liberty student: wombatron: liberty student:Carson's notion that there is no difference between a fortune 500 company and the state is nonsense. It isn't nonsense if you realize that the Fortune 500 companies are in that postition because of direct or indirect state intervention. There is no proof of that. Only the assertions of Long and Carson. If you've read both sides of the argument, they make an interesting case. They just fail to make the case absolutely. Their critics make excellent counterpoints. Just because people want to believe that big bad business is 100% pure evil, doesn't make it true. I'd like to believe we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard intellectually.
wombatron: liberty student:Carson's notion that there is no difference between a fortune 500 company and the state is nonsense. It isn't nonsense if you realize that the Fortune 500 companies are in that postition because of direct or indirect state intervention.
liberty student:Carson's notion that there is no difference between a fortune 500 company and the state is nonsense.
It isn't nonsense if you realize that the Fortune 500 companies are in that postition because of direct or indirect state intervention.
There is no proof of that. Only the assertions of Long and Carson. If you've read both sides of the argument, they make an interesting case. They just fail to make the case absolutely. Their critics make excellent counterpoints.
Just because people want to believe that big bad business is 100% pure evil, doesn't make it true. I'd like to believe we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard intellectually.
Long & Carson are not the end all be all. I wouldn't be surprised if a few up & comers realized possible shortcomings in their cases & attempted to address them. For example, the recent thread on Wiebe's "“A Rothbardian critique of Cuzán and Ostrowski and a Typology of Anarchy”" was pretty eye opening, even for (admittedly) a layman/newbie as myself when it came to the possible concept of never truly being out of anarchy. Likewise, I found JC's post's in this thread fairly illuminating regarding mutualist theory. Hopefully the thread doesn't de-evolve into another boxing match & sticks to the details rather than the spectacle of the arguments :\
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
GilesStratton:Of course, the poor bring it on themselves through the ballot box.
Do you honestly think that the poor have political power? Please tell me: Who controls the political parties? Who donates millions of dollars to candidates? Who controls which candidates are actually presented to the media? Who controls the media? The poor are victims of the state, and in elections they are offered poison as food and poison as antidote.
So much of right-libertarian argumentation seems to rely on the belief that we have an actually functioning democracy. We don't. We have an oligarchy with some elements of democracy to keep the masses happy. The actual decisions are not made by "the people"; they are made by the ruling class. The poor do not make any major political decisions; they are just used by statist liberals to get state-empowering policies.
GilesStratton:I wonder, any reason you didn't answer my point regarding anarchism?
That anarchism is ambiguous too? Not as much, and not in the same way. People may have a gut fear of the word "anarchy", but with a little thought they will realize that they don't really know very much about anarchism.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
liberty student:Then how do you explain class movement? Poor people can become rich and likewise.
Indeed they can. However, I would wager that the former happens far more than the latter, at least in the case of the "old rich".
Nitroadict:Likewise, I found JC's post's in this thread fairly illuminating regarding mutualist theory. Hopefully the thread doesn't de-evolve into another boxing match & sticks to the details rather than the spectacle of the arguments :\
Oh sure, it's always about you.
I appreciate JC's post. I'm just not sure that it makes sense.
wombatron:Do you honestly think that the poor have political power?
I take it you haven't read de La Boetie. You should.
wombatron: Please tell me: Who controls the political parties? Who donates millions of dollars to candidates? Who controls which candidates are actually presented to the media? Who controls the media?
And who votes these candidates in, by and large the same people who receive welfare from them. It's to be expected, do the poor, who are poor largely because of a lack of intelligence, really think they've figured out how to beat the rich?
wombatron:The poor are victims of the state,
We all are. Even CEOs of big companies, as much as your egalitarianism hates it.
wombatron:So much of right-libertarian argumentation seems to rely on the belief that we have an actually functioning democracy.
And so much of left libertarian argumentation seems to rely on strawmen, like this point.
wombatron:The actual decisions are not made by "the people"; they are made by the ruling class.
Once again, de La Boetie.
wombatron:but with a little thought they will realize that they don't really know very much about anarchism.
Same goes for capitalism.
wombatron:Not as much, and not in the same way.
You're right, it's worse, people think of anarchists as bomb throwing thugs.
