….yeah I forgot its not labor, only putting the ink on a piece of paper is labor, therefore only that can be property. What is basically the same as saying any random printing on a piece of paper is an equaly valid product because the labor is only that part of the process.
About retribution was the second time I asked, I realize I made a mistake because in my language the word retribution (or a similar one) means any kind of pay back, giving something in return, not punishing, but I guess you could easily guess the meaning I intended to give by yourself.
So I repeat, I did in 5 minutes what took you 50 years, the same end product, so am I entitled to get the same amount of money (or any other kind of reward) in 5 minutes as you get in 50 years?
Even thou you don’t want to admit it EVERYTHING you said till now points to the idea of “mind labor” not being labor
even the fact that you don’t consider the “boss” as entitled to any right or profit
The boss is not entitled to take product of someone else's labor.
Not to mention the “you could be an artist in your free time after doing the REAL LABOR like everyone else” (not exact quote).
I will repeat my answer: In socialism, in the communities functioning by mutualism, they [artists] would function as producers and sellers of their products. If people want to buy them [artists' products], they'd buy them. In communities functioning by collectivism or communism, he'd have to contribute vitally important work to the community and could do art in his free time, or would have to convince the community fo accept that his art is enough of contribution to the community that he should take part in community's food and similar products on the basis of providing art.
You took one of three options I mentioned of how could artists function in a socialist societies and you attributed to it something I have not said.
About the book I think I am very clear about your sense of justice you sacrificed 20 years of your life researching to make a book, and you sell me one book, and its ok if I get rich and make millions with the PRODUCT OF YOUR LABOR!
If I sell you my book, and you reprint it and becoming rich, you becoming rich is a product of your labor (reprinting) and for that labor you used your legitimate property (your book).
*That book you reprinted is your book, because you bought it, and I don't have the right to tell what you can or can't do with your property (if you do not harm anyone or limit their freedom), you can do whatever you want with you property, and I have no say in it.
You are not entitled to any price. You get what people are willing to pay you. If you spend 5 minutes of work for something that people want to pay great price, good for you; if I work 50 years for something no one wants to pay, well, bad for me.
Ok "quick reply"
1- You totally ignored all my point about all your conceptions of labor and property not taking into consideration anything besides taking a piece of paper and printing thats the only resource/labor envolved, therefore thats the only property, your resource is the ink and paper and the labor is the printing all the mind labor or research envolved = not relevant, not resource not labor not property not anything.
2- About the artist I took the example of your communist society, and I dont consider "convincing comunity that my work deserves a payment" reasonable plus what is the diference between that and letting the market decide? None, EXCEPT that the majority would decide and not the individuals, being worst both for me and for them. Thats why I ignored it, and I seriously dont understand why wouldnt you just let me make it and earn the money as a full-time job, why do I have to choose between those 2 options...but this point is basically irrelevant to me.
3- Good to finally hear the answer, I just wanted to know how unequal your society could be, now I know that I can make each 5 minutes the same you make each 50 years.
all the mind labor or research envolved = not relevant
Where did I say that? Mind labor and research involved produced the book. But when I buy a book, no one has the right to forbid me from reprinting it.
None, EXCEPT that the majority would decide and not the individuals, being worst both for me and for them.
Nothing preventing you from living in the mutualist communities and operate on the market.
Thats why I ignored it, and I seriously dont understand why wouldnt you just let me make it and earn the money as a full-time job, why do I have to choose between those 2 options
Three options. The third is to do make it and earn money as a full-time job by selling your products on the market.
Good to finally hear the answer, I just wanted to know how unequal your society could be, now I know that I can make each 5 minutes the same you make each 50 years.
This sentence makes no sense.
Please somebody tell me that I make sense! :D
When you say I can earn for 5 minutes of my time what you will earn with 50 years than....OBVIOUSLY I have the possibitie to make tons of more money than you, I think the phrase is self explanatory I dont see what can possibly not make sense.
About the labor, well I dont know how else can I make you see the obvious, you keep saying the same and you just refuse to realize it, but thats ok im only here to learn not to convince you.
For you resources = paper and ink, labor = printing, this mixed equals to property and therefore only this property can be protected. Therefore I have the right to sell millions of copys of your book. 20 years research? Totally irrelevant, totally unrewarded....blablabla. Nevermind...
