nirgrahamUK: >>>> I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism. >>you disagree because what? because foreign investment is evil? not biting? >>>>>>1. he's not a leftist but far right. >>>>>>2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo >>>>"Oh, is this were you say if you are for the status quo you are right and if you are radical you are left. so people that want to blow up the whole world are of the left? and people who don't want to go that far are to the right?" >>No that's a straw man. So apparently against left-libs your now on Krugman's side? ..well least we know where we all stand. " Its rather because the issue of sweatshops has NOTHING to do with Right and Left (aside from that people who associate with such labels routinely get worked up about them)" If you favour the status quo you are or lean to the right,if not the left.What you favour is the statist quo.
>>>> I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism.
>>you disagree because what? because foreign investment is evil?
not biting?
>>>>>>1. he's not a leftist but far right.
>>>>>>2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo
>>>>"Oh, is this were you say if you are for the status quo you are right and if you are radical you are left. so people that want to blow up the whole world are of the left? and people who don't want to go that far are to the right?"
>>No that's a straw man. So apparently against left-libs your now on Krugman's side? ..well least we know where we all stand.
" Its rather because the issue of sweatshops has NOTHING to do with Right and Left (aside from that people who associate with such labels routinely get worked up about them)"
If you favour the status quo you are or lean to the right,if not the left.What you favour is the statist quo.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
DD5: Danny Sanchez:There are only "sides" with regard to specific interventions. "This is true, however, taxes are a form on specific intervention. So saying that there are "net tax payers" and "net tax consumers" is to simply indicate that there are always "winners" and "losers", with respect to the specific intervention. It is just to indicate that the system creates antagonistic groups and conflict of interests that would not exist absent the system of taxation." Exactly. " It is not, as you are suggesting, tantamount to making fallacious divisive class distinctions that do not and cannot ever exist, such as "workers vs. capitalists" or "producers vs. consumers", etc.... " Well largely these distinctions are state creations but on moral/cultural level they are organizational/institutional distinctions (which would be minimal thankfully in a freed market)
Danny Sanchez:There are only "sides" with regard to specific interventions.
"This is true, however, taxes are a form on specific intervention. So saying that there are "net tax payers" and "net tax consumers" is to simply indicate that there are always "winners" and "losers", with respect to the specific intervention. It is just to indicate that the system creates antagonistic groups and conflict of interests that would not exist absent the system of taxation."
Exactly.
" It is not, as you are suggesting, tantamount to making fallacious divisive class distinctions that do not and cannot ever exist, such as "workers vs. capitalists" or "producers vs. consumers", etc.... "
Well largely these distinctions are state creations but on moral/cultural level they are organizational/institutional distinctions (which would be minimal thankfully in a freed market)
Scott F:It seems your implying 'Capitalism' (not clearly defined) = free market which I disagree with. I favour property and services.False dichotomy of an absurd level.
Toward making this discussion productive, how about you avoid guessing what I may be implying and just answer the simple questions (here they are again):
What would be exchanged (presumably freely and without coercion) in this market of yours if not property (goods, capital, etc.) and services (labor, advice, etc.)? Also, which parties would be exchanging them if not their respective owners?
Z.
So you demonstrate that there was no strawman. thanks.
Do you think I, an Anarcho-Capitalist's, a plumb-line libertarian who rejects the state and does not abhor sweatshops favour the status quo?
And perhaps I should ask, isn't it silly to say that radicals are left and conservatives on the right, when it is enough to use the words, radical or conservative, to describe those ideas.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
why are sweatshops only possible because of states? and is foreign investment evil?
Scott F:LS, your trolling on a truly absurd level.Your really the moderator? are some chimps mods too?
Your response to my pointing out you utilize historical materialism in your OP is to call me a monkey and troll? Seems to me your casually tossing around insults is not going to help your lack of an argument. Even while you break the rules, I've got thick skin for your petty insults. You will continue to be asked to substantiate your position in debate.
Scott F:"Leftist narratives tend to be based around historical materialism and not science or facts." To conflate me -a left libertarian with a certain KIND of marxist(not all marxists accept historical materialism) is absurd.It's knee jerk anti-leftism of the highest level.Let the dirty truth about these forums be known right here.See, An-caps will say things will this and wonder why their dismissed as right wing or reactionary.I'm not a marxist nor hegelian.
To conflate me -a left libertarian with a certain KIND of marxist(not all marxists accept historical materialism) is absurd.It's knee jerk anti-leftism of the highest level.Let the dirty truth about these forums be known right here.See, An-caps will say things will this and wonder why their dismissed as right wing or reactionary.I'm not a marxist nor hegelian.
If you're not a Marxist or a Hegelian, why are you using their methodology?
Scott F:Nice way to quote mine.I say it's okay as anti-statism and anti-aggression.But beyond that it's a poor position. "How can being for peace ever be a poor position?" Nice way to strawman.I see why BP go sick of this. Voluntaryism is vital.I favour there only being voluntary relations however that's not the end of the story.Morality enters in too.
"How can being for peace ever be a poor position?"
Nice way to strawman.I see why BP go sick of this. Voluntaryism is vital.I favour there only being voluntary relations however that's not the end of the story.Morality enters in too.
Asking a question about your position is not a strawman. Please try to understand logic.
I can't speak for BP, but he holds similar positions to your OP, and they are untenable. I too would get sick of holding and defending an untenable position.
You haven't defined morality. You continue to avoid the fact that voluntary relations are moral in themselves, regardless of the specific voluntary activity.
