What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend? I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend?
I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
...
Loaded questions, intentional misrepresentations, and unfounded ad hominems will simply be ignored.
Good call.
The key difference is mine was a statement, not a question. Sure, you can say it was a loaded statement, I thought it was quite pertinent, but it was not designed to bait anybody into a position.
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
Such a vague definition could be applied to just about any political philosophy. Everyone thinks their political and economic philosophy will benefit mankind over-all. No one actually thinks their beliefs will impoverish the masses.
Actually, a few people here actually do think that; namely LS and Sieben. And they are fine with it. It's ok if the masses are impoverished because some rich guys will get WAY richer, and that will trickle down to the masses maybe 40, 50, 100 years in the future.
How can you support-free will. If the establishment you promote institutionally undermines individual-free will? Are you supporting free-will, if your free-will encroaches upon the free-will of your neighbors? Is it free-will for all? Or free-will for yourself, as far as your personal preferences and desires are concerned.
Epicurous ibn Kalhoun:I feel the capitalist system "institutionally undermines individual free-will" by placing autocratic control over the lives of thousands, even millions of people into very few hands. It undermines free will by placing access to resource and commodities based on purchasing power, and neither need nor merit.
Who is to be the judge of someone's need or merit? You of mine? Me of yours? Each of their own?
"The singular tendency of capitalism is to provide for individuals the satisfaction of their wants according to the extent of their contribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others." -- Danny Sanchez in "Why Capitalism?"
Z.
That quote leaves out a mega-ton of back story. Like where/how the capital was obtained to supply the needs/wants of others. Seriuosly, that's just a statement. I could say, "the single tendency of feudalism is to bring the social order in line with God's desires." My statement has as much substance as Danny's (let me just put in here that I tremendously respect Danny, even if I do disagree with him).
Epicurus:It's ok if the masses are impoverished because some rich guys will get WAY richer, and that will trickle down to the masses maybe 40, 50, 100 years in the future.
That or the masses never getting wealthier ever. The standard of living for the poor or more likely worsening over time. But thats besides the point.
Don't you think your misrepresentation of LS and Sieben is somewhat hypocritical? Considering your recent complaints about loaded statements and what not.
Epicurus:I don't feel that it does. I feel the capitalist system "institutionally undermines individual free-will" by placing autocratic control over the lives of thousands, even millions of people into very few hands.
How do the few get in these positions? What do they do to reach that level?
Can you further explain how Steve Jobs undermines individual free-will? Because I always thought of him as creating options for me to further express my free-will.
Epicurus:It undermines free will by placing access to resource and commodities based on purchasing power, and neither need nor merit.
Fundamentally, using your understanding of capitalism, how does one increase his purchasing power. And how is this method unfair?
Can you explain how a society would f unction absent money? Can you explain the solution to the calculation problem?
Epicurus: Honestly I could go on for days about the tyrannical nature of capitalism
Good it will help remove confusion, lets ignore the state all together. Lets focus on free and voluntary exchange alone. Please point out the inherent tyrannical nature of voluntary exchange?
Epicurus:Free-will for the individual would be virtually indistinguishable from free will for all.
How is this not a fallacy of composition?
Also most of your responses are mostly intangible rants(Like your complaint about LS or Sieben isn't relevant to anything). You don't actually offer any concrete objections. You just mostly complain and gripe. Do you, and have you, ever on this forum, offered up a valid objection? Other then intangible unarguable assertions about the alleged "inherent tyrannical nature of capitalism" absent any explanation of why you feel that way.
If your participation here is going to do anything productive, whether thats you convincing me of your understanding, or vice versa, you'll have to actually make an effort with your arguments. Your nature here is very cynical, and very seldom do you offer anything concrete. I apologize if you think my criticisms are without merit.
Your attempt at analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of the "initial" (whatever that may mean) distribution of capital, one's ability to maintain satisfaction of their wants (level of consumption) is directly proportional to their continuous contribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others (profit). Failing to do so, diminishes -- and after some time totally eradicates -- the satisfaction of their wants. Businesses and individuals constantly go bust if they don't allocate/manage their capital, labor and resources toward the satisfaction of the wants of others (consumers). Lottery winners constantly go bankrupt by not managing their winnings properly. Small businesses constantly grow big by satisfying consumers better. Then they wither away if/when they stop doing that.