DemiProphet:For you resources = paper and ink, labor = printing, this mixed equals to property and therefore only this property can be protected. Therefore I have the right to sell millions of copys of your book. 20 years research? Totally irrelevant, totally unrewarded...
Anonymous, that was my argument and “rights not being absolute” has nothing to do with nothing, even if it may sound smart.
Ok Ill try to explain one last time because you are not stosc:
“right to own product of my own labor”
The product of my labor in your (and his) equation is strictly printing, being the research totally excluded.
Only that justifies that only the book (as an object) is considered property, and its considered product of your labor.
The “immaterial” content of the print, the labor involved in the content is not protected at all, because is not considered property, because the research was never seen has labor (and the brain as resource).
Only according to that logic there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying it and sell it. Because you bought the book (the product of my labor) and you making a book yourself (the product of your labor), or better copying it, there is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between copying and making, and you are doing the exact same labor I did which is PRINTING.
I totally understand your logic, that’s why I say your logic is only possible because the mind labor/research is not seen as labor.
The “proof” of my theory is simple and almost instinctive: I researched for 20 years sacrificing many things in life, I sold you one book (I didn’t sell anymore) you took it and sold 1 million, you are now rich with the “product of your labor” I am still poor. Who thinks this is fair? Nobody honest.
Don’t take me wrong I download many stuff probably more than both of you together, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know what is right and what is wrong, and most importantly I never sold anything.
Sharing is ok but taking the "product" of someone else’s labor is not ok (of course for you is not labor).
And by the way not only copying would be totally ok but even puting your name as the author in that copyed book, would be equally acceptable according to both of you. Nothing wrong with that, because is not property and the book is a product of your labor, afterall you did the printing.
Ps: When I said sharing is ok I dont totally stand by what I said (reading it sounds hypocrite), what I mean is more like is acceptable because when I "share" which is not "sharing" but copying Im still taking the product of that someone else labor, because Im taking a client away from him (or not depending if that person was going to buy it or not). But of course 95% of the people "benefit" with this so who cares? ... Not me to be honest, of course if every single person shares and they stop making anything. Then I might start caring.
I'm not quite sure what you mean? If we take"the anarcho" in it's original meaning: without-rulers. And not take it as meaning without-rules ...
stsoc:You work toghether to make widgets, you share the earning that is made by selling the widgets, and you democratically agree how big a share each one gets. There is no owner that takes a part of the earnings but doesn't labor with you; so you all get the full product of your labor.
Firstly, how do you define "the full product of your labor"? How would the members of a cooperative attach a value to "the full product of your labor" so as to know how much to pay you? Secondly, why is it better for a group of people to decide by majority vote how much Jones should get in exchange for his labor, rather than Jones and a boss negotiating to decide how much Jones gets in exchange for his labor? Is there some reason for supposing that a democratic process will tend to give individual workers something closer to the "full product of their labor" (whatever that is) than an employer-employee negotiating process?
Thirdly, if the owner contributes labor to the business, if he works and can be called a worker, and that is his justification for taking some of the earning for himself
Could you define "labor"? If Bob builds a machine all by himself, and then hires people to run this machine to produce widgets, did Bob contribute labor to the production of said widgets? If you're trying to determine who contributed labor to the production of some product, do you need to go all the way back to the first stage of production?
there is still no justification for him taking all the earnings for himself and then by himself decideing how much of it he will give to all other workers. If they all contribute to the business and they all work, then they should all decide how much of earnings should each one get.
In a cooperative "the workers" (as a collective) take all the earnings and decide how to dole them out to the individual workers, just like the boss. What's the difference? How is the power-relation between an individual worker and the collective different than the power-relation between an individual worker and the boss? Is the negotiating position of the individual worker better in a cooperative than in a capitalist-owned firm? In both cases, the individual worker does not get to decide unilaterally how much he receives for his labor. In both cases, the individual worker does get to choose whether he will work here or work elsewhere. I don't see any difference at all, other than that the worker in the cooperative gets to vote, but so what? If the worker has a right to the full product of his labor, why should he have to obey the result of a majority vote? What's that got to do with anything? Why is doling out the profits by majority vote more just than, for example, rolling dice or using a random number generator to decide who gets what?