Scott F: "If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?" Your conflate legal issues with moral. I'm talking about moral issues.I'm not saying moral overrules legal which is what you seem to be implying.
"If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?"
Your conflate legal issues with moral. I'm talking about moral issues.I'm not saying moral overrules legal which is what you seem to be implying.
I don't talk about legal issues. I am talking only about moral issues. What is morality Scott?
Scott F:"I am asking you what is immoral about someone doing whatever they want with their body or life? " Depends what their doing.There's plenty wrong with certain things you can choose to do with your body or life that aren't NAP violations.
Depends what their doing.There's plenty wrong with certain things you can choose to do with your body or life that aren't NAP violations.
Who decides this?
Scott F:"If someone wants emotional abuse," I think you'll struggle to find people who WANTs emotional abuse. "or if someone doesn't mind being manipulated, where is the moral crime?" I'd like to know of someone who likes being manipulated plus in the definition is deceit.
I think you'll struggle to find people who WANTs emotional abuse.
"or if someone doesn't mind being manipulated, where is the moral crime?"
I'd like to know of someone who likes being manipulated plus in the definition is deceit.
Again, it doesn't matter if you know the person or not, if we find the person or not. You're avoiding answering what is wrong about someone making particular lifestyle or relationship choices.
Scott F:"Your problem, again like a lot of leftists, is that you think you have the right to judge other people's relationships." That's part of being a human.Part of being a moral person.According to you since you have no right to judge ,we should all be relativists and that's what thin libertarianism often amounts to i.e. relativism or subtle endorsement of evils like sexism,racism etc.
That's part of being a human.Part of being a moral person.According to you since you have no right to judge ,we should all be relativists and that's what thin libertarianism often amounts to i.e. relativism or subtle endorsement of evils like sexism,racism etc.
So what you're saying, is that part of being human, and being libertarian, is judging other people. Is that correct? That you can claim I am engaging in immoral activity simply because you don't like it, and your humanity makes this righteous.
If that is true, then aren't people who hate homosexual relations or mixed race relationships basically able to use the same arbitrary method you claim is legitimate? If not, why? What makes your opinion about my life superior to theirs? Or to my own choices?
Isn't you claiming to decide for me, the very definition of authoritarianism?
Scott F:" It's ok for me to beat myself with a stick," Legally? yes.Morally? I'd say not. "but if I get someone else to do it, I am being exploited." morally,yes.Legally,depends.
Legally? yes.Morally? I'd say not.
"but if I get someone else to do it, I am being exploited."
morally,yes.Legally,depends.
Why do you keep bringing up legality? I am only speaking about morality. It is my body, my life. How can you say that what I do with my own body is not moral? What moral crime can I commit against myself?
What is the moral standard you are employing? How do you justify it?
z1235: What would be exchanged (presumably freely and without coercion) in this market of yours if not property (goods, capital, etc.) and services (labor, advice, etc.)? Also, which parties would be exchanging them if not their respective owners? Z.
Property and services would be exchanged and owners(individual or collective) would be exchanging them.
Half a step forward, three steps back.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
nirgrahamUK: why are sweatshops only possible because of states? not only possible but certainly hugely more likely.Due to the reasons in the manifesto. "and is foreign investment evil?" No? I don't understand where this is coming from.I've never said it was.
why are sweatshops only possible because of states?
not only possible but certainly hugely more likely.Due to the reasons in the manifesto.
"and is foreign investment evil?"
No? I don't understand where this is coming from.I've never said it was.
Angurse: To conflate me -a left libertarian with a certain KIND of marxist(not all marxists accept historical materialism) is absurd.It's knee jerk anti-leftism of the highest level.Let the dirty truth about these forums be known right here.See, An-caps will say things will this and wonder why their dismissed as right wing or reactionary.I'm not a marxist nor hegelian. " I don't like being conflated as Marxist or Hegelian hence I conflate you as right-wing or reactionary." Makes sense.
You defended prejudice per se without nuance and did not retract your statement or clarify thus you are a reactionary.
Define what makes a person a left winged and a person right winged.
nirgrahamUK: So you demonstrate that there was no strawman. thanks. "Do you think I, an Anarcho-Capitalist's, a plumb-line libertarian who rejects the state and does not abhor sweatshops favour the status quo?" Well An-caps tend to lean towards the status quo and the last part definately does.
"Do you think I, an Anarcho-Capitalist's, a plumb-line libertarian who rejects the state and does not abhor sweatshops favour the status quo?"
Well An-caps tend to lean towards the status quo and the last part definately does.
>>>>why are sweatshops only possible because of states?
>> not only possible but certainly hugely more likely.Due to the reasons in the manifesto.
sweatshops are possible in stateless societies.hate to break it to you.
>>Well An-caps tend to lean towards the status quo
This is cognitive dissonance of the highest order. Rejecting the state is now not radical but status quo....
"Your response to my pointing out you utilize historical materialism in your OP is to call me a monkey and troll? Seems to me your casually tossing around insults is not going to help your lack of an argument. "
True yet your irritating.You've not proven I'm a kind of marxist yet....
"If you're not a Marxist or a Hegelian, why are you using their methodology?"
I'm not.Show how this is marxist or hegelian methodology. This is another absurd conflation.In your mind certain rhetoric= marxist= kind of marxist/hegel methodology.Non sequitur.
" You continue to avoid the fact that voluntary relations are moral in themselves,"
I don't disagree so what are you talking about. They are moral only inso far as they are voluntary- only in that respect- but CAN be immoral in other respects.
To not understand this is to treat it simplistically and it leads to all sorts of absurdity.