What better self-regulating and impartial maximizer of the satisfaction of everyone's wants could there possibly be? If you think a poet deserves merit, then commission (buy) his poem or convince someone else to do so. If you feel that the poet has a need, give him what you think he needs or convince someone else to do so. But please don't put a gun to my head and make me satisfy his wants according to your judgment of merit or need.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I feel the capitalist system "institutionally undermines individual free-will" by placing autocratic control over the lives of thousands, even millions of people into very few hands.
But capitalism doesn't place control in the hands of "the few". That's what critics of capitalism never understand. They are always talking as if capitalism is central planning by big business. Markets are not run by anyone. It's systemic. Nobody controls it. There's no planner in capitalism.
Is it a misrepresentation? I will detract it if so.
Do you, and have you, ever on this forum, offered up a valid objection? Other then intangible unarguable assertions about the alleged "inherent tyrannical nature of capitalism" absent any explanation of why you feel that way.
Actually I offered 2 reasons, you intentionally failed to see, in that post alone.
Please point out the inherent tyrannical nature of voluntary exchange?
This is a loaded question, and I shouldn't respond to it. You are trying to force me into a position by asking what is my problem with "voluntary" exchange. Of course, who could be against voluntary exchange?! But, I will choose to see it as "what is your problem with the capitalist political economic system" because that is actually a pertinent question. I'll try to make this short;
We start with thousands of years of theft of land and other property. We then consolidate this property into the hands of the (natural to some people) elites legally, and people's lives in those same hands politically. We then remove the titles of nobility and call it "free exchange." That would be like me trading you your Super Nintendo for your baseball cards.... The tyrannical history of property and its pursuit is extensive.
We then establish absolute property laws of "this is mine" but more significantly and unnatural "and not yours." At first, as mentioned in the last paragraph, this was all the property of the legal elites, the nobility... the landed aristocracy. But this tyrannical nature of property still exists in the more progressive capitalist economies (more progressive than feudalism). It did not exist through most of human history. It was not needed to develop arguably our greatest breakthrough (agriculture). And it is not needed, imo, to run a modern economy efficiently, and with prosperity for "all."
Property has a long history of tyranny in its aquisition and protection. Surely you wouldn't deny this? There's nothing wrong with property, in a general sense, or its trade. In fact, it is unavoidable. That's why your "why are you against voluntary exchange" is loaded. The problem comes in with establishment of absolute property laws. This was most severe during the times of legally established "elite bloodlines" and "titles of nobility" holding it in entirely unmerited hands. But it did not stop with the development of capitalism. Its still tyrannical control of resource and commodity, and as such, tyrannical control of billions of people's lives.
Then comes the tyrannical nature of purchasing power. Absolute establishment of property moves the use of property to fulfillment of the needs/wants of all, and into the needs/wants of those with. It creates a game of monopoly where to protect yourself one needs to gain ever more and more property. This creates large disparities in purchasing power, further solidifying the direction of society into fewer hands.
Disputes over property and/or use of resource inevitably arise. Those with use their purchasing power to buy protection, militarily. They use this military power to protect themselves legally. As such, statism develops. Capitalists (those actually practicing ownership, etc, instead of capitalist theorists) are rarely libertarians. They may be against government regulations, but are usually perfectly fine with government courts and military, even in the modern age. It was sadly funny to see the capitalist scrambling to figure out how to make a profit off the Iraq war.
... this is getting too long. If you would like me to go on, I'm fine with that. But this is good for now.
Regardless of the "initial" (whatever that may mean) distribution of capital, one's ability to maintain satisfaction of their wants (level of consumption) is directly proportional to their continuouscontribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others (profit).
that's my problem right there. How people can casually dismiss thousands of years of rape, pillage, theft, and murder is astounding. many of you are americans. How can you just dismiss the fact that your way of life was established on the forced migrations of natives and theft of their land? That your prosperity was established on slavery? ... it's just astounding
Failing to do so, diminishes -- and after some time totally eradicates -- the satisfaction of their wants.
I agree, but this is as much true in capitalism as it is in feudalism, socialism, fascism, technocracy, or any other system.
What better self-regulating and impartial maximizer of the satisfaction of everyone's wants could there possibly be?
Sure.. the elites under purchasing power is better than the elites under titles of nobility.. I'll grant you that. But, imo, the people democratically is the most superior.