Of course, you drop the word capitalist to pander to the socialists, so it's no suprise you like to keep the word anarchism. I'll give you another one. Free market, most people think that the free market is what caused the financial crisis.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
*sigh* You and I get along better than most who hold differing views around here, Lib, but you aren't getting it and I'm beginning to not expect you to.
You've got a real problem with anything left, man. Based on the other comments my initial post here received, which seem to consider it quite edifying, I don't think the problem is with what I wrote but in your ability to look at these issues objectively.
It's to be expected, do the poor, who are poor largely because of a lack of intelligence
Oh come on, even I do not believe that.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
wombatron: GilesStratton:Of course, the poor bring it on themselves through the ballot box. Do you honestly think that the poor have political power? Please tell me: Who controls the political parties? Who donates millions of dollars to candidates? Who controls which candidates are actually presented to the media? Who controls the media? The poor are victims of the state, and in elections they are offered poison as food and poison as antidote. So much of right-libertarian argumentation seems to rely on the belief that we have an actually functioning democracy. We don't. We have an oligarchy with some elements of democracy to keep the masses happy. The actual decisions are not made by "the people"; they are made by the ruling class. The poor do not make any major political decisions; they are just used by statist liberals to get state-empowering policies. GilesStratton:I wonder, any reason you didn't answer my point regarding anarchism? That anarchism is ambiguous too? Not as much, and not in the same way. People may have a gut fear of the word "anarchy", but with a little thought they will realize that they don't really know very much about anarchism.
I would stress that you cannot blame all the poor individual's condition on The State alone, but also with The State's effect on other people that said poor individual may interact with, as well as the possibility that some poor individuals, were they not lazy and/or more motivated, could actually be less-poor than they currently are (the case in which the individual, even when considering the interference from The State, could also be to blame, would exempt said individual from the below hyopthetical partially, as it highlights the seemingly external fate citizens of The State can experience, without even knowing it exists).One example could be The State's monopolization of law enforcement (which without the state would take form as PDA's, arbitrator's, etc.), which might cause an unfortunate occurrence where one individual, who potentially can give compensation voluntarily to a poorer-individual (via voluntary & non-coercive action) in exchange for poorer-person's labor, is imprisoned over some discrephency in their taxes that said individual might relucntantly pay out of fear of imprisonment. Possible court fees, time spent in prison, lost a job, etc. & that same indivdual who could've helped another poorer-individual out via anarchic interaction (voluntary & non-coercive), could very well end up in the same spot as the earlier mentioned poorer individual. Obviously, that all rests on the hyopthetical of one person coming across another & helping out via free-market trade, but it does show how the The State constantly interferes with free-market activity. However, this possible cycle could very well leave the still poorer individual, who never ended up coming across the more well individual in the parking lot that day, at a crossroads: should he/she keep trying to improve, or accept the fate of the state's role in having the poor, working and/or homeless class?
liberty student: Oh sure, it's always about you.
It's not :\
JCFolsom: *sigh* You and I get along better than most who hold differing views around here, Lib, but you aren't getting it and I'm beginning to not expect you to.
Sadly, likewise. You didn't answer my questions. Again.
JCFolsom: You've got a real problem with anything left, man. Based on the other comments my initial post here received, which seem to consider it quite edifying, I don't think the problem is with what I wrote but in your ability to look at these issues objectively.
No, I don't have a problem with anything left. I have a problem with things that don't make sense. I have asked objective questions based on what you wrote. I don't think they were insincere, or obtuse. I'm hoping you can supply the thought process behind the statements you posted so that I can better understand them. And I am asking out of respect and friendship.
As far as the fanfare received, I don't want to be insulting, but we're dealing with people who already agree with the assertions I am questioning, and also have not stepped forward to present the logical framework they put those conclusions through prior to adopting them.
If I am incorrect, you've landed a big trophy. A loud, arrogant proponent of your views. Isn't that worth making your case?
Nitroadict: liberty student: Oh sure, it's always about you. It's not :\
I should have stuck a smilie on that. I was trying to be funny.
The reason I don't think you get it is because I don't feel you are addressing my point. It's like we're talking past each other.
The way you deploy your capital simply doesn't matter in terms of my point. How well you manage it, who you hire to work with it, how active or inactive you are, doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that in a free market, you would not make one cent above the value you personally added to or through your capital through your own labor.
