Wasn't the "legendary" Pony Express a private company?
Epicurus, you do not what you are talking about. First you spam your own thread. Second you do not answer the points I have made. Third what you write has nothing to do with what it actually is. For the moment I do not see why should I waste my time answering you anymore, as there are more of my questions pending unanswered.
Just my two cents- but the above doesn't help either. Especially if you don't see why you should waste time, this post was useless. Forget taking things personally, people do that a bit too much on these forums. He'll get to your answers when he gets to them- or maybe he never will- either way don't have to get bothered by it.
So socialism means that workers must either be hired unconditionally or not at all, and no one can own stock in a company they don't work for? I've never seen it defined that way before.
Well, most socialists would say you can't own stock in a company at all, because that implies ownership... right? But I fail to see where I said either of these.
I advocate workers exercising more control over their workplace (and once again, that doesn't just mean simple laborers) and a good way to do that would be for them to have a stake in the company (assuming we live in a capitalist economy). I also find it ideal for people not to have to work so much (tho if you want to, that's awesome) just to maintain a decent existence, for many reasons; including unemployment issues (less work time means more time for more workers) family development, and pursuit of one's desires, among other reasons.
when you mention the workplace as an area that you just happen to "find yourself having to work at"- you don't consider it a voluntary agreement?(thats what is implied so please clarify)
It has to be put into context. Me working for the company specifically that I work for is, if defined a certain way, a voluntary exchange. But one must work (unless one is born to rich parents, then you can just live off dividends... lazy free loaders ). That can't be denied. And one finds themselves most likely having to work for a capitalist, as they own nearly everything, and most labor is unskilled. It is a voluntary exchange much in the same way that a man with water finds a person in the desert dying of thirst; sure it's voluntary, but it still sucks. And ethically, it seems the man with the water has a responsiblity to give it to the one dying of thirst... in my opinion.
Like if I said to you "Hey man do you wanna do some heavy lifting to move some stuff from my grandmother's house to my house? I'll give you $50- but please dress appropriately" Would you consider it that I had no right in telling you to dress appropriately? but you have every right to take the $50 that I offered?
Like if I said to you "Hey man do you wanna do some heavy lifting to move some stuff from my grandmother's house to my house? I'll give you $50- but please dress appropriately"
Would you consider it that I had no right in telling you to dress appropriately? but you have every right to take the $50 that I offered?
What if appropriate dress to me means naked? There's nothing wrong with suggesting it, and one should have respect enough to follow. But it shouldn't be a neccessary prerequisite for employment. Civil liberties, in my view, are not just a political thing, they're economic as well.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Then don't...? I have no responsiblity to answer your questions. Why so authoritarian?
But capitalists aren't out to deny people work. They have a limited amount of money and a nearly unlimited amount of people who want that money- what can they do but choose what they hope are the best workers?
I would definitely say its the right thing to do to give water to a man dying of thirst- but that's just not the same situation. When it comes to work, people aren't being hired out of charity- they're being hired because they've proved themselves valuable in some way. If I need someone to lift heavy objects for work, why would I hire someone who's emaciated and starving? Not to say I couldn't help that starving person some other way out of charity- but that's not a work relationship.
Work isn't charity by definition. I don't think it sucks that people "have" to work, I think its good. If no one had to work we'd either be in a utopia because we get everything we wanted in some magical way or nothing would be done and there would be nearly no food or water to give to anyone. Capitalists become capitalists by offering people something they want. If they got their money by stealing- that's when they aren't considered capitalists anymore.
Well then can't I argue that "Paying you $50 shouldn't be a necessary prerequisite for you to help me out". Money shouldn't be a necessary prerequisite for helping your fellow man should it? Why not flip this around and argue that a pizza shop owner is always subject to an involuntary situation where he has to pay people just to convince them to help him make pizza? It just all seems so arbitrary.
Work is a "I do something for you, you do something for me" relationship.