" I am talking only about moral issues. What is morality Scott?"
Well I don't have a quick definition to hand as of now. I guess I'd say it concerns the proper relations between humans (and to some extent non humans)
"I am asking you what is immoral about someone doing whatever they want with their body or life? "
"Depends what their doing.There's plenty wrong with certain things you can choose to do with your body or life that aren't NAP violations."
"Who decides this?"
human beings who think.who reason.Who care about morality. What the hell are you on about? are you not a human being?
"I'd like to know of someone who likes being manipulated plus in the definition is deceit."
" You're avoiding answering what is wrong about someone making particular lifestyle or relationship choices."
I haven't.I've said it depends on the case and is complex.What we seem to be talking about though is treating people as less than human i.e. dehumanization of which aggression is a subset.
"Your problem, again like a lot of leftists, is that you think you have the right to judge other people's relationships."
"That's part of being a human.Part of being a moral person.According to you since you have no right to judge ,we should all be relativists and that's what thin libertarianism often amounts to i.e. relativism or subtle endorsement of evils like sexism,racism etc."
"So what you're saying, is that part of being human, and being libertarian, is judging other people. Is that correct? "
Correct.I'd like you to show otherwise.
"That you can claim I am engaging in immoral activity simply because you don't like it, and your humanity makes this righteous."
Strawman.
"If that is true, then aren't people who hate homosexual relations or mixed race relationships basically able to use the same arbitrary method you claim is legitimate? If not, why?"
because their reasoning is flawed so premises and then conclusions flawed.This is basis philosophy 101.I'm not going to carry on with you being so daft.
"Isn't you claiming to decide for me, the very definition of authoritarianism?"
I'm not controlling you to make you do what I want.I'm just having a belief and expressing it.Nothing authoritarian about it.
"Why do you keep bringing up legality? I am only speaking about morality. "
As a thick libertarian I consider both.Furthermore it helps clarify.
"It is my body, my life. How can you say that what I do with my own body is not moral?"
Well then your on to arguing about ethics in general.
" What moral crime can I commit against myself?"
Plenty.
"What is the moral standard you are employing? How do you justify it?"
a complex related mix of Natural law, virtue ethics,consequentialism,enlightened self interest , the golden rule and Eudaimoniaism.....................
That really just sounds like a blanket statement, not a fitting analysis at all. However, even if true, its still not applicable. I've defended prejudice and stereotypes due to surrounding circumstances and environment, not per se.
Scott F:Property and services would be exchanged and owners(individual or collective) would be exchanging them.
That is capitalism.
1. What else than voluntary exchange of property (goods and services) between respective owners of such do you advocate?
2. How do you intend to impose your subjective (aesthetic) preferences about the universe (no wage labor, no bad bosses, no stinky diapers, etc.) without destroying the very voluntary and free markets that you purport to advocate?
Can't you see the contradiction staring at you?
Only by shifting to an ideal definition that is historically inaccurate. "Capitalism" has always entailed specific economic organizational structures in the context of an industrial society and a legal system enforcing very particular property norms and titles. The voluntary exchange of resources has taken place in various forms and ways throughout human history, without "capitalism" entering into the picture. Various agrarian and tribal societies had markets in some form or to some degree, but to call the simple barter processes involved in such societies "capitalist" is an ideological coloration.
"Capitalism" can't reasonably claim the status of something universal in history. The baggage of the usage of the term points us to the 19th and 20th centuries, in the context of the industrial and liberal revolutions, their philosophical roots and the issues of contention that they have raised. The question of "capitalism" and its very concept comes from classical liberalism and 19th century political economy, and it involves the issue of the shift from agrarian and feudal societies to industrial liberal democracies that rely on a large and perpetually productive population of wage workers.
Z, three problems there.
1. Capitalism. Capital-ism. Capital as ideology, system or dogma. Authority held by capitalists-a hierarchial system based on wage labor.
2. Left-libs aren't against voluntary exchange. He just said he was for voluntary exchange, in the simplest possible terms, and you said he was against it. The fuck?
3. "Imposing" implies the use of force. Left-libs don't support that as a way of achieving political ends.
Brainpolice:Only by shifting to an ideal definition that is historically inaccurate.
What's the non-ideal and "historically accurate" definition of capitalism?
It's implied in the rest of that very post. It is the economic and political system that arose in many areas of the west over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries during the industrial revolution, with a shift in the legal property system from a fuedal and monarchical context to a more large-scale industry-based and democratic-republican context in which economic organization is based heavily on wage labor and legally concentrated capital. "Socialism" arose partly as a reaction to the painful aspects of such a process of industrialization accompanied by political centralization, and Marxism was a confused and contradictary attempt to diagnose capitalism's fate and present its alternative.
How is number 1. a problem?
OK, so no definition. What's wrong with wikipedia's entry:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who choose to invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2]
There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2]
Or just plain: capitalism = system of voluntary exchanges of private property (goods and services). It's very hard to leave such a basic system nameless. If not "capitalism", what would be a more historically accurate name for it?
OK, so no definition.
I would hardly consider the three decent-sized paragraphs I have written, which you have addressed none of the content of, as amounting to "no definition".
Even based on the wikipedia definition you just provided, you still aren't right here because you're reading into it. An economy based primarily or solely on "private ownership of the means of production", for-profit methods, and wage labor (and this isn't even getting into the begged question of the legal mechanisms in the background in relation to these things) is not the same thing as "voluntary exchange" in a general and broad sense. Those are very specific methods within a market, but not what is constitutive of them per se. In short, what I'm rejecting is the equation of "capitalism" with "markets" in general. "Capitalism" has always been more specific than "market exchange". Even your own sources confirm this.