In a free market, there are 2 factors which are largely absent from the current, controlled market: free labor organization and free competition. You would not only have to be more attractive to labor than your competitors, including their ability to spontaneously start small businesses for themselves (home patio restaurants, personal sewing machine tailoring, etc.), but also their ability to form partnerships with your suppliers and distributors to create labor crises for you if you don't meet certain demands.
What these factors mean is that relative to today, where a regulatory environment limits the power both of organized labor and the number of competitors for labor that can arise, both creating a situation where the employer is in the position of power in the employer/employee relationship, the relationship will become much more egalitarian. Workers will be able to demand higher wages, the only real upper limit being the amount of value they add via their labor. Thus through market forces, you will be forced, to retain any labor, to pay your workers the full value they add to the goods your company produces. If you do not, competitors who are willing to offer slightly more than you will be able to attract your employees away from you, and your workers will be motivated to hold general strikes against your company. Since profit comes only from the difference between the cost of labor and the value that labor adds to the finished product, this leaves you with no profit.
liberty student: Nitroadict: liberty student: Oh sure, it's always about you. It's not :\ I should have stuck a smilie on that. I was trying to be funny.
Haha, no worries; I probably should've chosen the embarassed smiley, actually. I seem to be popping up in threads more than usual latley. Darn insomnia.
It is not capatilism that is at fault - only the particular implementation. The essence of capatalism is free enterprise, that is, private property and the free market. Financial capital, interest and central banking are a different matter and are corruptions of a free market. Since when is a market ' free' if there is a monopoly on the money supply.
This is analogous to the corruption of democracy in the modern nation state. The essence of democracy is consensus and consent - the aye and nay vote is a corruption of the principle designed to rob the people of their liberty.
Jon Irenicus:Oh come on, even I do not believe that.
Believe what? That the poor are generally less intelligent than the wealthy?
JCFolsom:What I'm saying is that in a free market, you would not make one cent above the value you personally added to or through your capital through your own labor.
OK, robinson crusoe gives friday 500 berries in exchange for making robinson a stick. Then, robinson crusoe gets 5000 berries the next day, when he could ordinarily gain 500 with his bare hands. As only robinson and friday are on the island, and no coercion is employed, it is a free market. I don't think your concept would hold in this situation.
Or, what if robinson makes the stick, then friday works for robinson crusoe with the stick, to pick berries, but he is paid in berries less than the amount he picked. Would your concept still hold?
"Since profit comes only from the difference between the cost of labor and the value that labor adds to the finished product, this leaves you with no profit."
But what about interest on your investment?
Schools are labour camps.
JCFolsom:The way you deploy your capital simply doesn't matter in terms of my point. How well you manage it, who you hire to work with it, how active or inactive you are, doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that in a free market, you would not make one cent above the value you personally added to or through your capital through your own labor..
JCFolsom:The reason I don't think you get it is because I don't feel you are addressing my point. It's like we're talking past each other.
eliotn:But what about interest on your investment?
Interest is different, and is based on time preference. What it basically means is that you trade your money or whatever now for a greater amount later, but this is an equivalent exchange. In the context of that deal the value of the money now is the same as more money later. But I suspect most here already knew that.
To head off the predictable response, the reason why such a model couldn't arise in the factory, where you lend out part or all of your capital for a greater return later, the reason is because that is not the only model available. A competitor can rely on working on the machine himself and paying himself a wage without profit for a living, along with the others he hires to make it work along with him. Since all these positions would, in theory, have to be filled anyway, and since no one will pay a higher, or even an equal, rent for the capital than what they can make from using the capital, the latter model will pay the workers more overall than the rent model could, and therefore would attract the most employees.
Too jumbled? I'm not as sharp today as I was yesterday.
liberty student:Right, I get that at least. But what you're saying is that investing and managing is not adding value, if I am understanding it correctly.
Let me first amend my statement slightly. Management can indeed contribute to the value of the added product. Paying yourself for managing the work is not profit, though. You would have to pay someone for some management duties, in any case. It is where you pay yourself more than the wage for that person would be for doing identical work that you are taking profits.
La Boetie didn't argue or prove that the poor have political power, the point that wa demonstrated is that there is ideological legitimacy. You seem to use La Boetie out of context to support conservative ideals.