So to you, work agreements should only go so far as "I do this work, you give me this money"- any other part of the agreement is unnecessary? The entire agreement is why you are getting paid. Wearing what I ask you to wear to work is PART of the work.
I also find it ideal for people not to have to work so much (tho if you want to, that's awesome) just to maintain a decent existence, for many reasons; including unemployment issues (less work time means more time for more workers) family development, and pursuit of one's desires, among other reasons.
This is the goal of a capitalist economy, overall less work hours and more leisure. We don't have to knit our own clothes, grow our own food, or even make our own toys. Without state intervention- this would keep going further and the disparity between work and leisure(in the favor of leisure) would increase.
Our goals aren't different at all- we all want people in general to be better off than they were before.
Perhaps you could define what a socialist economy would look like to you because I admit(if you couldn't tell) I'm a bit confused.
Last year the post office lost $8.5 billion. In 2009 they lost $4.7 billion. They lose billions of dollars every year. You just opened your mouth and demonstrated to every person here what a moron you are. "Oh gee since we mailed stuff and it got through, the post office is great...who cares that it's a blackhole of stolen money?" The saddest part is they lose that much money with a government-enforced monopoly, too.
For years I co-ran an ebay business w my father. We used the post office everyday to send packages. We never had a problem, not once.
Any government service in existence can be used to anyones advantage: be it the military, peace corp, post office, priests, teachers, roads, PBS, NPR, Zionists etc.
Personally I love collecting stamps and coins and listening to one of the few damn outlets for compositional music on the radio in NPR. What is your point?
This is what you intended LS ^^^^^ (Chris' post)
And it worked.
I never said I love th PO. I said it isn't as ineffecient as some people try to claim. I did say I doubt it had lost billions, and if that is wrong, which has been asserted twice, I apologize.
(I'm about to hit the sack, but I will get to your post tomorow Auctionguy)
That the USPS isn't as terribly inneficient, at least in my experience (which is anectdotal at best) as some people were trying to claim in the thread I posted this in.
That the USPS isn't as terribly inneficient
Compared to what? What is the inefficient/ efficient without a market mechanism to tell what is what? Is the US Government efficient at corporotism, imperialism, etc?
EDIT: Yes governments can have some services due to the existence of markets. There is really no debate on this.
I'm just curious - what services are you referring to?
Oh but they are. YOu can only hire so many people and still turn a profit. It's not their fault, it's the nature of the system. There could be 50 qualified and dedicated workers wanting the job. But owner wants a mansion, so he's only hiring 3 of them. Capitalism needs and creates scarcity to thrive. That goes from burning crops to keep the price high, or even to unemployment to keep wages down.
Since we need to work, shouldn't everyone who wants to work be able to?
(Let me clarify that I am not a marxist. I have no problem with markets and competition. I just view them much as Adam Smith did; that they're good, but only under ideal circumstances.)
They aren't considered capitalists by YOU (and the AE school/rightlibertarins in general). But the bank and/or the company that needs investing really doesn't care where you got your money. It just wants your money.
I don't believe we can get rid of the price mechanism until scarcity is eliminated (and who knows if that's even possible w replicators) but no, money, ideally, should not be a necessary prerequisite for exchange. Desire, resource, and labor should be... and are. It's just in a monetary society, money is the easiest way to find those necessary prerequisites.
Speaking for me personally, if I'm not strapped for cash, I will move your grandma's stuff free of charge. There's also a slight difference in this situation as it is not production for exchange, but rather for utility. If say, YOU were making $150 off your grandma, and only giving me $50, even though I did half the work (and in many situations, you would only pay me 1/3 even if I did ALL of the work)... that is a form of tacit stealing. Only your arbitrary relationship to your gma entitles you to 2/3 of the money.
It is very arbitrary, that's the nature of human relationships. Isn't that the whole point of the STV?
