How would one control the means of production that they don't even use themselves? How would a capitalist extract the surplus value from his workers? How would a landlord extract rent from his tenant?
Thanks very much if you could clear this out for me guys
Capitalism can't exist with the state.
@aervew
I think you're conflating the state with law and order. If the state was set up to protect law and order, it can't also be what caused law and order.
capitalism has never existed without state. prove me wrong. in fact it doesnt even have to be capitalism, any economic system of somewhat stable property rights requires the state.
This is unsubstantiated reactionism. Correlation does not equal causation. Consider that if this were the year 1000 AD, you could substitute 'capitalism' with 'society' or 'civilisation', and 'state' with 'chattel slavery'.
'Any system of relatively desirable civilisation we've seen so far has involved chattel slavery, therefore the most desirable system of civilisation available to us necessarily requires chattel slavery.'
btw iceland & ireland had state functionality though somewhat differently structured. they had the final judicator / chieftan / king. it is only through the distorted eyesight of the libertarian that this system is interpreted as anarchy
Well, if you're willing to necessarily and strictly circumscribe the role of "the state" to that of a natural or common law enforcer and contract dispute arbitrator, you probably are a libertarian.
One has to consider the basis for why any particular such entity has jurisdiction over particular peoples and not others. Do you think there should be one world government for every human being, with universal jurisdiction and only devolved powers to sub-global governing bodies? What real mechanisms are there in place to ensure that it does not become abusive of its monopolised mandate, assuming the logical impossibility that it was set up to both create and protect desirable human civilisation? Is it appropriate to regard human beings as one primary actor? A collective hive mind?
But if you don't accept world government, what particular arrangement of nation-states is the most desirable or rational, given the government's strictly circumscribed role as the court of last resort for law enforcement and dispute resolution? What theory of international relations do you ascribe to? If you believe in the desirability of nation-states, don't you realise the desirability of 'international law' and 'international relations'? Why is it rational to regard the shifting patchwork hodgepodge of violently-established nation-states and empires as the primary actors in a system of 'international relations'? How can legal fictions like nation-states be primary actors? Surely it is the individual who is the only real primary actor, superstitions and legal fictions aside?
Of course there must be a court of last resort for a given dispute of law, but that's no reason to accept the state, and no reason to accept profoundly irrational grounds for jurisdiction. There is a lot of literature on the subject of private law arbitration mechanisms, but really the most rational system has to be emergent, as it can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight.
JackCuyler: What? Lockean property rights, i.e. what you don`t use, you don`t own. Use has nothing to do with Lockean property rights, which have everything to do with creation, i.e. what you create, you own forever, or until you choose to give it away.
What? Lockean property rights, i.e. what you don`t use, you don`t own.
Use has nothing to do with Lockean property rights, which have everything to do with creation, i.e. what you create, you own forever, or until you choose to give it away.
Does anyone create stuff out of thin air?
No, but that's not really relevant is it? I used, "Create," when I should have used, "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something."
Better? If you have an issue with Locke, that's fine. Please don't attribute your "use it or lose it" ideas to him.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler: Does anyone create stuff out of thin air? No, but that's not really relevant is it? I used, "Create," when I should have used, "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something." Better? If you have an issue with Locke, that's fine. Please don't attribute your "use it or lose it" ideas to him.
aervew: capitalism has never existed without state.
capitalism has never existed without state.
This is kinda like saying that humanity has never existed without crime.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
So there is a big difference between "use" and "Mixing one's labor with natural resources, that no one else is using, to produce something"(yes, one is very short, and the other is 30 times longer)?
Getting back to the original point, if I build the "means of production", using my own labor and natural resources, according to Locke, I own those "means of production" forever -- even if I never touch them again. It doesn't matter that I don't use them. I own them because I created them, again, according to Locke. What you attributed to Locke, what you don't use, you don't own, is completely at odds with Locke's theory.
So again, I ask, why would anyone let others use his means of production?