The majority of the population doesn't vote, and the ones that do are still screwed. The way in which you point the finger at the average person is absurd and victim-blaming.
Once again, La Boetie doesn't prove otherwise. You misinterpret La Boetie as a way to legitimize your hatred from the underclass.
GilesStratton: Jon Irenicus:Oh come on, even I do not believe that. Believe what? That the poor are generally less intelligent than the wealthy?
Other than the fact that having money makes it easier to get an education, there is essentially no causation between one's economic status and one's intelligence. You can be a filthy rich retard and a poor genius. An individual's capacity for intelligence is something they are born with; wether they have lots of money or not is irrelevant to that.
Hey Brainy! I was wondering when you'd chime in.
So, have I managed to move you back to the Labor Theory side of the force again?
JCFolsom: Hey Brainy! I was wondering when you'd chime in. So, have I managed to move you back to the Labor Theory side of the force again?
:) Specify :)
Brainpolice:La Boetie didn't argue or prove that the poor have political power, the point that wa demonstrated is that there is ideological legitimacy. You seem to use La Boetie out of context to support conservative ideals.
It's funny. In regards to the libertarian right you say voting gives the state legitimacy. In regards to the poor you seem to ignore this insight, how strange.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Jon Irenicus:Oh come on, even I do not believe that. Believe what? That the poor are generally less intelligent than the wealthy? Other than the fact that having money makes it easier to get an education, there is essentially no causation between one's economic status and one's intelligence. You can be a filthy rich retard and a poor genius. An individual's capacity for intelligence is something they are born with; wether they have lots of money or not is irrelevant to that.
And smarter people tend to do better in life. Or are you going to deny that?
Brainpolice::) Specify :)
Oh, just in the sense that all value added to materials is by labor on/through capital, and that therefore the free market and therefore just wage is the exact difference between the initial/maintenance cost of capital and the final price it is sold for, and that there is therefore no room for the capitalist profit-seeking that many anarcho-capitalists seem to think will exist in a free market. With all that stuff I've already written. And stuff.
GilesStratton:And smarter people tend to do better in life. Or are you going to deny that?
They've certainly adjusted the system to the point where intelligence is maybe the greatest factor. Simple humility and hard work are useful in an economy that produces simple goods, but in a computer age where all those dirty jobs for simple hardworking people are dealt with elsewhere (because, in no small part, of government subsidies for transportation), and the only thing left for those with less intellectual prowess are extremely low-paid service jobs, yes, the gap will be quite wide. Smart people will likely always be more wealthy on average, but the gap that exists today is a distorted nightmare.
JC, just replying to you in general, not a post in particular.
I'm wondering, if people can't profit from deploying their capital, then why would anyone accumulate savings? If I knew my workers would organize to extort higher wages from me until my capital was no longer a benefit in the profit making process, why would I start a business?
The issue I have (recurring) with these positions (as I understand them) is not that they are left, but that they only look at things from the perspective of labour, and not the entrepreneur or capitalist. And an entrepreneur, is just motivated labour with capital, not some member of an evil elite statist cabal.
That that is the sole cause of their poverty. The state contributes heavily to it. And it isn't only the dumb it keeps down.
What on earth makes you believe this?
liberty student:I'm wondering, if people can't profit from deploying their capital, then why would anyone accumulate savings? If I knew my workers would organize to extort higher wages from me until my capital was no longer a benefit in the profit making process, why would I start a business?
Well, capital can still make you money. You can take advantage of market segments impossible without sufficient capital, and maybe make a lot of money doing it.
You save to build up the money to buy big things. Houses, cars, etc., especially since credit will be far less available without fractional reserve lending, fiat legal tender, etc. And you'd start a business to live and be your own boss. You can anticipate, in general, as I said in my initial post, much smaller-scale, local production than is currently the case. Most machines/buildings would be run by families, artistains, appretices, etc. VERY different.
Jon Irenicus:Oh, just in the sense that all value added to materials is by labor on/through capital, and that therefore the free market and therefore just wage is the exact difference between the initial/maintenance cost of capital and the final price it is sold for, and that there is therefore no room for the capitalist profit-seeking that many anarcho-capitalists seem to think will exist in a free market. With all that stuff I've already written. And stuff. What on earth makes you believe this?