Work is a "I do something for you, you do something for me" relationship
No arguments here. THe only problem is the nature of wealth accumulation and it's ability to create heirarchial systems of power. Wealth is not a meritocracy, once you have it. Getting it often is, tho not always. But once you have it, that's it, you have it. It becomes a dependancy where those without must beg those with for a piece of the pie (even if that is just begging for a job).
This would change were everyone gauranteed an adequate domicile and nutrition.
Yes, and under ideal situations I could just walk away. But if I don't know where I'm getting next months rent, or groceries for my children, I can't just walk away from the deal. I have to accept it, or starve.. or at the very least beg. And why woudl you want to force someone into a situation of begging?
I started my business mostly because I smoke weed, and everybody drug tests. But not everyone is an entrepreneur. Some people don't care for thinking in the big picture, and just want to labor. I would not want to consider myself better than them (and ergo more entitled) because of it.
Any service that exists or has existed in the past I suppose; be it the USSR auto industry, the Cuban Health care system, or NASA. I am just saying due to market mechanisms governments can operate things.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:What socialism is to me is the full expression of democracy (lower case d; "people power"). It means you can no more tell me what clothes I can wear, or drugs I can do, etc, because you're the government, than you can because you "own" the place I find myself having to work at. It means worker control (and by worker that doesn't simply mean laborer, as you think of it. It means the people who actually do the producing, not merely investing [tho some investors are workers, as that is their job they recieve a salary for) over the workplace.
I hope you don't mind if I ask you some more technical questions on what "socialism" means to you.
Regarding worker control, how do you think this control should be exercised? Given your support for "democracy", is a simple majority or plurality vote sufficient for worker control to exist? Or else what, in your view, would be sufficient?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:On the show; Undercover Boss (great show btw) the CEO of Johnny Rockets, after his week on the floor, said that NO executive will be hired without going through that same experience he did.... that's socialism. There was a guy recently in Seattle (I think, I'll have to find the article) who gave the factory his workers (tho he will remain on as CEO)... that's socialism.
There was a guy recently in Seattle (I think, I'll have to find the article) who gave the factory his workers (tho he will remain on as CEO)... that's socialism.
Those are all well and good. But what about businesses that don't do such things? Would you allow them not to?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:The USSR, and other such failed experiments, are regarded by me, and much of the libertarian left, as state-capitalism; where the state is owner of all things, and runs itself much as any other capitalist enterprise would.
I agree with this, actually. My agreement, however, comes from my understanding that private property is basically inherent within human nature. Without an over-arching authority telling its subjects that they can't own X, people will take or create X, own it, buy it, sell it, etc.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:But capitalists aren't out to deny people work. They have a limited amount of money and a nearly unlimited amount of people who want that money- what can they do but choose what they hope are the best workers? Oh but they are. YOu can only hire so many people and still turn a profit. It's not their fault, it's the nature of the system. There could be 50 qualified and dedicated workers wanting the job. But owner wants a mansion, so he's only hiring 3 of them. Capitalism needs and creates scarcity to thrive. That goes from burning crops to keep the price high, or even to unemployment to keep wages down. Since we need to work, shouldn't everyone who wants to work be able to? (Let me clarify that I am not a marxist. I have no problem with markets and competition. I just view them much as Adam Smith did; that they're good, but only under ideal circumstances.)
Do you consider people to be prima facie entitled to certain things? If so, do you recognize that, regardless of your basis for such a consideration, no one has to agree with you?
It would be nice if you could provide one or more actual quotes from Adam Smith that clearly demonstrate this alleged position on markets and competition. Otherwise, since ideal circumstances never exist, it seems fair to say that you do have problems with markets and competition.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:They aren't considered capitalists by YOU (and the AE school/rightlibertarins in general). But the bank and/or the company that needs investing really doesn't care where you got your money. It just wants your money.
