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

Why I am no longer a socialist

This post has 141 Replies | 14 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Oct 23 2012 9:36 PM

I don't see why he can't understand that the boss is simply the worker's first customer. The worker sells his labor to the boss. That labor usually isn't something that can be tangibly sold to anyone -but- a boss. A secretary might be taking dictation and filing papers, her boss -is- her customer, and there's no end product to sell.

As for the boss working alongside the workers, what do you think his productive capital is doing? The workers are far more productive in combining their efforts with the capitalist's productive capital.

All productive capital is earned by someone first working, like anyone else, and then saving their money to later invest.

Productive capital represents real wealth that was worked for and invested by someone.

They worked for it, how could it possibly be morally legit for a worker to just claim it as their own just because they're being allowed to use it in their capacity as worker?

It just doesn't make any sense on so many goddamn levels.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Wed, Oct 24 2012 10:11 AM

Minarchist

Firstly, how do you define "the full product of your labor"?

According to classical economics, when an enterprise makes products and sells them, the earnings are divided threeways: expenses (on materials and the like) + wages (that go to the laborers) + profit (that go to the owner of the enterprise). For laborer to recieve the full product of their labor would mean that there is no owner other then themselves that takes the profit.

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?

Jones toghether with his coworkers deliberating and voting on how much earnings should each job position in the coop get is different then Jones accepting the decision of his boss in that in the first case Jones has direct control over his productive life, and in the second he accepts to let someone else control his productive life.

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?

It will both give him the full product of his labor, which he doesn't get when there is a boss, and it will also give his the liberty of a non-hierachical relations.

When Jones gets up in the morning and desides what shirt to put on, only he decides, and that can be called a state of monarchy, but if Jones comes into a library full of people reading and starts yelling or similar, it's not just his say, but all affected have a say of whether Jones should yell there or not. The point of non-hierarchical system, and of (direct/ true) democracy is that you have a direct say in decisions that affect you. No one else is to decide without you if the consequences of that decision affect you.

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?

No. There is no such thing as proxy labor. Bob's labor was in producing the machine, and he can get the recompensation for the machine, not part of the earnins from selling of the widgets, being that he contributed no labor there.

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.

The difference is for every individual of the collective in that he has a say in decisions that affect him. When there's one boss that decises, the subordinates don't have a say.

How is the power-relation between an individual worker and the collective different than the power-relation between an individual worker and the boss?

The individual worker's don't constitute the boss, but the boss is a individual that is not them that gives them orders.

In both cases, the individual worker does not get to decide unilaterally how much he receives for his labor.

Because it is not just his own earnings. He has a say proportionally to the contribution. If he is only one vote in a collective of a hundred workers, that's because he is just one pair of hands contributing labor toghether with hundrer other.

I don't see any difference at all

I could suggest the reason being figurative blindness induced by prolonged exposure to capitalist propaganda.

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?

Because all who participate in the vote have the right to the full product of their labor, too.

Anenome

I don't see why he can't understand that the boss is simply the worker's first customer.

Because he is not. It is clear from service jobs. Employee is a service provider and the customer is the service reciever. Employee provides the service to the customer (and to the employer) and the customer payes the employer (not the employee). So, the employee does not provide service to the employer, but to the third party (customer) and alienates his labor to the employer, and then the employer gets payed for the service, as if he did the service.

The worker sells his labor to the boss.

The slave sell himself to the slaveowner. I don't see how the fact that it happed or the fact that it happed volutarily justifies it. Absense of hierarchy is an ethical axiom.

The workers are far more productive in combining their efforts with the capitalist's productive capital.

Something being productive is not a justification. Slavery was productive.

All productive capital is earned by someone first working, like anyone else, and then saving their money to later invest.

All wealth once came from slavery. Doesn't make slavery right.

how could it possibly be morally legit for a worker to just claim it as their own just because they're being allowed to use it in their capacity as worker?

Because renting means of production contradict the right to the full product of one's labor, which is the right to property. Just like intellectual rights are illegitimate because they contradict the notion of property, likewise renting the means of production.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Something being productive is not a justification. Slavery was productive

Slavery was a lot less productive than wage labor.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Because renting means of production contradict the right to the full product of one's labor, which is the right to property. Just like intellectual rights are illegitimate because they contradict the notion of property, likewise renting the means of production.