If you think a poet deserves merit, then commission (buy) his poem or convince someone else to do so. If you feel that the poet has a need, give him what you think he needs or convince someone else to do so. But please don't put a gun to my head and make me satisfy his wants according to your judgment of merit or need.
Oh, come on... you were doin so well up to now
Epicurous ibn Kalhoun:that's my problem right there. How people can casually dismiss thousands of years of rape, pillage, theft, and murder is astounding. many of you are americans. How can you just dismiss the fact that your way of life was established on the forced migrations of natives and theft of their land? That your prosperity was established on slavery? ... it's just astounding
So what are you going to do about it? Keep whining about the "astonishing" injustice Atilla The Hun did to his victims? Seek (carefully calculated) reparations going how far back and from whose descendants to whose?
You could take away everything I have and drop me naked from a helicopter on any random spot on this planet and I bet you I will land on my feet and build something again from scratch. On the other hand, I could hand you everything you're begging for and I bet that you will smother it into nothing and come back begging for more. I will always build, no matter what. You will always whine, no matter what. And that, my friend, is the only difference between me (the capitalist) and you (the socialist).
I thought it was a clear misrepresentation (number 2), the fact that you consider such nonsense to be pertinent is startling.
What? That if absolute private control of resource is ethically justified, then murder is ethically justified? I thought it was pertinent... Do you have an objection, or are you just dismissing it because it doesn't suit your fancy?
... loaded, loaded, loaded...
I will continue to try to convince people that absolute property rights are unjustified and inneficient.
obligatory "you mad bro?"
Seriously, I'm just done responding to you outright. A productive way to show you have any regard for truth in any way
(my apologies, I missed this post) There IS truth to this. But any control the consumer has is secondary. Most of the direction of society, under capitalism, is decided by the whims of the have's.
That's wonderful thinking.Do you sometimes listen to yourself?
Even I have limited knowledge of economics, and I can tell you that the control of society is decided by the consumer.
Also "the have's.", what are they? Can "the have not" decide to ... I don't know...become "the have"?
The objection comes from your paradoxical stance. You object to oligarchy (which you seem to be conflating with absolute private control - which is false -but whatever...) but endorse "democracy," as I already said "control is control is control..." Acts are moral/immoral, the power structure behind is irrelevant.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:(my apologies, I missed this post)
No problem. As a non-capitalist on this place, you're probably being bombarded with responses from all sides. We got nobody to disagree with us around here.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:There IS truth to this. But any control the consumer has is secondary. Most of the direction of society, under capitalism, is decided by the whims of the have's.
That's the point, in a private enterprise system society wouldn't be directed by anyone. The outcome is systemic, not intentional. Nobody has control over it. Who determines the price of iron? Who decides how many eggs are produced for London this month? Nobody. There is no planner, nobody at the helm.
Filc:Don't you think your misrepresentation of LS and Sieben is somewhat hypocritical? Considering your recent complaints about loaded statements and what not.
Epicurus:Is it a misrepresentation? I will detract it if so.
I would be surprised if LS and Sieben agreed completely with the way you framed their position. And to be quite frank, I find it somewhat distirbing that you don't find it problamatic, as an opponent, to attempt to phrase your opponents position in such a condescending fassion.
Epicirus:This is a loaded question, and I shouldn't respond to it. You are trying to force me into a position by asking what is my problem with "voluntary" exchange. Of course, who could be against voluntary exchange?! But, I will choose to see it as "what is your problem with the capitalist political economic system" because that is actually a pertinent question. I'll try to make this short
This is simple. Your definition of capitalism has been rejected here many times before. I myself also reject your definition of capitalism. Instead, I see capitalism as a series of voluntary exchanges. So if we cannot reasonable discuss in terms of "Capitalism" then lets discuss in terms of "Voluntary Exchange".
From this point forward when I say "Capitalism" I am referring to a series of "Voluntary Exchanges".
If you agree with voluntary exchange, then you agree with most everyone on this site. It's disengenuous for you to recognize that most people accept Capitalism based on the terms I've stated, then argue against that using a definition here that many do not acept. Your definition matching more of the conservative, traditionalist concept of Capitalism(That Capitalism exists as it is, because it always has and has evolved into its current state).