Which is easier -- to convince someone to use your semantics, or to use theirs once you recognize that they're different from your own?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Speaking for me personally, if I'm not strapped for cash, I will move your grandma's stuff free of charge. There's also a slight difference in this situation as it is not production for exchange, but rather for utility. If say, YOU were making $150 off your grandma, and only giving me $50, even though I did half the work (and in many situations, you would only pay me 1/3 even if I did ALL of the work)... that is a form of tacit stealing. Only your arbitrary relationship to your gma entitles you to 2/3 of the money.
Would you then consider yourself justified in taking what you consider to be your "fair share" -- by force, if necessary? (I use "taking" there to avoid any moral or ethical implications.)
While you may well consider the value of your work to be $75, no one else is prima facie obligated (here I mean in the sense of some physical law) to agree. If you're taking $50 for the work, I'd say you have no cause to then claim a right to another $25, regardless of your own valuation thereof.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:No arguments here. THe only problem is the nature of wealth accumulation and it's ability to create heirarchial systems of power. Wealth is not a meritocracy, once you have it. Getting it often is, tho not always. But once you have it, that's it, you have it. It becomes a dependancy [sic] where those without must beg those with for a piece of the pie (even if that is just begging for a job).
You seem to imply that wealth is static once obtained -- that is, its "value" never changes. Why is that? Say I buy a house and lot for $100,000 and subsequently let it go into decline. Later on I want to sell it, but I can only get $50,000 for it. It would seem that I've lost half of the wealth I had accumulated, wouldn't it? So saying "once you have it, that's it, you have it" doesn't follow whatsoever.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:This would change were everyone gauranteed [sic] an adequate domicile and nutrition.
I'm sorry but I have to call weasel on this. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "adequate domicile" and "adequate nutrition"?
Without a State, how can such things ever be "guaranteed"?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Yes, and under ideal situations I could just walk away. But if I don't know where I'm getting next months rent, or groceries for my children, I can't just walk away from the deal. I have to accept it, or starve.. or at the very least beg. And why woudl you want to force someone into a situation of begging?
You can always "just walk away". What you're describing is analogous to The Oracle's quote from The Matrix Reloaded: "You've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it."
I've never been a fan of simple mob rule democracy. Anything >2/3 majority is a pitiful representation of belief. Mob rule is a very crude way to democratically decide something.
Generally, and I'm not (much of) a violent uprising (more MLK, tho I do think some violent uprisings are in order, like India against Brittain or such) . But I do think a certain economic bill of rights is in order. And this should protect the entrepreneur as much as the worker.
That's actually why I'm a libertarian socialist. I don't think you realize the heirarchical nature of the business structure
Well, I think that's impossible to believe really. There's no way I could enforce it. But I do believe people are entitled to (if not prima facie) adequate shelter and nutrition. I find a non-belief in that, no offense, to be barbaric.
But I understand that not everyone will agree with me. I would like them to. There's a quote by Booker T (I think) that says something like "if you want to help yourself rise up, help the people around you." I think there's a lot of truth in that.
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm
It would be fair to say I have certain problems with markets and competition. Markets themselves do; McDonald's cannot thrive w/o McDonald-Douglas. Markets many times, imo, must be protected from themselves. And the history of markets shows this to be true. Even the NFL has a draft policy that protects the loser.
Which would be truer to myself (and truer to history)?
I would not argue with any of that. But it is true, that generally, wealth is self-reinforcing. "You gotta have money to make money" and all that.
The same way anything is guaranteed w/o a state; by the people themselves. One does not need a monopoly on violence for people to come together in union. Consent of the governed is still consent of the governed if you let some poeple out of it.
" Capitalism needs and creates scarcity to thrive"
huh??? capitalism creates scarcity??? i did not know that, i always thought scarcity was already part of life...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
So am I to understand that if we want a prosperous society we should ignore demonstrated consumer preferences and instead give our money to those who EiK deems worthy?
'I'm not sure that you are barred from opening your own letter/package delivery service. In fact, to the best of my knowledge you are perfectly capable of doing just that, if you can make it profitable.'