Scott F:I don't disagree so what are you talking about. They are moral only inso far as they are voluntary- only in that respect- but CAN be immoral in other respects.
What are the other respects?
Scott F:True yet your irritating.
Being asked to explain yourself when you cannot surely is irritating.
Scott F:Show how this is marxist or hegelian methodology.
Let's try this a different way. What methodology are you using to reach your conclusions? What framework for human action?
Scott F:Well I don't have a quick definition to hand as of now. I guess I'd say it concerns the proper relations between humans (and to some extent non humans)
So you're arguing morality with me, without a definition of morality. Irritated I brought that up? Want to call me a monkey again?
What are "proper relations" between humans? Proper as decided by who? You? The Church? My dad?
Scott F:"Who decides this?" human beings who think.who reason.Who care about morality. What the hell are you on about? are you not a human being?
I am a human being, and yet if I pay someone to hit me with a stick, you claim I am incapable of caring about morality.
So am I a human being or not? Do I stop being a human being when I engage in particular activities, ones you do not like? Do you get to decide who is and is not human? By what authority?
Scott F:" You're avoiding answering what is wrong about someone making particular lifestyle or relationship choices." I haven't.I've said it depends on the case and is complex.What we seem to be talking about though is treating people as less than human i.e. dehumanization of which aggression is a subset.
What case? You claim it is complex, but how can you make claims about it, if it is complex and you can't explain your method?
If I want to be tied up, or have rough sex what business is it of yours?
Scott F:"Isn't you claiming to decide for me, the very definition of authoritarianism?" I'm not controlling you to make you do what I want.I'm just having a belief and expressing it.Nothing authoritarian about it.
So you're not making moral claims, you're just expressing a subjective preference. In other words, things you don't like, aren't actually "wrong" they are just distasteful to you. Left-libertarianism is a perspective about what is aesthetically acceptable. Correct?
Scott F:As a thick libertarian I consider both.Furthermore it helps clarify.
But I am not talking about legality. I am only talking about morality, and your introducing it creates a false dichotomy.
Scott F:"It is my body, my life. How can you say that what I do with my own body is not moral?" Well then your on to arguing about ethics in general.
What are you talking about? You just claimed I can be immoral with my own body, and now you claim its ethics? Which is it?
Scott F:" What moral crime can I commit against myself?" Plenty.
Are you seriously saying that I can commit a crime against myself?
Scott F:"What is the moral standard you are employing? How do you justify it?" a complex related mix of Natural law, virtue ethics,consequentialism,enlightened self interest , the golden rule and Eudaimoniaism
a complex related mix of Natural law, virtue ethics,consequentialism,enlightened self interest , the golden rule and Eudaimoniaism
Yes, a bunch of sloganeering. So complicated, you can't articulate it, it is so complicated.
You can tell us all about what is right and wrong, you just can't tell us how you drew any of those conclusions. Which makes your "philosophy" nothing more than an expression of your own values (or those you copy from other people) rather than some systematic way of determining moral action.
Guess what Scott. There is no such thing as "thin libertarianism'". My thin libertarianism is much thicker than yours, because it incorporates what I believe to be the highest value necessary for voluntarism.
Tolerance.
nirgrahamUK:what are the *goals* of the right?
Historically, the goal of the right has been social order.
Brianpolice:An economy based primarily or solely on "private ownership of the means of production", for-profit methods, and wage labor (and this isn't even getting into the begged question of the legal mechanisms in the background in relation to these things) is not the same thing as "voluntary exchange" in a general and broad sense.
How does the above differ from voluntary exchange of privately owned goods and services (of which labor is just a subset)?
Brainpolice:In short, what I'm rejecting is the equation of "capitalism" with "markets" in general. "Capitalism" has always been more specific than "market exchange".
OK, so we agree that "capitalism" is at least a sub-set of the "market exchange" set, i.e. there can hardly be any "capitalism" without "market exchange". Let's focus on the "non-capitalist" remainder of the "market exchange" set. What would you say comprises it?
Thanks for making this post.
"The State has throughout history to present day acted to artificially privilege the rich,corporations, landlords and employers(The political class) at the expense of everyone else particularly the poor, employees,women, black people,foreigners, tenants,small businesses,the self employed, unions and the like(the exploited class).Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized."
The only thing I woul object to there is saying unions are downtrodden and marginalized. Big unions are often aided by the state as much as big businesses. Although it seems the times that unions would be the most benificial to the workers the state will supress them, but I think this is covered by saying the state opresses the working class.
"there may be social practices or outcomes that libertarians should (in some sense) be committed to opposing, even though they are not themselves coercive, because (1) background acts of government coercion are a causal precondition for them to be carried out or sustained over time; and (2) there are independent reasons for regarding them as social evils."Examples of this are sweatshops,'contract feudalism or authoritarianism arising from land ownership"
If this meens boycotts and charities then I am all for this, on the other hand if this meens violently "liberating" sweatshops count me out.
"Reduced bargaining power means that employees can do little when employers extend their authority into the private lifes of workers such as preventing criticism of the company on social networking sites"
Do you mean that without state intervention these things will become a rarity and we should boycott companies who engage in this behavior, or that this is some kind crime? again I have no problem with the first option but the second option I see as impractical and unethical.
"Authoritarianism due to land ownership. At minimal concern about how land ownership might be used to mistreat or control others.At most ,outright opposition to land ownership for this very reason"
Could you give me some examples?