Secondly, I need to correct myself. Apparently I asked you, "What is wrong with the Capital political economic system". I should correct myself in stating that I am not for any political system. I am not interested in politics. I am however interested in economics. So lets discusss on an economic level. What is inherently tyrannical regarding a series of voluntary exchanges. Furthermore, if you feel that is a loaded question, explain yourself. Don't just assert that it is.
If my question is loaded, what is the assumption I am making in the question? If your going to assert that I am making logical fallacies, back it up. Don't just knee-jerk say that because you can't find a way to reason out of it. How is the following question loaded.
A loaded question is one that makes an assumption in the premise. What assumption am I making when asking. "What is inherently tyrranical regarding a series of voluntary exchange".
Epicurus:We start with thousands of years of theft of land and other property. We then consolidate this property into the hands of the (natural to some people) elites legally, and people's lives in those same hands politically. We then remove the titles of nobility and call it "free exchange." That would be like me trading you your Super Nintendo for your baseball cards.... The tyrannical history of property and its pursuit is extensive.
Ok, but your argument was stated as against the theory fo capitalism. Not it's history as you interpret it. History in and of itself is not proof enough that an economic system does not work. There is theory and logic behind the reasons why Nazism, Marxism, Fascism, and all plethora's of Socialism are claimed as fallacious. It's not that they've had histrical problems end of story, there is a great deal of explanation regarding the faulty logic that went into those systems.
Giving historical examples of why you think Capitalism is bad, does not explain why it is logically fallacious. All your doing is sharing your personal interpretation of history, and assigning a certain condescending view on Capitalism. But your not actually addressing the theory or the logic behind Capitalism when you do this.
It's disengenuous to label historical examples as capitalistic, socialist, or any political dogma for that matter. For every historical occasion that you label as a tyrannanical example of capitalism, someone here would probably recognize it as socialist, fascist, or something else. Your method is nearly identicle to the traditionalists. You judge things as they ought to be, based on your own interpretation of history, one that is subject to error.
This is a logical fallacy. I'll continue...
Epicurus:I feel the capitalist system "institutionally undermines individual free-will"
Using history to explain this statement is a logical fallacy. Can you logically back the above assertion ignoring history? By what reasoning does capitalism institutionally undermine free-will. Not your historical interpretation of it. I'm not asking for anecdotal bias experiences, or mis-interpreted historical examples. I am asking you, where in the theory of capitalism, is it inherently tyrannical.
When you bring up history, your constructing a red-herring. History has nothing to do with the discuss at hand. You need to explain why the theory itself is fundamentally in error.
Epicurus:Property has a long history of tyranny in its aquisition and protection. Surely you wouldn't deny this? There's nothing wrong with property, in a general sense, or its trade. In fact, it is unavoidable. That's why your "why are you against voluntary exchange" is loaded. The problem comes in with establishment of absolute property laws. This was most severe during the times of legally established "elite bloodlines" and "titles of nobility" holding it in entirely unmerited hands. But it did not stop with the development of capitalism. Its still tyrannical control of resource and commodity, and as such, tyrannical control of billions of people's lives.
It's extremely difficult to parse this. As there is no real theory behind any of it. There also isn't any real structure to your critique of Capitalism. It's just really random and adhoc. It's just a series of non-sequiturs. You site instances where there was theft, coercion, and attribute it to Capitalism. When anyone could just as easily attribute the same instance as an example of socialism.(and they do).
What I think you are eluding to is that your stating that the current state of affairs evolved into the system that is. What your doing is arguing against the conservative or traditionalist definition of capitalism, but not hte Austrian understanding of Capitalism. Which is odd considering the amount of tiem you've speant here.
You seem to think that the system is broken simply because its evolved this way. But even if that were true, you would have to present the theoretical and logical argument for why and where the system is broke. What you cited above was a series of instances involving thievery, initiations of undue compulsion and violence, all of which is rejected in the Capitalistic framework endorsed primarily on this site. This is likely one of the reasons why your debates with people are fruitless, as your arguing past them. Your definition of capitalism is entirely different from theres. How can you expect to progress with anyone here when your terms are radically different from theres?
But besides all of this, you've still yet to explain logically where a series of voluntary exchange fails. You have to explain where the logic of capitalism is fallacious. You've yet to do that. You've mostly been rambiling on to the hymm of some kind of faulty whig theory. Thats why I don't quite grasp what exactly it is you take issue with.