It is illegal to open a letter delivery service that competes with the Post Office. You can open a parcel business but not mail.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Ya, a few years ago I was considering expanding my capital into courier service (my current business has me driving a lot, so I bought a new Cobalt. I was thinking it could be another productive use of my capital. Turns out it's not a very competitive market). So I was thinking of that when I said the above.
But as was pointed out later in the thread, you can only deliver packages, not letters. My bad
You could read a little further and find out what I meant (especially that I was talking about artificial scarcity). But since you're such a lazy free-loader, I'll do the work for you (joking )
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=418
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread421391/pg1 (But most importantly from this, the following;)
The need for artificial scarcity In a market economic system, an abundance is not produced because excess product is considered an inefficient use of resources; those resources could be used elsewhere to produce something in greater demand to fulfill more wants. A paradox is reached with artificially scarce products, as an abundance is possible, yet without creating scarcity via legal or subversive means, there is minimal profitability. If scarcity is allowed to reach zero, the economic model fails. If natural scarcity no longer exists, scarcity has to be created to ensure function of the system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction
http://curiouslyawesome.com/2010/09/03/u-s-supermarkets-waste-food/ (<~~~ This, especially. If no other link, this one.)
I could go on....
I'd like to say I enjoy your perspective, but it seems completely nonsensical. You seem to redefine terms at your pleasure.
you are thanked for your thought provoking contribution to the discussion friend
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I've never been a fan of simple mob rule democracy. Anything >2/3 majority is a pitiful representation of belief. Mob rule is a very crude way to democratically decide something.
Do you think a <2/3 majority is justified in coercing a >1/3 minority? Why or why not?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Generally, and I'm not (much of) a violent uprising (more MLK, tho I do think some violent uprisings are in order, like India against Brittain or such) . But I do think a certain economic bill of rights is in order. And this should protect the entrepreneur as much as the worker.
Who would draft up this economic bill of rights? Who would decide what it contains? Most importantly, how would this be enforced?
It sounds to me like such an economic bill of rights would need and imply a state.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:That's actually why I'm a libertarian socialist. I don't think you realize the heirarchical nature of the business structure
Can you then explain what you mean by "the heirarchical [sic] nature of the business structure"?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Well, I think that's impossible to believe really. There's no way I could enforce it. But I do believe people are entitled to (if not prima facie) adequate shelter and nutrition. I find a non-belief in that, no offense, to be barbaric.
I think we're using different definitions for "entitled". What I mean by the term is "considering it justified to coerce others (violently if necessary) if/when said thing(s) is/are lacking". What do you mean by it?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:But I understand that not everyone will agree with me. I would like them to. There's a quote by Booker T (I think) that says something like "if you want to help yourself rise up, help the people around you." I think there's a lot of truth in that.
I think there is too, actually. My concern with believing in prima facie entitlements to such nebulous terms as "adequate shelter and nutrition" is that it invites equating lack of help with harm. For example, if I have food and someone halfway around the world doesn't, under such a belief I could be thought of as harming that other person because I'm not giving my own food to him.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:It would be nice if you could provide one or more actual quotes from Adam Smith that clearly demonstrate this alleged position on markets and competition. Otherwise, since ideal circumstances never exist, it seems fair to say that you do have problems with markets and competition. http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm
I'm sorry but Dr. Chomsky doesn't provide references for the alleged Adam Smith quotes he uses.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:It would be fair to say I have certain problems with markets and competition. Markets themselves do; McDonald's cannot thrive w/o McDonald-Douglas. Markets many times, imo, must be protected from themselves. And the history of markets shows this to be true. Even the NFL has a draft policy that protects the loser.
How are you defining "markets"? You understand that neither McDonald's nor McDonnell-Douglas operates in a free market, right?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Which is easier -- to convince someone to use your semantics, or to use theirs once you recognize that they're different from your own? Which would be truer to myself (and truer to history)?
Can you answer my question please?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I would not argue with any of that. But it is true, that generally, wealth is self-reinforcing. "You gotta have money to make money" and all that.