But restricting someone's right to make contractual agreements with another person regarding property does not?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

The slave sell himself to the slaveowner. I don't see how the fact that it happed or the fact that it happed volutarily justifies it. Absense of hierarchy is an ethical axiom.

You cannot trade self-ownership. Labor is just another commodity, and if you hold to the Labor Theory of Value then even capital can't be traded because capital is just frozen labor. Heck, you wouldn't be able to trade anything, since everything is the product of labor!

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Wed, Oct 24 2012 1:13 PM

But restricting someone's right to make contractual agreements with another person regarding property does not?

If you can't trade "self-ownership", you also can't trade labor. Use of one's actions is de facto non-transferable, and people do not have the right to transer titles over themselves or their labor because they don't have them. People are not property and to invision titles of property over them is a category error, and even if one does so, I don't see how that makes it legitimate to alienate something that is intristicly inalienable.

"A right is inalienable (even with consent) if the contract to alienate the right is inherently invalid. The self-enslavement or self-sale contract is an old example of such a contract, while the self-rental or employment contract is a current example."

Nice work by David Ellerman against employment: http://www.abolishhumanrentals.org/inalienable-rights/consent/

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Oct 24 2012 2:12 PM
 
 

Stsoc treats "labor" as if it were a mystical quantity. Where is labor? Where can it be seen?

No, the mystical concept of "labor" cannot be traded because labor is an activity, but the products of that labor certainly can be traded. This metaphysical confusion is central to the left-anarchist's / socialist's position on labor ethics.

What we find unethical then about the socialist and left-anarchs is that they would seek to use force to stop a voluntary trade between worker and employer.

They cannot therefore follow the NAP, as they are injecting themselves in a situation in which neither party wants them there. They would be free to try to convince people they're being taken advantage of somehow, and free to setup co-opts and commune style businesses without capitalists that supposedly follow their metaphysical concept of labor value.

But you cannot stop anything in a free society that occurs voluntarily between adults and where there is no victim to complain. You're free to try to convince a worker he's being taken advantage of somehow and come join your co-opt but because your theory of value is fallacious, I doubt you would get many people agreeing to go with you.

In a voluntary transaction, the transaction only occurs because both parties feel they would be better off after the transaction than before it. An emloyment transaction fulfills this requirement, which is why the employment model has spread the world round.

The communlist theory of co-opts and mutualist businesses has routinely sub-performed and failed the world-round, and not even one of the Fortune 500 companies is run on this basis. To the left-socialist, this is evidence of exploitation and profiting off the worker. But the fact that there are no complaints of victimhood among workers is telling.

Marx wasn't stupid, his labor theory of value was designed to provoke the poor into envy and delegitimize the wealth of capitalists, giving people a justification for attacking the wealthy. It's just class warfare all over again. It serves as pretext for aggression, and thus is particularly pernicious. And the only places where it has been effective propaganda have been particularly poor areas which didn't have a lot of employment but did have something akin to feudalism, where the poor really were being exploited directly.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

you also can't trade labor.

Since all money is the product of labor does that mean you cannot trade money either?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Thu, Oct 25 2012 5:53 AM

No, the mystical concept of "labor" cannot be traded because labor is an activity, but the products of that labor certainly can be traded.

Exactly, that is why selling is legitimate, but employment is not.

What we find unethical then about the socialist and left-anarchs is that they would seek to use force to stop a voluntary trade between worker and employer.

Yes, we would use force to stop contracts of transer of title over one's labor, just like we would use force to stop contracts of transfer of title oneself.

They cannot therefore follow the NAP

Nor fo we want to. NAP is a capitalist forgery of the harm principle, which is much wider then it, and precisely because it is narrower, it allows many cruelties.

But you cannot stop anything in a free society that occurs voluntarily between adults and where there is no victim to complain.

Yes, in a free society anyone wanting to relinquish their freedom and become a subordinate will be stopped.

The communlist theory of co-opts

CommunList? Co-opTs?

has routinely sub-performed and failed the world-round

1. Not true. 2. Even if it were true, it doen't justify the alternative.

Since all money is the product of labor does that mean you cannot trade money either?

You can trade products of labor, but not labor.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, Oct 25 2012 3:50 PM
 
 

stsoc:

No, the mystical concept of "labor" cannot be traded because labor is an activity, but the products of that labor certainly can be traded.