Simple mathematics. You got your raw materials and machinery for somethng likely pretty close to what you could sell them for. You aren't going to profit that way. You add value to raw materials by making them somehow more useful through labor. Your labor is the source of the difference in value between what you bought and what you sold.
Again, how does this imply there will be no profit-seeking? If you mean returns to capital, i.e. interest, that will exist regardless and will accrue to owners of capital. who have the good sense to put capital to this or to that use. If you mean profit, i.e. the reward an entrepreneur gets for correctly judging market trends, then no, again, it will not disappear.
Jon Irenicus:Again, how does this imply there will be no profit-seeking? If you mean returns to capital, i.e. interest, that will exist regardless and will accrue to owners of capital. who have the good sense to put capital to this or to that use. If you mean profit, i.e. the reward an entrepreneur gets for correctly judging market trends, then no, again, it will not disappear.
I mean profit in terms of sale prices for goods or services in excess of costs including labor. Interest is different. Again, if you own something that goes up in value over time and then sell it, then you can make money that way. I don't know what you mean by "the reward an enrepreneur gets for correctly judging market trends". How does he gain the reward for his correct evaluation of the market?
It would help if you familiarized yourself with Austrian economics. Profits are the rewards entrepreneurs get when they meet a demand they anticipate successfully. This causes an increasing number of profit-oriented individuals to enter the market and also provide the good until the profits gradually dissipate, which puts the market back on the road towards equilibrium. Losses are the other side of the coin, and they're suffered when entrepreneurs incorrectly estimate demand for a good, to the point that they cannot break even, causing them to divert resources to more profitable sectors of the economy.
I think you perhaps believe we're speaking of profits as cost plus some arbitrary markup. Profits and losses will exist so long as uncertainty exists, and are signals that an entrepreneur is either succeeding or failing in serving his consumer base. The long-run trend of course is towards equilibrium, by way of the process described above. Look it up in Economics for Real People, or Man, Economy and State or even Menger's Principles.
JCFolsom: I don't know what you mean by "the reward an enrepreneur gets for correctly judging market trends". How does he gain the reward for his correct evaluation of the market?
I don't know what you mean by "the reward an enrepreneur gets for correctly judging market trends". How does he gain the reward for his correct evaluation of the market?
See, this is where I have a problem too. The aversion to capitalists doesn't account for the fact that some of them squander their capital by hiring the wrong people, going into the wrong market at the wrong time, or misjudging trends in the marketplace. Some might be incompetent as ownership.
The anti-capitalist stance seems to be predicated on an aversion to capitalists using capital as a club to order around labour, but we all know that labour for the most part is voluntary. That is, people are not chained to their jobs, and changing employers is not that difficult. In fact, labour faces much less restriction in the marketplace than business does. But that's a tangent...
I think because not all capitalists turn a profit, undermines the argument that capital is the path to "automatic profit without labour (or by purchasing someone else's labour)".
Some of the things I read yesterday (Tues) bothered me. I know there is a militancy about organized labour, but I guess I didn't really realize how ideologically committed that segment of the libertarian spectrum is. Because it sounds to me, that coercion over people with capital through group organization is a-ok. Even if that capital was accumulated honestly, and deployed with sincere intentions, somehow, the labourers who did not accumulate that capital, but do use it (as a purpose for their own jobs) somehow have a higher claim on it.
I feel like this is totally wrong. But maybe I am misinterpreting it, or missing some key piece of info. But if we would think it is wrong for people to get together and coerce (through extortion) against say a church that allows gay priests, or a school that teaches {insert race here} children, then I do not see how it is justified doing the same against honest, rightful property owners.
And I use extortion, because there is this notion that one side has leverage, and that the leverage should not be removed (neither of which I can see, so I am having a hard time understanding) but rather the leverage should be given to the group (labour), instead of the individual (capitalist). That through organization (not increased production) they can raise their wages until the capitalist cannot profit from his investment of his savings and capital goods.
Frankly, it seems a little Marxian, not in the ideological sense, but in the unnatural way it expects people to act in order for the system to work. The motive for generating capital, and undertaking large capital projects, is based on profit. All trades are based on profit, we know this, it's fundamental human action. The first thing (outside my perception of militancy) is that removing profit from economy is a big no-no. Man is wired to work off the profit (material or immaterial) motive.