You wouldn't argue with any of that... but then you do. Which is it? Can you make up your mind?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:The same way anything is guaranteed w/o a state; by the people themselves. One does not need a monopoly on violence for people to come together in union. Consent of the governed is still consent of the governed if you let some poeple out of it.
Nothing can be guaranteed for "everyone" without a State because there is no more "everyone".
Would such unions be completely voluntary? Can they overlap in terms of both territory and membership? If some people aren't part of such a union, how can they still be governed by it?
Depends... what minority are we talking about? Serial killers? Thiefs? Slave traders?
Do you think a 1/100 minority is justified in coercing a 99/100 majority? Why or why do you not support labor's rights to be represented in the decision making process?
The people through democratic processes. The people democratically. By the people, democratically. (I'm defining democratic in the literal sense of "people power" of which ancient and modern political Democracy is a subset).
I don't see purchasing power as a 1man 1 vote phenomenon. This is why I doubt the ancap societies ability to adequately represent the will of the people.
That is debatable, for sure. But it also sounds to me like the capitalist mode of production would need and imply a state.
How much representation does the avg worker have over the decision making process at his place of work (especially non-union)?
Certainly not that. I am entitled to my right to free speech. I'm certainly not going to punch a security gaurd so I can yell violent profanity in the mall.
Entitled; as in, what one should have the right to.
It's a matter of degree. Are colombian quasi-peasant farmers growing your food for less than subsistence wages so that the food can get wasted in grocery stores and thrown in the dumpster halfway across the world while their people die of inadequate nutrition and lack of medical assistance?
If so, yes.
On Chomsky;
But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, (in the Wealth of Nations. He says it clearly) where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.... the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That's the one I used. It's the best edition.
But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, (in the Wealth of Nations. He says it clearly) where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits....
the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That's the one I used. It's the best edition.
The answer to your question is no. I would not be honest if I said yes.
You are saying an cap society could not gaurantee property rights? I agree. But I do not believe we cannot gaurantee all/most of humanity food w/o a state. We did it before teh stae.
If you don't accept the terms, you don't drive on the roads (at least not w/o a hefty fee)... or other such measures.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Depends... what minority are we talking about? Serial killers? Thiefs? Slave traders?
I think you're well aware that I'm not talking about any minority in particular. When it comes to coercion, I don't consider any majority qua majority to be justified in coercing a minority. People who commit aggression should be coerced IMO because I think aggression is morally wrong.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Do you think a 1/100 minority is justified in coercing a 99/100 majority? Why or why do you not support labor's rights to be represented in the decision making process?
Where do such rights come from? What do you mean by "represented"? What do you mean by "the decision making process"?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:The people through democratic processes. The people democratically. By the people, democratically. (I'm defining democratic in the literal sense of "people power" of which ancient and modern political Democracy is a subset).
Well what does "people power" mean? Are you simply talking about "might makes right"?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I don't see purchasing power as a 1man 1 vote phenomenon. This is why I doubt the ancap societies ability to adequately represent the will of the people.
What is "the will of the people"?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:That is debatable, for sure. But it also sounds to me like the capitalist mode of production would need and imply a state.
Yes, it's debatable, and I'm debating it.
How does "the capitalist mode of production" (whatever you mean by that) need and imply a state?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:How much representation does the avg worker have over the decision making process at his place of work (especially non-union)?
Why should he have a hand in deciding what to do with things that he doesn't own?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Certainly not that. I am entitled to my right to free speech. I'm certainly not going to punch a security gaurd so I can yell violent profanity in the mall.
If you're on someone else's private property, and you say something that the property owner doesn't want you to say, and he subsequently asks or tells you to leave, are you going to refuse?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Entitled; as in, what one should have the right to.