Exactly, that is why selling is legitimate, but employment is not.

All labor results in a product, that is some change in the material world. That is what you're selling to your employer. You're guilty of metaphysically confusing labor as an abstract activity which cannot be separated from the individual, like moving one's arms and feet, and the products of labor, like using your arms and feet to produce hammers. Hammers are quite easily separable from your person.

Again, employment is merely a continuing purchase of the products of labor. What would it mean to actually selling your capability to do labor as an activity, cutting your arm off and selling that to the employer? Ridiculous. You argue as if this is what people are suggesting.

Even if we agreed there was something unethical with labor, it doesn't matter until you have a victim complaining and bringing suits. You're also missing this facet of a free society. If they make a dumb contract, it doesn't matter until they decide to bring suit. The only time you're justified in jumping into a situation is when someone's being held physically against their will and being prevented thereby from escaping and bringing suit, such as in actual cases of slavery and imprisonment.

Employers do not imprison their employees, thus you have no case.

stsoc:
What we find unethical then about the socialist and left-anarchs is that they would seek to use force to stop a voluntary trade between worker and employer.

Yes, we would use force to stop contracts of transer of title over one's labor, just like we would use force to stop contracts of transfer of title oneself.

No, libertarians and anarchs would -not- use force to stop a contract to transfer title of oneself! You miss it again. In a free society you would be free to enter into any contract you want without being stopped by anyone, even a so-called slavery contract. Where things change is when the employer goes to court to enforce that contract, or when the "slave" decides they want to break the contract. At that point, the courts would rule the contract null on the base of inalienable right to onesself, and the attempted slave-owner would realize how dumb he was to enter into the contract in the first place if it cannot be enforced.

Since slavery only ever actually occurs if the master can use force against the slave, no condition of slavery would in fact have existed, since prior to the dispute of the "slavery" contract, the "slave" would have engaged voluntarily in whatever he was asked to perform.

Your charge that a free society would allow slavery is ridiculous.

stsoc:
They cannot therefore follow the NAP

Nor do we want to. NAP is a capitalist forgery of the harm principle, which is much wider then it, and precisely because it is narrower, it allows many cruelties.

Howso? The NAP is a codification of the harm principle in the context of property rights--all aggressions are invasions of property rights. If the harm principle is not codified in terms of property rights, much fuzziness results. I think you -want- that fuzziness, because you want to use harm as a justification for things that the NAP would consider an aggression. So, please give us an example, and I'll show how your view is in fact the one allows violations of property rights of the individual, for you're likely going to include things like spiritual harm, offending people's religion or views, or claim that society in general is harmed etc. Can't wait. Can't wait.

stsoc:
But you cannot stop anything in a free society that occurs voluntarily between adults and where there is no victim to complain.

Yes, in a free society anyone wanting to relinquish their freedom and become a subordinate will be stopped.

Then you're not advocating a free society. You realize that, I hope. You're advocating a police state where elites decide what will be legal or not, not a free society where individuals decide for themselves what way to live. You are a secular taliban.

stsoc:
The communlist theory of co-opts

CommunList? Co-opTs?

'Communalist'.

stsoc:
Since all money is the product of labor does that mean you cannot trade money either?

You can trade products of labor, but not labor.

If you can trade the products of labor then employment is legitimate. No employment contract reduces or removes that ability to provide labor actions, it removes only the products of labor and pays for it so that the trade is equal, not exploitative.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 11:07 AM

All labor results in a product, that is some change in the material world. That is what you're selling to your employer.

If that were the case, then he wouldn't be the employer, but the buyer/ customer.

You're guilty of metaphysically confusing labor as an abstract activity which cannot be separated from the individual, like moving one's arms and feet, and the products of labor, like using your arms and feet to produce hammers. Hammers are quite easily separable from your person.

Hammers are, using your arms and feet to produce hammers isn't.

What would it mean to actually selling your capability to do labor as an activity, cutting your arm off and selling that to the employer? Ridiculous.

Don't play dumb, and don't troll. When someone sells oneself into slavery, his owner doesn't magically gain control over the slave's body, but the slaveowner is the holder of the title over the slaves body. Likewise with the trasfer of title over one's labor for a fixed amount of time.

You're also missing this facet of a free society.

Society that tolerates slavery cannot in any way be called "free". Slavetarian, propertarian, or at best voluntaryist.