Other than that those I don't think I have alot of problems with anything you said.
Nothing like this even remotely exists for me to do so.If it did,I'd have saved my time and posted that with a link.But nope,this is all mine.I've wrote it exactly because nothing like it exists and there's demand so to speak because some do not understand.
Good, that is probably better than most people. You have been under a lot of fire, and you tried to make a clear concise statement of things, that is a very good thing.
Scott, I read your post on bargaining power. While I see what you're saying about statist measures making employment more difficult, what do you think of the statist measures that force employers to give certain pay and privileges to employees? As Adrian implied, the employee is not always thwarted by the state, but rather in many cases the employee is given a coercive advantage (first and foremost strikes). Are you saying that these uses of coercion would not be necessary if the state did not exist?
The bigger question I have is: how is the 'bargaining' between employer and employee different to any other kind of bargaining?
Aristippus: Scott, I read your post on bargaining power. While I see what you're saying about statist measures making employment more difficult, what do you think of the statist measures that force employers to give certain pay and privileges to employees? As Adrian implied, the employee is not always thwarted by the state, but rather in many cases the employee is given a coercive advantage (first and foremost strikes). Are you saying that these uses of coercion would not be necessary if the state did not exist? The bigger question I have is: how is the 'bargaining' between employer and employee different to any other kind of bargaining?
I don't think a strike is a good example. The ability to strike is not a advantage for people who labor in general, but it is an advantage for specific workers vis a vis other workers. The ability to strike isn't really employee vis a vis employer, as far as I see it.
I agree with Scott that the welfare state, in general, creates dependence with a specific amount of people. Yes, they get benefits, but as a general rule, I think the regulatory welfare state negatively effects the 'poor and weak' disproportional. But more general: the regulatory welfare state affects everyone negatively, so a fortiori also the 'poor and weak'.
Minimumwages cause unemployment. Regulations cause lower real wages and inflexible labor markets. Subsidies create independence. High taxes are harder to succumb if you are poor. And so on and so forth.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
"I don't think a strike is a good example. The ability to strike is not a advantage for people who labor in general, but it is an advantage for specific workers vis a vis other workers. The ability to strike isn't really employee vis a vis employer, as far as I see it."
I wasn't really talking about all employers vs. all employees, as statist policies are not necessarily detrimental to all individuals, i.e. individuals (e.g. academics) can gain hugely from the state. Scott was saying that the state harms employees' bargaining power - but it can also give them greater power. Striking (backed by the threat of violence) can greatly inhibit employers' freedom, and give greater 'bargaining power' to those striking.
Minimum wages create unemployment, but for those employed it may result in a higher income. The actions of the state result in less production and greater misallocation of resources, which results in a generally less wealthy citizenry. This doesn't mean that large amounts of individuals don't benefit from state coercion, at least in the short term. The problem is in seeing everything as poor vs. rich, employees vs. employers, proletariat vs. bourgeoisie, and then attributing to the state the problems of one group and the 'power' of the other.
z1235: Brianpolice:An economy based primarily or solely on "private ownership of the means of production", for-profit methods, and wage labor (and this isn't even getting into the begged question of the legal mechanisms in the background in relation to these things) is not the same thing as "voluntary exchange" in a general and broad sense. "How does the above differ from voluntary exchange of privately owned goods and services (of which labor is just a subset)?" Because that's not the only voluntarily social order possible. There can be a free market without wage labour,for profits, or An-cap conception of largely idnvidually owned property. Brainpolice:In short, what I'm rejecting is the equation of "capitalism" with "markets" in general. "Capitalism" has always been more specific than "market exchange". there can hardly be any "capitalism" without "market exchange". Capitalism remains a confusing and to me ill-defined word ,private property is a better word.It's more broad."Capitalism" is full of backage and entangled with wage labour,corporations etc.
"How does the above differ from voluntary exchange of privately owned goods and services (of which labor is just a subset)?"
Because that's not the only voluntarily social order possible. There can be a free market without wage labour,for profits, or An-cap conception of largely idnvidually owned property.
there can hardly be any "capitalism" without "market exchange".
Capitalism remains a confusing and to me ill-defined word ,private property is a better word.It's more broad."Capitalism" is full of backage and entangled with wage labour,corporations etc.