And when the rights one presumes to have are violated (in one's opinion), he would feel justified to restore his rights, violently if necessary?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:It's a matter of degree. Are colombian quasi-peasant farmers growing your food for less than subsistence wages so that the food can get wasted in grocery stores and thrown in the dumpster halfway across the world while their people die of inadequate nutrition and lack of medical assistance? If so, yes.
I cannot agree with this whatsoever. Let me put it to you this way: if those Colombian quasi-peasant farmers tried to take from me what they thought they deserved, I would defend what I have (including myself) to the utmost of my ability.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:On Chomsky; But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, (in the Wealth of Nations. He says it clearly) where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.... the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That's the one I used. It's the best edition.
Did you understand what I meant by "references"? I meant specific page numbers, at the very least. Chomsky does not provide them. "Hundreds of pages later" is no reference at all under that definition.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Can you answer my question please? The answer to your question is no. I would not be honest if I said yes.
I'm noting for the record that you are refusing to answer my original question.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:You are saying an cap society could not gaurantee property rights? I agree. But I do not believe we cannot gaurantee all/most of humanity food w/o a state. We did it before teh stae.
Strictly speaking, there's never any guarantee of anything. People feel like certain things are guaranteed under a State because there are no other permissible choices under a State. Laws aren't chains, however.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:If you don't accept the terms, you don't drive on the roads (at least not w/o a hefty fee)... or other such measures.
Can you please answer my questions in a systematic way? Giving an example and pointing to "other such measures" is inadequate to me, as I can't tell what general principle(s) you expect me to infer. I'd much prefer it if you provided the general principles themselves.
If you are not the slave, but you free it violently.... how is that not you coercing the slave owner out of his slaves? He didn't aggress against you. On NAP principles, can you really justify such an action?
From the people, that is true in all times and places. If a large enough community wants to take away your rights, they will. There wil be no protection against it. I support there having to be some lengthy and costly legal process for a community to do as such. But I do think there are times when it is justified, like appropriating a slave holders property.
Represented; as in, given a say in the matter. Like "no taxation w/o representation."
I mean, the day to day affairs of the business, and even its wider goals, I think should be subject to democratic ratification through the workers as much as it is (currently) through ownership and management. And I think this will do for companies what it did for countries; provide stability and more long-term growth.
No. Might makes right is disgusting. I mean what Orwell meant when he said "freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4." A worker should have the right to tell his boss he's a tosser who doesn't know what he's doing.
Demo - cracy; people - power. Power to the people.
I am not the people. It is not in my place to say. But I do feel they should be able to express their will.
(Just have to point out, if it wasn't obvious in my context, that "the people" is merely a collection of individuals which attempt to work in concert w one another)
You're welcome to do that. But you merely asserted "socialism requires a state imo." That's your opinion, I hold the same of capitalism. And I have no hard evidence to suggest it wouldn't. But I don't think it requires a state, and I am in fact, diametrically opposed to the state.
The history of capitalism has lead to more statism, rather than less. It is in people's nature to protect themselves. Capitalism, with its creation and maintenance of large gaps in wealth, allows those with a lot to protect themselves much better than those w/o. Once again, I find it no coincidence that constituion replaced the articles, and that the first supreme court decision was a decision over market protection.
Why should the one have all decision making in their hands simply because they claim ownership over something (w/e ownership means)? The business does not make money w/o people working (that is blatantly obvious). As such, labor should have a representation in the productive and exchange process.
I may refuse. Let's say he is abusive to his wife, and I tell him as such. I may refuse to leave w/o her. You can't, imo, do whatever you want merely becaue you claim arbitrary ownership over something.
Whether he would feel justified, and whether he is justified, are two entirely different arguments. You feel justified in allowing all decision making processes to lay in ownership. I do not. But the community as a whole will decide which of us is actually right... at least for now.
See, I don't try imposing a system upon the world, such as ancap propertarianism. I merely encourage certain things in hopes that the society will build itself... becaue I find no way I could, nor would I want to, authoritarianly impose my views on the rest of the world.