No, libertarians and anarchs would -not- use force to stop a contract to transfer title of oneself!

Libertarians and anarchists would. Propertarians and slavetarians would not.

Where things change is when the employer goes to court to enforce that contract, or when the "slave" decides they want to break the contract.

You cannot break the contract of full transer of title of ownership. If I sell you my car, and them latter change my mind and take it back, I'm commiting theft. Same if I have transfered title of ownership over myselft to you, you are the holder of title, and I am violating your property rights.

At that point, the courts would rule the contract null on the base of inalienable right to onesself

In that case all contracts of employment should be null, too. If selling oneself is illegitimate, then renting oneself is, too.

The NAP is a codification of the harm principle in the context of property rights

One can accept the wider harm principle and still be a capitalist, neither HP nor NAP imply a theory of property, it's just that NAP is totally disconnected from consequences of (physical!) harm that people indirectly cause, and it fits the capitalist anti-humane profit philosophy.

You're advocating a police state where elites decide what will be legal or not

That is precisely what you advocate- a society where the capitalist class will have absolute power by enforcing it's propertarian laws and where the subjugates workers would be "free" to sell themselves into slavery.

If you can trade the products of labor then employment is legitimate.

It is not. Trade of products is legitimate, employment entails alienation of labor. Employer is considered the holder of the title of the labor of his employees, that has been the propertarian view ever since Locke who said that he is entitled the products of labor that is exerted by "himself, his horses, his servants".

No employment contract reduces or removes that ability to provide labor actions, it removes only the products of labor and pays for it so that the trade is equal, not exploitative.

As I explained multiple times, employment necessarily entails alienation of labor.

This is obvious from examples of service providers that have bosses.

The service provider provides the service (e.g. fixing something) to the customer (and not to the employer) and the customer payes the employer (not the employee) and that money belongs to the employer, not the employee who is the service provider.

Again- the employee does not provide service to the employer (but to the third party- customer) but alienates (/transferes the title over) his labor to the employer, and then the employer gets payed for the service, as if he did it, which he didn't.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 1:15 PM
 
 

stsoc:

All labor results in a product, that is some change in the material world. That is what you're selling to your employer.

If that were the case, then he wouldn't be the employer, but the buyer/ customer.

That's exactly the case, and exactly what he is. All employment contracts are just long-term repeat customer purchases.

You're not exaclty refuting that. So you're just assuming your argument, gotcha.

stsoc:
You're guilty of metaphysically confusing labor as an abstract activity which cannot be separated from the individual, like moving one's arms and feet, and the products of labor, like using your arms and feet to produce hammers. Hammers are quite easily separable from your person.

Hammers are, using your arms and feet to produce hammers isn't.

But you sell hammers, not your arms and feet. You've already admitted that the products of labor is saleable legitimately, don't forget that.

stsoc:
What would it mean to actually selling your capability to do labor as an activity, cutting your arm off and selling that to the employer? Ridiculous.

Don't play dumb, and don't troll. When someone sells oneself into slavery, his owner doesn't magically gain control over the slave's body, but the slaveowner is the holder of the title over the slaves body. Likewise with the trasfer of title over one's labor for a fixed amount of time.

Employment is not transfer of title over one's labor for a fixed amount of time, for that would imply the employer could make you do anything and do anything, as a slaveowner does with a slave. But this is not the case, the employer has hired you for a set purpose. Furthermore if the slave attempts to leave his condition of slavery, the slaveowner uses force to prevent this. The slave/owner relationship requires force for it to exist.

The employee is hired for a set job and need not do anything else asked of him, or if he is asked can renegotiate terms of employment. If the employee tries to leave employment, he's free to go. And no force is used to maintain the relationship. It is not possible to transfer title to "labor" because labor does not exist in this world as a concrete quantity. The word 'labor' is just an abstraction meant to subsume all the activities involved in producing some thing. It is only the products of labor that exist and only they that can be sold. The employee agrees to produce something for the employer, using 'labor', and using the employer's materials.

It's no different than if you hired a plumber to produce something, using labor, out of the materials you alread own (your pipes).

You kep saying that would be legitimate, but you cannot show how an employment contract is any different from hiring someone to produce something directly. The employer is just a customer for an employee's labor. He buys labor. End of story. There's no slavery going on in the slightest.

stsoc:
You're also missing this facet of a free society.