Evilsceptic: "Thanks for making this post." No problem.I must be doing something right.I've stated my position and I've been criticized.Least now the criticisms are about What I say or How I say it not that I'm not said something.No longer,it can be claimed I or left-libs are vague. "The State has throughout history to present day acted to artificially privilege the rich,corporations, landlords and employers(The political class) at the expense of everyone else particularly the poor, employees,women, black people,foreigners, tenants,small businesses,the self employed, unions and the like(the exploited class).Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized." "The only thing I woul object to there is saying unions are downtrodden and marginalized. " I guess it's more the idea of them but yes ,some unions are. "Big unions are often aided by the state as much as big businesses." And left-libs object to that. "Although it seems the times that unions would be the most benificial to the workers the state will supress them, but I think this is covered by saying the state opresses the working class." Fair comment. "there may be social practices or outcomes that libertarians should (in some sense) be committed to opposing, even though they are not themselves coercive, because (1) background acts of government coercion are a causal precondition for them to be carried out or sustained over time; and (2) there are independent reasons for regarding them as social evils."Examples of this are sweatshops,'contract feudalism or authoritarianism arising from land ownership" "If this meens boycotts and charities then I am all for this," Yes. "on the other hand if this meens violently "liberating" sweatshops count me out." I've never heard anyone argue for it. "Reduced bargaining power means that employees can do little when employers extend their authority into the private lifes of workers such as preventing criticism of the company on social networking sites" "Do you mean that without state intervention these things will become a rarity and we should boycott companies who engage in this behavior, or that this is some kind crime" That minus statist reduction of bargaining power this would be very rare and whose who didn't like it would have more options.Boycotts are one option to protest it.No,I don't think it's a crime just authoritarian and immoral.It makes the worker like a slave. "Authoritarianism due to land ownership. At minimal concern about how land ownership might be used to mistreat or control others.At most ,outright opposition to land ownership for this very reason" "Could you give me some examples?" Well quite everyday things. BrainPolice often gives good examples of this. A landowner could in theory demand you strip down to your underwear and parade around for them or that would molest yourself or randomly decide your a trespassor and increasingly assault you or to give less extreme examples landowners can based on property rights tell you what to eat,how to sit,how to walk,how to be dressed- essentially land ownership allows for control to an excessive and arbitrary amount down to the finest of details that you can understand why teenagers and the like feel like parents who own the property rule their lives-In a sense,they do! I personally don't think this proves land ownership is illegitimate but it does show it has moral problems and CAN allow authoritarianism.I'm not really sure what the solution could be except maybe contracts or hoping for benevolent owners or boycotts or something. "Other than that those I don't think I have alot of problems with anything you said." Thank you.That was thoroughly decent of you.
"Thanks for making this post."
No problem.I must be doing something right.I've stated my position and I've been criticized.Least now the criticisms are about What I say or How I say it not that I'm not said something.No longer,it can be claimed I or left-libs are vague.
"The only thing I woul object to there is saying unions are downtrodden and marginalized. "
I guess it's more the idea of them but yes ,some unions are.
"Big unions are often aided by the state as much as big businesses."
And left-libs object to that.
"Although it seems the times that unions would be the most benificial to the workers the state will supress them, but I think this is covered by saying the state opresses the working class."
Fair comment.
"If this meens boycotts and charities then I am all for this,"
Yes.
"on the other hand if this meens violently "liberating" sweatshops count me out."
I've never heard anyone argue for it.
"Do you mean that without state intervention these things will become a rarity and we should boycott companies who engage in this behavior, or that this is some kind crime" That minus statist reduction of bargaining power this would be very rare and whose who didn't like it would have more options.Boycotts are one option to protest it.No,I don't think it's a crime just authoritarian and immoral.It makes the worker like a slave.
"Could you give me some examples?"
Well quite everyday things. BrainPolice often gives good examples of this. A landowner could in theory demand you strip down to your underwear and parade around for them or that would molest yourself or randomly decide your a trespassor and increasingly assault you or to give less extreme examples landowners can based on property rights tell you what to eat,how to sit,how to walk,how to be dressed- essentially land ownership allows for control to an excessive and arbitrary amount down to the finest of details that you can understand why teenagers and the like feel like parents who own the property rule their lives-In a sense,they do! I personally don't think this proves land ownership is illegitimate but it does show it has moral problems and CAN allow authoritarianism.I'm not really sure what the solution could be except maybe contracts or hoping for benevolent owners or boycotts or something.
"Other than that those I don't think I have alot of problems with anything you said."
Thank you.That was thoroughly decent of you.
William: Nothing like this even remotely exists for me to do so.If it did,I'd have saved my time and posted that with a link.But nope,this is all mine.I've wrote it exactly because nothing like it exists and there's demand so to speak because some do not understand. Good, that is probably better than most people. You have been under a lot of fire, and you tried to make a clear concise statement of things, that is a very good thing.
Thank you.I respect your honesty and decency.
Aristippus: " what do you think of the statist measures that force employers to give certain pay and privileges to employees?" I oppose them but like I've said I think their secondary interventions to pacify the masses. " Are you saying that these uses of coercion would not be necessary if the state did not exist?" Yes.I think these disparties of bargaining power exist say 95% due to state created conditions and would be minimal in anarchy . "The bigger question I have is: how is the 'bargaining' between employer and employee different to any other kind of bargaining?" I can't think of a way it is different from other bargaining and I think that's the point.But this bargaining exists in a framework which depends on whether you have anarchy or statism.In statism ,bargaining is tilted one way.Employers make use this unequal position to exert control over employees.Things such as ambiguities in contracts could well exist in anarchy but minus statist privileges and barriers to entry would be reduced and employees would have much greater bargaining power due to much greater alternative options.A boss wouldn't want to offer the worse conditions for the lowest pay with little control by the employee over their work or life, if the potential employee could just go off and be self employed or be something of an ad hoc contractor or the like. This position is not without precendent.Benjamin Tucker argued along relatively the same lines.
" what do you think of the statist measures that force employers to give certain pay and privileges to employees?"
I oppose them but like I've said I think their secondary interventions to pacify the masses.
" Are you saying that these uses of coercion would not be necessary if the state did not exist?"
Yes.I think these disparties of bargaining power exist say 95% due to state created conditions and would be minimal in anarchy .
"The bigger question I have is: how is the 'bargaining' between employer and employee different to any other kind of bargaining?"
I can't think of a way it is different from other bargaining and I think that's the point.But this bargaining exists in a framework which depends on whether you have anarchy or statism.In statism ,bargaining is tilted one way.Employers make use this unequal position to exert control over employees.Things such as ambiguities in contracts could well exist in anarchy but minus statist privileges and barriers to entry would be reduced and employees would have much greater bargaining power due to much greater alternative options.A boss wouldn't want to offer the worse conditions for the lowest pay with little control by the employee over their work or life, if the potential employee could just go off and be self employed or be something of an ad hoc contractor or the like.