So I'll ask again. What exactly IN capitalism is inherently tyrannical. Please do not cite your historical inturrpritation of things(which is subject to error). Please focus on the theory itself.
Epicurus:Then comes the tyrannical nature of purchasing power.
Fundamentally speaking, who grants purchasing power? When someone exchanges a medium exchange away, in return for a good or service. Where is the tyrranny? How is savings tyrannical exactly?
What body of power governs whether Steve Jobs will be allowed to increase his purchasing power or not? Did Steve Jobs steal his purchasing power from the masses? Or did the masses willingly give it to them voluntarly, and if the latter, who are you to judge them?
Epicurus:Disputes over property and/or use of resource inevitably arise.
Do you think think violence is the fault of capitalism? That if we removed capitalism and adopted a different system violence would magically dissapear? Or is it somewhat circular to say that theft of property is the fault of popertarian's and that if we just abolished property there would be no thievery(Quite a semantical trick there!)
When we accept Praxeology we understand that violence, and initiation of force is a human trait, not a trait of Capitalism. Capitalism does not compell people to thievery. People here would argue that it does however grant a strong influence for social cooperation.
I don't see what's wrong with that, it's history. Also your argument doesn't follow through.
It did not exist through most of human history. It was not needed to develop arguably our greatest breakthrough (agriculture). And it is not needed, imo, to run a modern economy efficiently, and with prosperity for "all."
I'm pretty sure it existed for a long time.
Then comes the tyrannical nature of purchasing power. Absolute establishment of property moves the use of property to fulfillment of the needs/wants of all, and into the needs/wants of those with.
Why am I or anyone for that matter responsible for the needs of all?
People have disputed over anything, food, women, property...what is your point? Are you saying without property disputes will dissapear?
And what's wrong with making a profit out of the war in Iraq?
You know mate, the point of this thread was to explain how a libertarian socialist society works. How will the factory work when it is controlled by the workers, who will profit? How can a society function where the individual doesn't have private property? How will the economy work without private property? What is a man's incentive to work for others and not himself?
If libertarian socialism resumes itself to silly emotional rants then I'm positive no one is interested. You fail to explain how it works. Everything you say resumes itself to "property is theft" "Indians died" and some other utter non sense. It feels as if I'm reading the comments of an overly emotional child.
I would be surprised if LS and Sieben agreed completely with the way you framed their position. And to be quite frank, I find it somewhat distirbing that you don't find it problamatic, as an opponent, to attempt to phrase your opponents position in such a condescending fassion
Is it condescending? I don't think it misrepresents them at all. It seems like a perfectly valid representation, assuming most of the world currently lives in poverty (which they do). As I said, if it does, I retract it and apologize to the community for my error
But your definition is completely disconnected from reality. It is even weird to call an-cap as such as it would more accurately be represented as propertarian anarchy/statelessness. It's fine to jockey back and forth amongst yourselves about free exchange as capitalism, someone like me is utterly lost.
Has or has not the US been a capitalist nation at any point in it's history? If you say no you're absolutely disconnecting capitalism from what it... well... is...
I am not against free exchange, but I don't feel it needs, nor meshes well with absolute property rights, a fundamental basis of capitalism.
If my question is loaded, what is the assumption I am making in the question? If your going to assert that I am making logical fallacies, back it up. Don't just knee-jerk say that because you can't find a way to reason out of it. How is the following question loaded
You're making the assumption that capitalism = voluntary exchange. This is disconnected from all reality... because voluntary exchange has existed arguably for 100s of thousands of years (evidence of wide scale trade amongst hunter gatherers).
This is my point. Theory is not theory, really, if it doesn't not mesh with observation; i.e. history. Just defining your own terms, calling them irrefutable, and then moving on is a poor way to start a theory. Homo economicus is a deux ex machina.
It can lead you to think things like "inflating the money supply is the cause of recessions, so get rid of the central bank and all will be well." Seriously... the FED is not that old. I'm not saying YOU would say that, but I have heard it said.
Did you miss;
That is the single most important tenet of any propertarian system (including capitalism), correct? Property must mean "this is mine and not yours.
It establishes an autocracy over property itself. It is unnecessary for human development and leads to many unnatural divisions and power structures.
No, no, and no... but all that aside...
I do attribute much tyranny to statist socialism. I'm not so naive to think, even if they didn't really do anything according to socialist theory, they claimed to and tried to be socialists. I accept that (except NAZI's, for them adding "socialism" was purposeful propaganda. Fascism in no way tried to dismantle the capitalist productive process, and in fact embraced it).