Society that tolerates slavery cannot in any way be called "free". Slavetarian, propertarian, or at best voluntaryist.

Is this just a slogan now? A, as I said, it wouldn't be slavery until force enters the arrangement. At that point it could be and would be stopped by anyone, including courts. And, as I said, at no time in such a contract would slavery have occurred.

Your trying to paint a libertarian society as slave tolerating is ridiculous, especially since it is socialist societies that have made slaves of entire nations! And you call yourself a socialist.

stsoc:
No, libertarians and anarchs would -not- use force to stop a contract to transfer title of oneself!

Libertarians and anarchists would. Propertarians and slavetarians would not.

Lol, you're just a talking puppet-head now, aren't you.

stsoc:
Where things change is when the employer goes to court to enforce that contract, or when the "slave" decides they want to break the contract.

You cannot break the contract of full transer of title of ownership. If I sell you my car, and them latter change my mind and take it back, I'm commiting theft. Same if I have transfered title of ownership over myselft to you, you are the holder of title, and I am violating your property rights.

Rothbard in For a New Liberty:

"If there is anything a libertarian must be squarely and totally against, it is involuntary servitude—forced labor—an act which denies the most elemental right of self-ownership. “Liberty” and “slavery” have ever been recognized to be polar opposites. The libertarian, therefore, is totally opposed to slavery.1 An academic question nowadays, one might object? But is it really? For what is slavery but (a) forcing people to work at tasks the slavemaster wishes, and (b) paying them either pure subsistence or, at any rate, less than the slave would have accepted voluntarily. In short, forced labor at below free-market wages."

Murray N. Rothbard (2012-08-16 12:47:05-07:00). For A New Liberty (Kindle Locations 1463-1469). Ludwig von Mises Institue. Kindle Edition.

Notice, the word 'force' is a requirement for slavery. Unless you can show where force is being used in an employment contract you have no case (hint: you cannot).

Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty:

The distinction between a man’s alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced—for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.

Murray N. Rothbard (1998-08-16 00:00:00-07:00). The Ethics of Liberty (Kindle Locations 1760-1767). New York University Press. Kindle Edition.

The reason then that slavery is illegitimate is that a slave cannot transfer title over himself because he is a decision-making agent, he cannot turn his will over to another.

Again, your argument that a libertarian society would tolerate slavery is ridiculous. You either don't understand slavery, or don't understand employment, or both.

stsoc:
At that point, the courts would rule the contract null on the base of inalienable right to onesself

In that case all contracts of employment should be null, too. If selling oneself is illegitimate, then renting oneself is, too.

Define "renting onesself."

stsoc:
The NAP is a codification of the harm principle in the context of property rights

One can accept the wider harm principle and still be a capitalist, neither HP nor NAP imply a theory of property, it's just that NAP is totally disconnected from consequences of (physical!) harm that people indirectly cause, and it fits the capitalist anti-humane profit philosophy.

Not at all, the NAP allows for indirect harm to be dealt with. Such things should simply be dealt with in courts.

Calling profit an 'anti-humane' philosophy really goes to show how naive you are. Again, profit is production. Without profit there is nothing being made. And without things being made society ends.

stsoc:
You're advocating a police state where elites decide what will be legal or not

That is precisely what you advocate- a society where the capitalist class will have absolute power by enforcing it's propertarian laws and where the subjugates workers would be "free" to sell themselves into slavery.

Lol, it's such a distortion it's laughable. You know what, have a nice life with your delusions. It's clear you're more interested in shouting slogans than analyzing your rationale in any cogent, rationale manner. This isn't about principle for you it's about emotion.

stsoc:
If you can trade the products of labor then employment is legitimate.

It is not. Trade of products is legitimate, employment entails alienation of labor. Employer is considered the holder of the title of the labor of his employees, that has been the propertarian view ever since Locke who said that he is entitled the products of labor that is exerted by "himself, his horses, his servants".

Blah blah blah. Just becaus eyou say 'employer is holding title' doesn't make it true. I don't know anyone who's signed title to their life just for a job. So ridiculous. I suppose when people quit they're signing their manumission papers? lmao.

Employment is a trade. I don't give a damn what Locke said. You're just choosing what you want to believe and refusing to consider what I actually believe.

stsoc:
No employment contract reduces or removes that ability to provide labor actions, it removes only the products of labor and pays for it so that the trade is equal, not exploitative.