This position is not without precendent.Benjamin Tucker argued along relatively the same lines.
AdrianHealey: Aristippus: Scott, I read your post on bargaining power. While I see what you're saying about statist measures making employment more difficult, what do you think of the statist measures that force employers to give certain pay and privileges to employees? As Adrian implied, the employee is not always thwarted by the state, but rather in many cases the employee is given a coercive advantage (first and foremost strikes). Are you saying that these uses of coercion would not be necessary if the state did not exist? The bigger question I have is: how is the 'bargaining' between employer and employee different to any other kind of bargaining? "I don't think a strike is a good example. The ability to strike is not a advantage for people who labor in general, but it is an advantage for specific workers vis a vis other workers. The ability to strike isn't really employee vis a vis employer, as far as I see it. " Strikes are complex and I'm undecided about them.Even the IWW admits strikes aren't always the best strategy. " But more general: the regulatory welfare state affects everyone negatively, so a fortiori also the 'poor and weak'. " True,but if you begin from a place of being poor and/ or marginalized due to culture ( maybe because your an immigrant,or a women etc,) then you have more to lose and less to rely on when the waves of harm hit you. "Minimum wages cause unemployment. Regulations cause lower real wages and inflexible labor markets. Subsidies create independence. High taxes are harder to succumb if you are poor. And so on and so forth. " That's exactly my point.Those who are poor are hardest hit by any government intervention. which regulations would you say lower real wages?
"I don't think a strike is a good example. The ability to strike is not a advantage for people who labor in general, but it is an advantage for specific workers vis a vis other workers. The ability to strike isn't really employee vis a vis employer, as far as I see it. "
Strikes are complex and I'm undecided about them.Even the IWW admits strikes aren't always the best strategy.
" But more general: the regulatory welfare state affects everyone negatively, so a fortiori also the 'poor and weak'. "
True,but if you begin from a place of being poor and/ or marginalized due to culture ( maybe because your an immigrant,or a women etc,) then you have more to lose and less to rely on when the waves of harm hit you.
"Minimum wages cause unemployment. Regulations cause lower real wages and inflexible labor markets. Subsidies create independence. High taxes are harder to succumb if you are poor. And so on and so forth. "
That's exactly my point.Those who are poor are hardest hit by any government intervention.
which regulations would you say lower real wages?
Aristippus: "Striking (backed by the threat of violence)" Are not inherently violent.Contrary to Dilorenzo or Block, violent strikes are only one kind of strike and historically not the dominant kind. "can greatly inhibit employers' freedom, and give greater 'bargaining power' to those striking. " Not really.Employees could choose to fire them or hire temporary workers while terms are considered.It depends on the situation. " The problem is in seeing everything as poor vs. rich, employees vs. employers, " The state is consistently set up in this way.For example as Gabriel Kolko and Rothbard showed,Government regulation of business is favoured by them and far from harming them -well for precisely big business- actually 'benefits' (in the sense of giving them an artificial unfair advantage) them
"Striking (backed by the threat of violence)"
Are not inherently violent.Contrary to Dilorenzo or Block, violent strikes are only one kind of strike and historically not the dominant kind.
"can greatly inhibit employers' freedom, and give greater 'bargaining power' to those striking. "
Not really.Employees could choose to fire them or hire temporary workers while terms are considered.It depends on the situation.
" The problem is in seeing everything as poor vs. rich, employees vs. employers, "
liberty student: Scott F:I don't disagree so what are you talking about. They are moral only inso far as they are voluntary- only in that respect- but CAN be immoral in other respects. "What are the other respects?" What actions occur in the relationship. Scott F:Show how this is marxist or hegelian methodology. " What methodology are you using to reach your conclusions? What framework for human action?" Plain old reasoning, nothing contrary to AE(the economics is AE I guess) and praxeology(without trying to involve it). I wouldn't know how to move from historical materialism to my conclusions though I'd be interested to see it tried -not that I'd accept it probably. Scott F:Well I don't have a quick definition to hand as of now. I guess I'd say it concerns the proper relations between humans (and to some extent non humans) "So you're arguing morality with me, without a definition of morality." Without a well defined one except the ordinary one. " What are "proper relations" between humans?" It's incredibly complex- often it depends on the context- and I don't know all the answers right now. If your asking,what I mean by proper relations it's covered by doing what is right. " Proper as decided by who?" By thinking using a mix of rationality ,experience and science. "I am a human being, and yet if I pay someone to hit me with a stick, you claim I am incapable of caring about morality." I said you are uncaring for not caring if it is moral beyond whether it is voluntary. Scott F:" You're avoiding answering what is wrong about someone making particular lifestyle or relationship choices." I haven't.I've said it depends on the case and is complex.What we seem to be talking about though is treating people as less than human i.e. dehumanization of which aggression is a subset. "What case?" The situation.Stop being fillipant. " You claim it is complex, but how can you make claims about it, if it is complex and you can't explain your method?" The method is a mix of using reason,experience and science.It IS complex because it depends on the context. "If I want to be tied up, or have rough sex what business is it of yours?" The same logic could be applied to "If I want to worship statism, what business is it of yours". That's pretty silly.By this line of argument nothing matters except statism vs anarchism which is a cardboard thin libertarian stereotype world. Scott F:"Isn't you claiming to decide for me, the very definition of authoritarianism?" I'm not controlling you to make you do what I want.I'm just having a belief and expressing it.Nothing authoritarian about it. "So you're not making moral claims," I am. Making a claim X is good is