We could have a seperate debate between just how bloody those systems... which I have no love for, statism is tyranny, under capitalism socialism feudalism or whatever... are in comparison to the development of capitalism. The only real differences were population sizes and technological development. But of course, that wasn't capitalism I'm talking about (according to you) so.. .I'm not sure how fruitful it would be.
Your definition of capitalism is entirely different from theres. How can you expect to progress with anyone here when your terms are radically different from theres?
Cuz then I would have to say things like "socialist laissez faire america" and that just boggles my mind...
I still fail to see why you're still hung up on my historical examples. I did move on from there to discuss the tyrannical nature of absolute property laws, as required under capitalism... and I assume that would be a requirement under both our definitions of capitalism..?
Well... if Pirates of Silicon Valley is to be believed he defrauded Xirox out of what eventually became windows so... And that's one of the problems with purchasing power. It does not care where the capital came from, as long as their is some you get what you're looking for.
But as far as Steve coming up with an idea and trying to spread it amongst the masses, there's nothing wrong with that. I encourage it.
But because people need monetary power to purchase the product it creates all kinds of disincentives like computers that WERE made (the malinvested capital already happened) and sit for years before eventually being destroyed. Perhaps if the people submitted a request for one he would already know how many to make and wouldn't waste resource.. idk (this is touching on the profit motive, but it's pretty fundamentally connected to the monetary system and purchasing power)
Do you think think violence is the fault of capitalism? That if we removed capitalism and adopted a different system violence would magically dissapear? Or is it somewhat circular to say that theft of property is the fault of popertarian's and that if we just abolished property there would be no thievery(Quite a semantical trick there!
/roll eyes
No. But when they do arise, under the propertarian system one persons large disparity in purchasing power gives him a far easier ability to garner protection in the political and legal systems.
Violence is a trait for most species (idk why the font just changed).
I'm pretty sure it existed for a long time
5-9k years IS a long time, but it pales in comparison to the 200k years of human existence (and ingenuity).
I think they call that the division of labor, or more specifically, society. You can try the hermit life, that's fine. But I don't advise it.
You are benefitting from the actions of people both directly and indirectly, you actions have effects on them as well, both directly and indirectly. You can no more run away from this than you can death.
Humans are a social animal, always have been, always will be.
People have disputed over anything, food, women, property...what is your point? Are you saying without property disputes will dissapear
No. Pointing out that disputes will arise over property was a premise. Unless you are saying this premise is false, can we move on?
And what's wrong with making a profit out of the war in Iraq
Nothing, if you're willing to admit that capitalism does not require VOLUNTARY exchange.
Wasn't there a "socialism is anti-liberty so how can you be a libertarian socialist" in the OP? I gave my answer.
But as far as how the factory works; ultimate decisions are made through the worker's council (by worker I am including everyone who works at the factory; labor, management, the board (if there is one). It's like taking the concept of the board in the first place, and involving the rest of the workforce... analagous to taking the parlaiments of old absolute monarchies and extending them to all the property holding white adult men... or from white property holding adult men to all white adult men... or all adult white... you get the picture.
Everybody will be paid according to contribution to the company, also decided through council (socialism does not require aboslutely equal incomes, in fact that would be ridiculous. Is one going to pay the part-time independant contractor a full-time salary? I'm certainly no Leninist but even he had a concept of "from each according to his ability to each according to his contribution.
After paying costs, distributing dividends amongst the investors and workforce, any further profits would go back into the business....
How can a society function where the individual doesn't have private property? How will the economy work without private property?
What you do in your house with your things is rarely the business of the community (barring things like taking people to your house to torture and murder them, etc). Just as we probably define capitalism different, we probably define "private" property different. I don't define property in aboslutes.
What is a man's incentive to work for others and not himself?
You don't find any disconnect between this statement and your support of the capitalist productive structure?
A man's incentive to work varies (a woman's too lol) from person to person, but generally involving gaining access to resource.
That's very interesting, although no one said anything about "the hermit life", I benefit from the actions of other people by trading with them.I get in return what I payed for. I get nothing in return when I pay for someone else's welfare or health insurance. Assuming you value that warm feeling of joy inside, which to me is useless.