As I explained multiple times, employment necessarily entails alienation of labor.

And as I've said multiple times, "labor" as a mystical quantity cannot be alienated anymore than you can cut your arm and legs off and sell their productive capacity. It is only the products of labor that can be alienated, because 'alienation' means 'to separate'.

stsoc:
This is obvious from examples of service providers that have bosses.

The service provider provides the service (e.g. fixing something) to the customer (and not to the employer) and the customer payes the employer (not the employee) and that money belongs to the employer, not the employee who is the service provider.

Because the employer provides all sorts of services to the employee in exchange for a regular paycheck and access to productive capital. It really does all work out, and no one's stopping the employee for going it alone if he so desires. It's all voluntary.

And if it's voluntary it CANNOT be slavery.

stsoc:
Again- the employee does not provide service to the employer (but to the third party- customer) but alienates (/transferes the title over) his labor to the employer, and then the employer gets payed for the service, as if he did it, which he didn't.

So you're saying I can't hire you to fix my sister's house? That would be the same thing the employer is doing, hiring you to fix his customer's house.

Your reasoning doesn't even hold up to first glance dude! How do you believe this shit?

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 3:46 PM

You're not exaclty refuting that.

I am. Employment is not buying products, it's buying labor, which is illegitimate.

But you sell hammers, not your arms and feet.

Employee sells the actions of his arms and feet.

Employment is not transfer of title over one's labor for a fixed amount of time

Yes, it is.

for that would imply the employer could make you do anything and do anything, as a slaveowner does with a slave.

The slaveowner gives his slaves orders to follow, the employer gives his employees orders to follow.

Furthermore if the slave attempts to leave his condition of slavery, the slaveowner uses force to prevent this. The slave/owner relationship requires force for it to exist.

Because the slave sells himself, and the employee rents himself. If I sell you my car and them try to take it back, of cource you're legitimate in using your force, if I rent you my car and take it back, you're not entitled to use force, because I'm taking my property back, and you are only entitled to not paying for the rent.

But employment is not illegitimate because of force, or aggressive force, they are not present, and no one ever claimed that they are; employment is illegitimate for two reasons- firstly because it is hierarchical, and secondly because it is in contradiction with the notion of property in it's consistent application of labor theory of property as meaning the right to the full product of one's labor, directly making renting of means of production illegitimate (and employment is based on the wokers not owning the means of production that they use for labor, same as serfhood, that's why John Dewey called capitalism "industrial feudalism", because employees are similar to serfs in being denied the full product of their labor). 

It's no different than if you hired a plumber to produce something, using labor, out of the materials you alread own (your pipes).

It is very different. Being employmed is not the same as providing service, and service jobs are clear examples that employment is based on alienation of labor. For the tenth time:

The service provider provides the service (e.g. fixing something) to the customer (and not to the employer) and the customer payes the employer (not the employee) and that money belongs to the employer, not the employee who is the service provider.

Again- the employee does not provide service to the employer (but to the third party- customer) but alienates (/transferes the title over) his labor to the employer, and then the employer gets payed for the service, as if he did it, which he didn't.

At that point it could be and would be stopped by anyone, including courts.

That would just show inconstitency in that system.

especially since it is socialist societies that have made slaves of entire nations!

State capitalist maybe. Socialist societies mean non-hierarchial organisation of people, which means freedom.

Notice, the word 'force' is a requirement for slavery.

Just like for any selling. If I transer the title over my car to you, and thet try to take it back, you are legitimate in using force to stop me. There is no logical reason why transer of title over oneself would be treated differently in a propertarian society.

The reason then that slavery is illegitimate is that a slave cannot transfer title over himself because he is a decision-making agent, he cannot turn his will over to another.

Then, to be consistent,  tranfer of title over one's action should likewise be deemed illegitimate.

Define "renting onesself."

What is renting of an object. Renting oneself means doing the same, just with yourself. It is also known as employment.

Not at all, the NAP allows for indirect harm to be dealt with.

It does not. Murdering people by locking them up in a room that one owns and letting them starve is not a violation of NAP, likewise starving babies or exposing them to the elements.

Without profit there is nothing being made.

Socialism established in Spain proves you wrong. They abolished money and still had large increaces in production both in agriculture and industrial and infrastructural production.