If they violently opposed the companies that own all the farmland in colombia, would you side with the quasi-peasants, or with "ownership?" That is the question.
Or let me put it to you this way; if you recieve stolen property and the legitimate owner tries to get it back, will you violently oppose him?
If it pleases the court, I will submit that you are saying this in response to my answer of your original question. No, it would not be honest for me to use your definition of terms if I find them ahistorical just because you use them.
It is not my place to tel communites what they can and cannot do. Merely what I find they should or should not do.
Epicurus:You feel justified in allowing all decision making processes to lay in ownership. I do not.
What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes? You hinted at the "will of the people". Assume I sold each of 10 people a loaf of bread. Then, after they ate them, the "will of the people" was that I had to return their money back (or else...). Would you say that this constituted a "decision making process" that is superior to ownership based on voluntary exchange?
Also, do you deny ownership as a meaningful concept altogether, or only sometimes? If the latter, could you provide a consistent basis for determining when?
Z.
In what context is this done? Did the bread make them sick? Most people don't just wantonly take things. They usually have some kind of justification for it. The question is, is one's justifications valid?
Let's say you own property in america. You would justify your ownership that you worked for the money, and used the money to buy the property. It is therefore yours. But how did the US government establish this ownership system that eventually led to your buying of a parcel of land? Say an old shaman comes to you and says your land is the exact spot his tribe lived, and he can prove it. Would you willingly give up your property, or you willingly be a reciever of stolen property? Would you run to the state, or in an ancap society, your local PDA, to protect you against what you percieve to be someone, in fact stealing your property by claiming you stole their property? Who would decide the legitimate owner of said property? If the "loser" refuses to follow the will of the court, who will enforce it?
That's the problem with the propertarian system. The law is very arbitrary. Is a slave not property? Why? Who says? WHo enforces this decision?
I have few prescriptions for what society should do. But I do think they should decide it democratically. (And I definitely see purchasing power as decision maker [ancap] as more open to tyranny)
Z, you're debating him wrong. The only way to make progress with EiK is to leave it at this.
What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes?
As soon as you ask more than one question, or present an example, he will use that as an opportunity to obfuscate further.
It's all about precision. Or in a situation where there are so many assertions, false premises and contradictions, "target selection".
Liberty Student:Z, you're debating him wrong. The only way to make progress with EiK is to leave it at this. What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes?
I agree. I was hoping there was a new angle somewhere there -- something I hadn't thought about, so wanted to make it easier for it to get uncovered. Seems there's nothing there, though. From what I could gather, the best basis he could provide is whatever made him feel better or less disgusted about each outcome on a case by case basis.
So after a horrible fight with his wife one night, he sees a guy on a bicycle eating ice-cream and riding past a disabled person in a wheel-chair, and he's disgusted by a "system" that allows the satisfied biker to just ride off without helping the disabled, a "system" that has not taxed away the ice-cream from the healthy biker and given it to the disabled. Then another day, after a good night of sex, he sees a guy in a Porsche driving by a disabled person, and thinks nothing of it, as all is good with the world.
Quite a refreshing perspective.
Epicurus:Did the bread make them sick?
No.
The question is, is one's justifications valid?
Yes, and you have yet to offer anything even close to a consistent basis for such justifications, apart from your personal feeling of approval or disgust on a case by case basis.
And I definitely see purchasing power as decision maker [ancap] as more open to tyranny.
More open to tyranny then what? The "will of the people"? Sure about that -- being that you're so fond of historical examples?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:(And I definitely see purchasing power as decision maker [ancap] as more open to tyranny)
What more can I offer? You propose their is an objective way to structure societies to it's maximum capacity? If so, I think you're being idealist. Rothbard once said something about not basing your system off the outliers.... I think that is entirely backwards. Human societies are naturally fickle, we can only decide on a case-by-case basis, and from that build general patterns to follow.
I see after failing to bait me into a false position (straw man-ing me) you revert to the timeless ad hominem.
EiK.