Now we admit, we need capital to pay our workers, so they can produce, and then we can sell (consume). Production comes before consumption. But who in their right mind, would take all of the risk of investing their capital to buy capital goods, pay wages during production, plan etc, if the workers (who have been paid prior to the goods going to market (Say's Law) intend to consume the full sales price in production costs?
You invest your capital. If the business fails, you lose. If the business succeeds, you get nothing (up and above your own labour, which you could have sold to someone else stupid enough to risk his capital for nothing). Am I misunderstanding this?
And one more thing just occurred to me. How do we replace capital goods, if the workers consume all revenue in wages? I mean, I can't understand why a capitalist would even want to start a business under this scenario, but lets say he does. How does he manage the company, if in effect the budget is set by the employees and their organized wage negotiations?
Remember in Atlas Shrugged, what happened at the auto plant when the workers started deciding their own wages, and who would work overtime and so on and so forth? Disaster. And it wasn't that far fetched, in many of Rand's examples of socialism in that book, they are so tragic because we recognize how human nature acts when property is divorced from decision making. How man acts when everything is common, and a disparate group of people all seek to control it democratically.
Anyway, I got material for a new blog post, so I am happy. Hopefully future responses here will verify or correct any opinions I have developed. I want to be right, not right wing. When I came here, I was barely a minarchist, and couldn't get down with anarchism. Now I'm the biggest anarchist I know. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but this one doesn't reason out as something I can buy into. Unless I don't understand it, or many of my premises need checking.
Nitroadict: Haha, no worries; I probably should've chosen the embarassed smiley, actually. I seem to be popping up in threads more than usual latley. Darn insomnia.
You shouldn't have to apologize for following discussion.
I'd love to read your opinion on what I have written. You're an intelligent guy, and I respect your thoughts. Am I missing something here?
@ Wombie - As you know more about mutualism than I do, and have shown a sympathy towards labour, I'd also like to hear your thoughts.
Jon Irenicus:It would help if you familiarized yourself with Austrian economics. Profits are the rewards entrepreneurs get when they meet a demand they anticipate successfully.
Yes, great, but, what do they do to meet that demand? You're talking about it like they're being paid as fortune-tellers. What is it they do to meet the market demand, and how do they make a profit from it?
Jon Irenicus:I think you perhaps believe we're speaking of profits as cost plus some arbitrary markup.
No, not arbitrary. The businessman will always buy his materials and pay his workers as little as possible, but sell his goods for as much as possible. "Goods", in this circumstance, can stand for any number of things. The markup is based on the market. However, what I'm saying is that the fact that there is any gap between the most he can sell for and the least he can pay is due to distortions in the market from government intervention.
They acquire resources and employ them in the direction of profit, whatever that may be. If that means putting labour and capital to work on on making widgets the entrepreneur believes will be fashionable, they will do that. If the entrepreneur predicts correctly and is the first to meet this need or one of the first, they will enjoy high profits in virtue of being one of the few suppliers of it. It is a coordinative function. If you're asking who pays them for what, no one but consumers does so. Entrepreneurs risk their own resources on the market. If they anticipate correctly, they are rewarded by high demand for their product. If not, they suffer losses. The entrepreneur and the owner of capital tend to be one and the same person, but that isn't necessarily so (e.g. in the case of rented capital.) At any rate, the point is given the fact of uncertainty profits will continue to exist, and potentially accrue to individuals who are not necessarily laborers or owners of capital.
Which is to say, undervalued factors will tend to earn their DMVP as the market approaches equilibrium. Yes.
This is going to be ridiculously long, but that's okay, I guess...
liberty student:See, this is where I have a problem too. The aversion to capitalists doesn't account for the fact that some of them squander their capital by hiring the wrong people, going into the wrong market at the wrong time, or misjudging trends in the marketplace. Some might be incompetent as ownership.
This isn't about an "aversion to capitalists". It isn't about the immorality of profits in and of themelves. It is about the immorality of profits because they are only possible, in the long term, through interventions in the market.
liberty student:Some of the things I read yesterday (Tues) bothered me. I know there is a militancy about organized labour, but I guess I didn't really realize how ideologically committed that segment of the libertarian spectrum is. Because it sounds to me, that coercion over people with capital through group organization is a-ok. Even if that capital was accumulated honestly, and deployed with sincere intentions, somehow, the labourers who did not accumulate that capital, but do use it (as a purpose for their own jobs) somehow have a higher claim on it.