It's clear you're more interested in shouting slogans than analyzing your rationale in any cogent, rationale manner.

You have described yourself.

Employment is a trade.

Trade of one's labor. Which is inalienable.

It is only the products of labor that can be alienated, because 'alienation' means 'to separate'.

Actually, to alienate means to transfer.

And if it's voluntary it CANNOT be slavery.

One cannot voluntarily (without being coerced by aggression or a threat thereof) sell oneself in slavery? Then how did that such a thing occur troughout history? I really hope you are not denying reality.

So you're saying I can't hire you to fix my sister's house?

Please, do not play dumb. I have said more then ten times said both 1. Providing a service is legitimate. and 2. Employment is not provision of servise, it is alienation of labor.

Read it again, but now try to actually understand it:

The service provider provides the service (e.g. fixing something) to the customer (and not to the employer) and the customer payes the employer (not the employee) and that money belongs to the employer, not the employee who is the service provider.

Again- the employee does not provide service to the employer (but to the third party- customer) but alienates (/transferes the title over) his labor to the employer, and then the employer gets payed for the service, as if he did it, which he didn't.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 4:27 PM
 
 

stsoc:
Not at all, the NAP allows for indirect harm to be dealt with.

It does not. Murdering people by locking them up in a room that one owns and letting them starve is not a violation of NAP

It's actually false imprisonment and would be immoral under the NAP. You're using force to prevent a person from leaving an area.

stsoc:
likewise starving babies or exposing them to the elements.

If you accept an obligation to care for someone who cannot care for themselves, as in a baby, yes this would be immoral. The point is that it would not be immoral unless you accept that obligation in advance. If you walked past a random baby starving and you didn't cause that, it is no crime to keep walking.

stsoc:
Without profit there is nothing being made.
Socialism established in Spain proves you wrong. They abolished money and still had large increaces in production both in agriculture and industrial and infrastructural production.

Then they still had profit, they just didn't call it such or didn't count it in money. Profit is not merely money, it means you've gotten more out of your efforts than you put in.

As an example, suppose you expend 500 calories catching a rabbit, and then eat the rabbit and the rabbit only returns to your body 200 calories. You have no profited by that activity. You will starve and die in that fashion (and people have done so). But if you spend 500 calories to kill and butcher a cow, which is worth several thousands of calories, you have profited.

Profit is innate to all human production and activity. It does not require money. Even in a barter economy, a free trade will not occur unless both parties feel they will be better off after the transaction--that better-off-ness is also profit.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 5:20 PM

It's actually false imprisonment and would be immoral under the NAP.

I don't see how is false imprisonment immoral under NAP, you don't violate other's property neither in their person nor in their external possessions.

You're using force to prevent a person from leaving an area.

You're using your property the way you want, he entered your property volutarily and you are not aggressing, not threatening aggression against his body or external property by locking him up, that is- you are not violating NAP.

If you accept an obligation to care for someone who cannot care for themselves, as in a baby, yes this would be immoral.

If they are the parents, they have an obligation not to deprive care of which they have made someone dependent without consent from that someone.

NAP, of course says otherwise, if you don't directly murder someone, it's not murder.

If you walked past a random baby starving and you didn't cause that, it is no crime to keep walking.

If you accept only negative rights.

Profit is innate to all human production and activity.

In that sense, yes. And you capitalists always show that you are good in tampering with words, playing dumb, pretending you don't know what people mean when they say something.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 305
Points 7,165

 I don't see how is false imprisonment immoral under NAP, you don't violate other's property neither in their person nor in their external possessions.

You're violating others' self-ownership imbued freedom of movement (literal movement) by using force.

 If you accept only negative rights.

What is the basis for positive rights? Under the law, why should a person have a duty to another person outside of not initiating violence against them, and whatever privately entered contracts they have?

 In that sense, yes. And you capitalists always show that you are good in tampering with words, playing dumb, pretending you don't know what people mean when they say something.

Sort of like how you just disregarded the fact that profit (self-interest) drives all human production and action?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Oct 26 2012 11:45 PM
 
 

It's rather ironic for all your talk of being against slavery, stcos, that you're in favor of positive rights.

Because positive rights reallly are slavery.

If you claim that someone has a right to a living wage, you're claiming that someone else must hire them, thus the business-owner is made a slave to the need of the jobless.