Concerning the social animal part, that's true depending how one wants to see it. But that doesn't mean I'm responsible for someone else's actions.
Finally, something precise, except for the white male thing, I didn't quite understand what you mean by that. Also I apoligise for calling you a child earlier, this is a pretty interesting way to make a factory work. Sounds a bit unrealistic. What are the cons in this type of factory? If it's so efficient then why hasn't it been tried?
Who decides exactly how much is profit? Who distributes?The council? Democracy in a factory is pretty unrealistic.
Also why do you think the worker should own the factory? He's just a worker, he get's payed for a service that he offers on someone else's capital. I now work as a paper boy and a waiter, I'm content with being payed for the job I offer, nothing else.
I haven't reached a point in my life where I'm ready to handle my own bussiness.
In this type of society can people become wealthy?
Are people allowed to operate the same way as today, or must everyones factory belong to the workers? I'm pretty sure in a libertarian society you can start cooperatives, can you do the same in this type of society?
A man's incentive to work varies (a woman's too lol) from person to person, but generally involving gaining access to resource
I'm sorry, this was a very vague answer. I know why people work in our society, for they're own self-interest.
In your ideal society, do I have to work to improve other people's life?
I get nothing in return when I pay for someone else's welfare or health insurance.
That's arguable. Yes, you get that warm fuzzy feeling if you're into it (but you are one of the few "redistribution creates an incentive problem" that puts charity in that category as well ) Either way, guy gets a little capital, stays alive a little longer, invents super-mega life extender. Boom you benefit.
The cons are generally the same as any other enterprise; misuse of capital. It's not perfect. It just provides all involved in the decision making process, which I assume (maybe falsely, that's debatable) will lead to lower amounts of said misallocation.
It has been tried, and in places is still in effect. But in competition with the capitalist structure, too much of it's revenues go to people who actually did work, leaving not as much for investors.
Idk, people thought democracy in politics was unrealistic as well...
I don't think anyone should "own" the factory. There is a long, convuluted process involved in how ownership was able to aquire the capital they have.
What I am arguing is that you be given a vote in the ultimate direction of the company, and compensation equal to your contribution to its successes.
Your self-interest is fundamentally connected to those you interact with. Of course you work for your self-interest. Socialism is in the self-interest of far more people than capitalism.
Sorry mate, but I'm afraid your answer is still very vague and filled with fallacies. I don't even know where to start and I'm not quite sure it's worth wasting my time. If anyone else would like to point them out for me they're more then welcome.
Good luck with you idyllic fantasy.
Either way, guy gets a little capital, stays alive a little longer, invents super-mega life extender. Boom you benefit.
I'd also argue, furthermore, that we would have little to complain about if McDonald's decided to act like a coercive institution. For instance, a little involuntary redistribution can provide hundreds of homeless people with relatively cheap burgers, albeit with a little McThuggery.
Now who could be against that? Boom. You benefit.
It's not a defense of the welfare state. It's a statement of fact. People received great benefit from the reduced populations created in the Black Death.
Whether or not forced welfare is ethically justified is a seperate argument on whether redistribution (charity and welfare) create an incentive problem.
People received great benefit from the reduced populations created in the Black Death
So war is good for the economy, and you can create wealth by breaking windows?
If the means are destructive the end is destructive.
Comparing welfare and charity is a fallacy. For the simple fact that one is voluntary and another one isn't.
If you'r going to continue debating, I suggest you offer precise arguments and quit evading my questions.
But I suppose you also think playing silly rhetoric games is justified as long as you get your point accross.
o war is good for the economy, and you can create wealth by breaking windows?
False analogy. The wealth is not created in the plague, or the redistribution. But if someone does recieve redistribution, after that fact he can invest it and create wealth. Perhaps there was still a net loss in wealth created... but still he can create wealth. I gave an example of this wherein John receives redistribution and healthcare, and later invents a Live-Long pill (a hypothetical, but nothing too unreasonable).
When looking at the reality of things, the reduced populations created a demand for labor, with a low supply. It raised the cost and power (of negotiation) that labor had. It didn't create wealth, but it created the oppurtunity for more people TO create wealth.
It is a fallacy when comparing their moral/ethical justification. But when comparing the utility of redistribution there is no difference between redistribution provided voluntarily and not. If you think there is, please make an argument why, that's not just asserting it as true because you said it's true.
The rest of your post is baseless attacks on my character that is beneath gentlemen such as ourselves.
non sequitur, non sequitur, non sequitur
Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with charity. You say that if I benefit indirectly from others, then I say they benefit indirectly from me. If I pay them then they benefit directly and I loose.
Where are these places that are still in effect?
Again your argument is false, you'r running away from the issue by saying that the only reason this system isn't efficient is because of capitalist competition, are you saying the competition must be removed?
If you're not going to answer all the questions then don't debate. Seriously that's your answer?
You think it's unrealistic to own yourself. Because you ahte the idea of being your own slave.!!lol
A vote doesn't change much nor affect the company. It is unreasonable to vote ons omeone else's property. Again, we should leave this issue untouched until you present valid arguments for my earlier questions.
Socialism makes everyone equally poor. But again you fail to say why.If you're going to offer weak arguments without proper explanation, our debate is over. I'm trying to understand whether you're dishonest or a first rate imbecile.
You also dodged the question when I asked what you meant by this:
It's like taking the concept of the board in the first place, and involving the rest of the workforce... analagous to taking the parlaiments of old absolute monarchies and extending them to all the property holding white adult men... or from white property holding adult men to all white adult men... or all adult white... you get the picture.
But if someone does recieve redistribution, after that fact he can invest it and create wealth. Perhaps there was still a net loss in wealth created... but still he can create wealth
I am pretty sure this isn't a false analogy, unless I have missed the point. How is this different than The Marshall Plan? To be clear now, anybody can create wealth, there is just simply no rational way a state can allocate resources to subsidize such a project.
There is a great difference between Voluntary and Forced redistribution. When I donate to a charity I am able to choose the charity and choose how much I donate. I am also able to choose whether I should or should not donate.
When I'm forced, someone takes my money without my consent and donates it to whomever it deems worthy.
No one is arguing againts the fact that both ways redistribute wealth. Yet there is a clear difference between them, as I explained above.
Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with charity. You say that if I benefit indirectly from others, then I say they benefit indirectly from me. If I pay them then they benefit directly and I loose
Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Your premise (the last sentence) is as true for charity as it is for welfare. Again, you are just asserting things as if they are true, because you asserted them.
And I also that they, in fact, do benefit indirectly from you, so idk why you're trying to say I didn't.
Stating a fact is not running from the argument. I acknowledge worker's democracies weakness to attract investors in the capitalist system. Were there a way to fix that I would, but as such, it is a simple reality that paying your workers well leaves less money for investors.
Why should I need to answer your question when YOU already did. It's not my company, I will not decide how it distributes its revenues. The worker's council is merely the board of directors expanded to include the entire company.
No, you just don't get it. I am saying the term is a nonsensical term. Eitehr it is a justification for slavery of any type, being the an owner of a person (the self) is a slave master. If a person can own a person (the self) he can own other people as well. If it is not slavery, then its not really ownership by any recognizable definition of the term. Either you create a mind/body duality (which doesn't exist, I might add) and therein slavery, or your using the term "ownership" incorrectly.
Free will has no need for such contracitory and inadequate statements.
There's no question in your next part. Just more assertions with no argument and baseless attacks on my character.
As to your last question; What I meant was that it was extending control from the privelaged few to the community as a whole; democratizing control of the company.
Again, like I said in another thread. I'm done debating with you.
Good day
Drew,
The false analogy comes in because i was not saying the Black Death created wealth. I said it gave people the oppurtunity to create wealth. I'm not discussing the broken window fallacy, merely stating that living people recieved a benefit in their access to resource from all the deaths. There was no plan afterwards, or state allocation... so i'm not sure what that has to do with it.
Are you saying the reduced population from the plague did not give labor a higher bargaining power, and therefore compensation? This is about distribution of existing resource, not creation of future wealth.
Did you foreot about me again Epicurus ibn Kalhoun?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/22473/396457.aspx#396457
lol, maybe I did miss the point.
Let me double check:
I said it gave people the oppurtunity to create wealth. I'm not discussing the broken window fallacy, merely stating that living people recieved a benefit in their access to resource from all the deaths.
Yeah absolutely. This would almost be impossible to deny. If this wasn't the case human being would be extinct
I agree with that as well (or at least I would assume this to be the case). This is my punishment for lazily reading the middle of a thread. It was a false analogy.
Final score:
Epicurious: 1
William: 0