That's a sloppy use of the word "coercion". Coercion would be the union breaking into the capitalist's office and threatening to beat him if they don't get higher pay. This is just people as a group refusing to work unless their requirements for compensation or other conditions are met. There is nothing remotely coercive or immoral about that.
liberty student:I feel like this is totally wrong. But maybe I am misinterpreting it, or missing some key piece of info. But if we would think it is wrong for people to get together and coerce (through extortion) against say a church that allows gay priests, or a school that teaches {insert race here} children, then I do not see how it is justified doing the same against honest, rightful property owners.
If a church's leadership decides to allow gay priests, and the congregation refuses to go until they reverse that decision, I fail to see how (political opinions aside) they have done anything remotely coercive.
liberty student:And I use extortion, because there is this notion that one side has leverage, and that the leverage should not be removed (neither of which I can see, so I am having a hard time understanding) but rather the leverage should be given to the group (labour), instead of the individual (capitalist). That through organization (not increased production) they can raise their wages until the capitalist cannot profit from his investment of his savings and capital goods.
Why should they increase production; they only ask for the full value of their production. The owner/manager can still justifiably (if he does it well and the money is there) pay himself a hefty wage for his part in brining their goods to market, he just can't take more than he contributes in labor.
liberty student:Frankly, it seems a little Marxian, not in the ideological sense, but in the unnatural way it expects people to act in order for the system to work. The motive for generating capital, and undertaking large capital projects, is based on profit. All trades are based on profit, we know this, it's fundamental human action.
Profit and gain are different things based on my usage. All trades are based on gain. I may not be using my terms correctly, though. Certainly, no one will invest capital unless they can gain by it.
liberty student:Now we admit, we need capital to pay our workers, so they can produce, and then we can sell (consume). Production comes before consumption. But who in their right mind, would take all of the risk of investing their capital to buy capital goods, pay wages during production, plan etc, if the workers (who have been paid prior to the goods going to market (Say's Law) intend to consume the full sales price in production costs?
Only one who, by himself contributing, could make more money thus using his capital than he could otherwise. Remember, if you take part in production, you will be able to claim that part of that value for yourself. It is only when you try to generate a difference between your costs and the sale price that you will be outcompeted and brought low by labor action.
liberty student:You invest your capital. If the business fails, you lose. If the business succeeds, you get nothing (up and above your own labour, which you could have sold to someone else stupid enough to risk his capital for nothing). Am I misunderstanding this?
No, that's pretty much right. I'm not saying what ought to be because of some subjective preference, but because of what would be if the market were free. Blame God if you want to for the way logic and the world works. Of course, if you work for someone else, you won't be the CEO drawing the largest wage, and you'll have to take orders from someone else. And people will invest capital, because otherwise everyone will starve. I do believe, however, that you are ignoring my statements that large-scale production, such as what I think you envision, will be vastly the minority in a free market. Extreme small-scale, local production, frequently with the owner being the only or one of very few workers, will be the norm.
liberty student:And one more thing just occurred to me. How do we replace capital goods, if the workers consume all revenue in wages? I mean, I can't understand why a capitalist would even want to start a business under this scenario, but lets say he does. How does he manage the company, if in effect the budget is set by the employees and their organized wage negotiations?
Wage-earners will have to learn to be realistic, too, and an open sharing of accounting info will help them to understand. No worker's group with any foresight will not allow you to spend any revenue on maintenance and improvements.
liberty student:Remember in Atlas Shrugged
I am not going to argue against a point made from a work of fiction, I'm sorry.
liberty student:Anyway, I got material for a new blog post, so I am happy. Hopefully future responses here will verify or correct any opinions I have developed. I want to be right, not right wing. When I came here, I was barely a minarchist, and couldn't get down with anarchism. Now I'm the biggest anarchist I know. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but this one doesn't reason out as something I can buy into. Unless I don't understand it, or many of my premises need checking.
You've been playing it pretty straight, Lib. I think we are speaking slightly different languages, but I believe we are starting to understand each other. Unfortunately, as you've said, I don't see this understanding leading to agreement just yet, but we'll see.