If you claim that someone has a right to healtchare, you make a slave of the healthcare provider, who is now obligated to give healthcare at no cost if need be, and cannot refuse to give care.

If you claim that someone has a right to education, you make a slave out of the teachers or taxpayers that are forced to provide it.

One reason positive rights cannot be rights is because they always trample someone else's negative rights. They are ethically self-contradictory.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 192
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Sat, Oct 27 2012 6:03 AM

What is the basis for positive rights?

Argumentation ethics can be. The framework has already been expanded by Molineux to highlight that to ethics pressupose certain value preferences, so one could just go on to point out that a preference for other people being alive is an a priori norm of argumentation, and thus an axiom of ethics.

Sort of like how you just disregarded the fact that profit (self-interest) drives all human production and action?

Sort of like how both of you talk about a secondary meaning of the word I used in a different meaning. If were are to talk about the that broader meaning of the word, then yes, anarchist too accept the profit motive, the difference with the capitalists is that we see collectivism, cooperation and solidarity as being in self-interest of people involved in it, and we see individualism and competition as not being a part of a rational self-interest.

Because positive rights reallly are slavery.

I could in the same vein of exaggerating metaphors say that rejecting negative rights is murder.

If you claim that someone has a right to a living wage, you're claiming that someone else must hire them, thus the business-owner is made a slave to the need of the jobless.

If you claim that someone has a right to healtchare, you make a slave of the healthcare provider, who is now obligated to give healthcare at no cost if need be, and cannot refuse to give care.

If you claim that someone has a right to education, you make a slave out of the teachers or taxpayers that are forced to provide it.

One reason positive rights cannot be rights is because they always trample someone else's negative rights. They are ethically self-contradictory.

Or I could say, like Locke, that: No Man could ever have a just Power over the Life of another, by Right of property in Land or Possessions; since 'twould always be a Sin in any Man of Estate, to let his Brother perish for want of affording him Relief out of his Plenty. A Man can no more justly make use of another's necessity, to force him to become his Vassal, by with-holding that Relief, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, master him to his Obedience, and with a Dagger at his Throat offer him Death or Slavery.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 183
Points 3,740

You should send this to Michael Moore

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 445

Well I guess one thing is for sure STSOC is not going to change his mind, and I thank him for showing me a "leftist" solid point of view which at least TRIES to make sense, and is not totally hypocrite. 

I think the logical arguments were more than enough but something lies inside the mind of a "leftist" that stops them from understanding things with the proper simplicity.

Some might say its emotion distorting their thoughts, some might say is pure blindness, ego, allergy to justice or truth, Im still trying to identify exactly what it is and how to call it, but for sure as I was trying to focus with my intelectual labor theories, the materialist (limited) perspective of the world is in the core of the problem all the theorie revolves around this primal materialist perspective over everything including labor.

Anyway like somebody here said before : communism makes my brain hurt and ill add my heart bleed and for the records: Im poor and I own basically nothing.

I also got to say I learned a few things with this post and I enjoyed reading it specially when people keep it simple and go straight to the basics and the concepts because there is where the confusion lies and the problem resides.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 445

One more thing STSOC can you make any post without using the word slavery? ...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Nov 16 2012 6:37 PM
 
 

I was thinking about his challenge that people have historically sold themselves into slavery.

I think this isn't exactly true.

You can call something slavery without it actually fitting the definition of slavery. People trying to sell themselves into slavery are actually usually trying to avoid a worse fate, like death from starvation while being unable to care for themselves or something like that.

In a modern era, if someone tried to sell themselves into slavery, they wouldn't be entering into a slavery contract, they'd be entering into a contract where they receive remuneration only in terms of living expenses.

A condition of slavery always requires force. So slavery would not exist in any such arrangement until the moment when the slave decides to leave the arrangement with the other party. At this point, if the other party agrees to let them leave, then there has been, throughout, nothing but a voluntary arrangement, and a condition of slavery never existed.

However, if the other refuses to let the contractor leave, then a condition of slavery is said to exist. The slave-holder at this point is guilty of violating the rights of another and will be prosecuted for doing so, which will end that instance of slavery.

This is why we need never fear a free society will allow slavery. If a free society will protect the rights of its members then slavery will never be acceptable.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 4 of 4 (142 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 | RSS