not the same as actively acting in a way(part of being controlling) to ensure you do X.By this logic,argumentation is a form of control.This is absurd.You conflate arguing for with controlling(or authoritarianism). "you're just expressing a subjective preference." I don't think there's anything subjective about it.But this is a philosophical debate and a side issue to the one here- a train you seem to be pushing to ignore the fact you've already called me a marxist, a communist and said my methodology is historical materialism. " In other words, things you don't like, aren't actually "wrong" they are just distasteful to you. " I disagree.Your relativism doesn't have a leg to stand on.But that's another battle for another day... Scott F:As a thick libertarian I consider both.Furthermore it helps clarify. "and your introducing it creates a false dichotomy." ???? I think your use of false dichotomy is inappropriate here. I'm creating a false dichotomy aka in simplest terms possible, a false split because I refer to both in a discussion of whether an action is right????? Non sequitur -if that's even possible since this sentence doesn't really make sense. Scott F:"It is my body, my life. How can you say that what I do with my own body is not moral?" Well then your on to arguing about ethics in general. " You just claimed I can be immoral with my own body, and now you claim its ethics? Which is it?" As if the two are different? Scott F:" What moral crime can I commit against myself?" Plenty. "Are you seriously saying that I can commit a crime against myself?" I'm using 'crime' in a metaphoric sense. To be precise I should say immorality then yes. Scott F:"What is the moral standard you are employing? How do you justify it?" a complex related mix of Natural law, virtue ethics,consequentialism,enlightened self interest , the golden rule and Eudaimoniaism " So complicated, you can't articulate it, it is so complicated." so complicated you can't even understand where to begin. " Which makes your "philosophy" nothing more than an expression of your own values (or those you copy from other people)" False dichotomy as if it being my values makes it false.It's my values in that I reasoned to them accepted them and then argued for them.How else,could it have been??? this is crazy! "Guess what Scott. There is no such thing as "thin libertarianism'". That's pretty much what left-libs argue.Attempts to apply it usually result in subtle endorsement of immorality.Your making progress LS. We'll make a marxist of you yet, comrade! ..I joke of course. " My thin libertarianism is much thicker than yours, because it incorporates what I believe to be the highest value necessary for voluntarism. Tolerance." Hahah. The Irony. "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition".
"What are the other respects?"
What actions occur in the relationship.
" What methodology are you using to reach your conclusions? What framework for human action?"
Plain old reasoning, nothing contrary to AE(the economics is AE I guess) and praxeology(without trying to involve it). I wouldn't know how to move from historical materialism to my conclusions though I'd be interested to see it tried -not that I'd accept it probably.
"So you're arguing morality with me, without a definition of morality."
Without a well defined one except the ordinary one.
" What are "proper relations" between humans?"
It's incredibly complex- often it depends on the context- and I don't know all the answers right now.
If your asking,what I mean by proper relations it's covered by doing what is right.
" Proper as decided by who?"
By thinking using a mix of rationality ,experience and science.
"I am a human being, and yet if I pay someone to hit me with a stick, you claim I am incapable of caring about morality."
I said you are uncaring for not caring if it is moral beyond whether it is voluntary.
"What case?" The situation.Stop being fillipant.
" You claim it is complex, but how can you make claims about it, if it is complex and you can't explain your method?"
The method is a mix of using reason,experience and science.It IS complex because it depends on the context.
"If I want to be tied up, or have rough sex what business is it of yours?"
The same logic could be applied to "If I want to worship statism, what business is it of yours".
That's pretty silly.By this line of argument nothing matters except statism vs anarchism which is a cardboard thin libertarian stereotype world.
"So you're not making moral claims,"
I am. Making a claim X is good is not the same as actively acting in a way(part of being controlling) to ensure you do X.By this logic,argumentation is a form of control.This is absurd.You conflate arguing for with controlling(or authoritarianism).
"you're just expressing a subjective preference."
I don't think there's anything subjective about it.But this is a philosophical debate and a side issue to the one here- a train you seem to be pushing to ignore the fact you've already called me a marxist, a communist and said my methodology is historical materialism.
" In other words, things you don't like, aren't actually "wrong" they are just distasteful to you. "
I disagree.Your relativism doesn't have a leg to stand on.But that's another battle for another day...
"and your introducing it creates a false dichotomy."
???? I think your use of false dichotomy is inappropriate here. I'm creating a false dichotomy aka in simplest terms possible, a false split because I refer to both in a discussion of whether an action is right????? Non sequitur -if that's even possible since this sentence doesn't really make sense.
" You just claimed I can be immoral with my own body, and now you claim its ethics? Which is it?"
As if the two are different?
"Are you seriously saying that I can commit a crime against myself?"
I'm using 'crime' in a metaphoric sense. To be precise I should say immorality then yes.
" So complicated, you can't articulate it, it is so complicated."
so complicated you can't even understand where to begin.
" Which makes your "philosophy" nothing more than an expression of your own values (or those you copy from other people)"
False dichotomy as if it being my values makes it false.It's my values in that I reasoned to them accepted them and then argued for them.How else,could it have been??? this is crazy!
"Guess what Scott. There is no such thing as "thin libertarianism'".
That's pretty much what left-libs argue.Attempts to apply it usually result in subtle endorsement of immorality.Your making progress LS. We'll make a marxist of you yet, comrade! ..I joke of course.
" My thin libertarianism is much thicker than yours, because it incorporates what I believe to be the highest value necessary for voluntarism.
Tolerance."
Hahah.
The Irony.
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition".