wombatron:I don't think I've ever supported statist unions here.
And which non-statist unions do you support?
wombatron:Anytime I talk about unions, I'm talking about them like they were before they were co-opted by the state
Co-opted? The state didn't co-opt unions, unions co-opted the state.
wombatron:(not intended towards you, LS, but: right-libertarians can whine about "militancy" all they want; company bosses engaged in as just as much or more violence than unions did, and that is just as bad an argument against them as it is against unions).
I, and I hope others, can acknowledge that. But you won't catch me advertising for unions or for corporations. That's a common strawman of the libertarian left against the Austrian school, that because we won't spit on corporations, we're somehow pro-state capitalism.
wombatron:Also, it can be argued that most of the privileges given to unions go to the organizers and bosses, rather than the rank-and-file members.
Protection from being fired, state guaranteed pensions and healthcare, and above average wages in an uncompetitive environment, make unions fun for everyone from the shop steward to the janitor.
wombatron:And besides all that, receiving state privileges isn't necessarily immoral. It won't exist in a free market by definition, though, so it is something that must enter the economic analysis of free markets.
You're way too clever not to see the inconsistency in your position.
GilesStratton:If only you weren't so predictable you might by less boring.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
liberty student:And which non-statist unions do you support?
None, currently, although I hear the Wal-Mart Worker's Association (I believe that is the name) has done some good stuff.
liberty student:I, and I hope others, can acknowledge that. But you won't catch me advertising for unions or for corporations. That's a common strawman of the libertarian left against the Austrian school, that because we won't spit on corporations, we're somehow pro-state capitalism.
And there is a difference between saying the corporations are necessarily immoral, and that corporations won't exist in a free-market.
liberty student:Protection from being fired, state guaranteed pensions and healthcare, and above average wages in an uncompetitive environment, make unions fun for everyone from the shop steward to the janitor.
Some of those things would naturally emerge in a free market the state wouldn't exist to back capital and land against labor. Others wouldn't, obviously.
liberty student:You're way too clever not to see the inconsistency in your position.
What inconsistency? An analysis of state privilege must be contextual. There isn't one single absolute answer that applies in every case.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron:What inconsistency? An analysis of state privilege must be contextual. There isn't one single absolute answer that applies in every case.
That is so incredibly weak.
liberty student:That is so incredibly weak.
Contextualism is weak? If state privilege was absolutely in all cases immoral, than things like walking on public streets would be immoral, which is simply ridiculous. Keeping the context is essential.
wombatron: Contextualism is weak? If state privilege was absolutely in all cases immoral, than things like walking on public streets would be immoral, which is simply ridiculous. Keeping the context is essential.
Yes, it is weak. Because you speak in absolutes about big business and corporations, but when confronted on what I think I have proven is not only erroneous but dishonest argumenation, then it's all about context.
The left is always slippery. At least you can argue people on the right into a crisis of logic, and maybe that is why more people from the right come over to libertarianism and anarchism, while people on the left continue to make excuses not to address logic and accuracy head on.
GilesStratton: In a free market church and family orientated cultural conservative orientated lifestyles would outcompete the rest, yes.
In a free market church and family orientated cultural conservative orientated lifestyles would outcompete the rest, yes.
Do you mean that religion (the most primitive form of philosophy) would be dominant in a highly developed free market? I see no reason as to why religious views would be streanghtened, and I would find it truly unpleasant.
Ditto.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
C.H. Hellstrom: see no reason as to why religious views would be streanghtened,
For the very same reason that buisness would be.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
All the major religions commanded a respect for private property. As such they helped human civilization to advance enormously.
scineram: All the major religions commanded a respect for private property. As such they helped human civilization to advance enormously.
I might have missed this in years of Sunday School brainwashing, but where does the Bible support private property?
liberty student: scineram: All the major religions commanded a respect for private property. As such they helped human civilization to advance enormously. I might have missed this in years of Sunday School brainwashing, but where does the Bible support private property?
"Thou shall not steal"
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Wow, do I feel like a dummy.
liberty student:Yes, it is weak. Because you speak in absolutes about big business and corporations, but when confronted on what I think I have proven is not only erroneous but dishonest argumenation, then it's all about context.
The "absolutes" about big business is the context, properly applied.
No it isn't. You can't even define the size or structure of the firm you claim not only exists, but is pervasive.
It's making finger puppets in a dark room with a single light source. Have at it, it's terribly anti-intellectual. But then, to hold marxist ideas, one has to be anti-intellectual because it can't withstand the simplest logical attack.
And I want to be clear, I'm not using marxism as flame bait. Marxist class theory is absolute nonsense and has lead to more violent death and suffering than this world should have ever produced. And yet people persist in seeing the Proletariat as being wronged by the Bourgeoisie.
This is precisely the approach that Rod Long, Kevin Carson and any other number of left anarchists take.
liberty student:And I want to be clear, I'm not using marxism as flame bait. Marxist class theory is absolute nonsense and has lead to more violent death and suffering than this world should have ever produced. And yet people persist in seeing the Proletariat as being wronged by the Bourgeoisie.
Thank you for clarifying, although I would also say that my preferred theory of class is fully libertarian (based on Konkin's and Cogner's Agorist Class Theory and Long's Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class). Workers, entrepreneurs, and some capitalists are oppressed by the state and other capitalists (a simplification).
In response to your previous post:
Praxeology can make qualitative predictions, not quantitative ones. I have no need to talk about exact firm size, whether in income or number of employees or whatever else, and there is in fact no a priori quantitative definition of "big business" (although it may be interesting to actually look at the size of various firms and see if there is any clustering at specific "sizes", but I digress). It suffices to say that, given the policies and actions undertaken by the state, businesses will tend to be larger (due to all the direct and indirect subsidies that the state grants larger firms) and organized in a corporate fashion (given that its various ineffiencies are subsidized by the state).
Also note that this is an economic argument, not an ethical one. I am not saying (here, at least) that big business is inherently immoral or wrong. I am just saying that large corporations would be less common in a free market.
wombatron:Workers, entrepreneurs, and some capitalists are oppressed by the state and other capitalists (a simplification).
This is rubbish. Even when you simplify it, it's still rubbish. Hoppe's class theory is not only more developed (it doesn't rely on marxism as a base) but it is also more accurate.
wombatron:It suffices to say that, given the policies and actions undertaken by the state, businesses will tend to be larger (due to all the direct and indirect subsidies that the state grants larger firms) and organized in a corporate fashion (given that its various ineffiencies are subsidized by the state).
This is also rubbish. Neither Long nor Carson can make this case. All you are doing is making an assertion.
wombatron:Also note that this is an economic argument, not an ethical one. I am not saying (here, at least) that big business is inherently immoral or wrong. I am just saying that large corporations would be less common in a free market.
Wow, now you are deep in the rabbit hole. You continue to make unfounded assertions, and justify them by detaching morality from the discussion.
The point is, you, Long and Carson are all wrong. None of you can prove your assertions, intentionally (I believe), making them as general as possible.
I'm done Wombie. Your position, no matter how many times you articulate it differently, is bankrupt.
liberty student:This is also rubbish. Neither Long nor Carson can make this case. All you are doing is making an assertion.
Both Long and Carson (in addition to pre-paleo Rothbard, Konkin, and several other LL writers) have written hundreds of pages to back up this case. That is more than a mere assertion.
liberty student:Wow, now you are deep in the rabbit hole. You continue to make unfounded assertions, and justify them by detaching morality from the discussion.
That is because it is not a moral argument. Should we also discuss how morality effects Say's Law?
liberty student:The point is, you, Long and Carson are all wrong. None of you can prove your assertions, intentionally (I believe), making them as general as possible.
Who's making assertions now? The only good rebuttal during the "Conflation Conflict" was Klein's, and he missed the point (that the various organizational problems entailed by corporations are subsidized by the state, not that co-ops and other firm types don't have problems.
liberty student:I'm done Wombie. Your position, no matter how many times you articulate it differently, is bankrupt.
That is your perogative.
LibertyStudent:This is rubbish. Even when you simplify it, it's still rubbish. Hoppe's class theory is not only more developed (it doesn't rely on marxism as a base) but it is also more accurate.
Here, though it's more of an Austrian extension of classical liberal class theory.
GilesStratton: C.H. Hellstrom: see no reason as to why religious views would be streanghtened, For the very same reason that buisness would be.
Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, and I haven't seen any religion that hold classical liberal/capitalist ideals in very high esteem, and it seems unlikely to say the least that an individualist, laissez-faire capitalist society would be very religious. Capitalism is a social system based individual rights, including property rights and most, if not all, religions that are of any significance are anti-laissez-faire, anti-reason and anti-individual rights. This means that religion is a philosophical enemy of ours (just like socialism, conservatism, mutualism, environmentalism etc.), and I can’t imagine a capitalist society being upheld philosophically by anti-capitalist religions.
liberty student: I might have missed this in years of Sunday School brainwashing, but where does the Bible support private property?
In its very essense Christianity is anti-capitalist, most of all because of its altruist ideals.
Juan:Any link to "Hoppe's class theory" ? For the record, I doubt that Long's, Konkin's or other libertarians' class theories rely on marxism.
Please do read Jon's link. It might better help you understand where Giles, myself and other so-called conservatives are coming from.
C.H. Hellstrom: liberty student: I might have missed this in years of Sunday School brainwashing, but where does the Bible support private property? In its very essense Christianity is anti-capitalist, most of all because of its altruist ideals.
What utter nonsense.
i enjoy the term anarchist, it has a nice ring to it, ill keep using it.
Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. The Christian worldview views man as a low, sinful, irrational and selfish being. It’s primitive, irrational and mystical. Christian morality is in its essence altruism, and altruism is totally incompatible with capitalism (and cannot serve as a foundation), because altruism says that one ought to/should sacrifice oneself for others. Jesus position on greed, selfishness, profit, money etc. is very clear. “Can they [Christians] praise the profit motive--while extolling selflessness? Can they commend the passion to own material property--while declaring that worldly possessions are not important? Can they urge men to practice the virtues of productiveness and long-range planning--while upholding as the human model the lilies of the field? Can they celebrate the self-assertive risk-taking of the entrepreneur--while teaching that the meek shall inherit the earth? Can they glorify and liberate the creative ingenuity of the human mind, which is the real source of material wealth--while elevating faith above reason? The answers are obvious... no religion, by its nature can appeal to or admire the capitalist system; not if the religion is true to itself.”/ Leonard Peikoff
Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. The Christian worldview views man as a low, sinful, irrational and selfish being. It’s primitive, irrational and mystical. Christian morality is in its essence altruism, and altruism is totally incompatible with capitalism (and cannot serve as a foundation), because altruism says that one ought to/should sacrifice oneself for others. Jesus position on greed, selfishness, profit, money etc. is very clear.
“Can they [Christians] praise the profit motive--while extolling selflessness? Can they commend the passion to own material property--while declaring that worldly possessions are not important? Can they urge men to practice the virtues of productiveness and long-range planning--while upholding as the human model the lilies of the field? Can they celebrate the self-assertive risk-taking of the entrepreneur--while teaching that the meek shall inherit the earth? Can they glorify and liberate the creative ingenuity of the human mind, which is the real source of material wealth--while elevating faith above reason? The answers are obvious... no religion, by its nature can appeal to or admire the capitalist system; not if the religion is true to itself.”/ Leonard Peikoff
C.H. Hellstrom:Christian morality is in its essence altruism, and altruism is totally incompatible with capitalism (and cannot serve as a foundation), because altruism says that one ought to/should sacrifice oneself for others. Jesus position on greed, selfishness, profit, money etc. is very clear.
Last I checked, the necessary precondition for capitalism was the non-aggression principle, not egoism.
Edit: Incidentally, NAP follows much more plausibly from "love thy neighbor" than from anything egoism has to offer.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Does capitalism oppose charity, allowing your children to stay in the house, etc? If so, perhaps we've went wrong somewhere.
Solomon: Last I checked, the necessary precondition for capitalism was the non-aggression principle, not egoism.
Why is morality and NAP separate issues?
Morty:Does capitalism oppose charity, allowing your children to stay in the house, etc?
Yep, that's right. It also forbids people from listening to Mozart.
C.H. Hellstrom: Solomon: Last I checked, the necessary precondition for capitalism was the non-aggression principle, not egoism. Why is morality and NAP separate issues?
Hmm... I'm not sure how you construed my comment so that it would imply that.
Christianity views many things that is part of a capitalist system as wrong. It oppose the profit motive, declares that worldly possessions are not important and seing self-interest as wrong etc. In no way can Christian ideals be seen as a good foundation of capitalism.
Solomon: Hmm... I'm not sure how you construed my comment so that it would imply that.
I’m sorry I must have misunderstood you and read too much into your comment! But you are correct in that capitalism is based on individual rights (i.e. NAP).
Great. Moving on... You have claimed that Christianity (as you've described it) is incompatible with capitalism. Therefore it must violate NAP. Based on your description why is this the case?
It's incompatible in that it opposes many things that are part of the capitalist system. Christianity doesn’t believe in individual rights in any liberal/capitalist sense. The Bible is full of violations of people’s rights, and in many places such violations are viewed as moral.
Furthermore it opposes important aspects of the capitalist system, such as profit, profit motive, wealth, selfishness etc. Capitalism as a system enables selfishness. The right to own property is the right to enjoy ones possessions and dispose of them as one pleases, which is a fundamentally selfish thing. Capitalism simply allows people to pursue their self-interest. One cannot praise capitalism and remain true to Christianity, since vital aspects of any of them goes against the other (Christianity, i.e. the Bible both advocates violations of rights and is againt many parts of the capitalist system - see above!).
Capitalism begins with the production of goods and services and moves on to keeping, using and trading the products of one’s efforts for others. This is done to improve one’s situation. Let this stand in contrast with Christianity which says that worldly possessions are not important.
C.H. Hellstrom:It's incompatible in that it opposes many things that are part of the capitalist system. Christianity doesn’t believe in individual rights in any liberal/capitalist sense. The Bible is full of violations of people’s rights, and in many places such violations are viewed as moral.
Does capitalism require people morally oppose aggression? It seems to me that it would only require that people think aggression is imprudent. Also, Christians normally make excuses like "the Bible describes a different time" when archaic rules are brought up (i.e., mixing synthetic and natural fibers is considered wrong, slavery is legitimate, polygamy is okay, etc), but I've yet to see a Christian who says, "The Ten Commandments are just from a different time."
Furthermore it opposes important aspects of the capitalist system, such as profit, profit motive, wealth, selfishness etc. Capitalism as a system enables selfishness. The right to own property is the right to enjoy ones possessions and dispose of them as one pleases, which is a fundamentally selfish thing.
See, the problem is you are doing that Randian thing with the word "selfish" and thinking anyone else means it the way you do. When a Christian gives to charity and feels good about it, they don't think of the act as "selfish" just because they got some benefit. If you want to see "selfishness" in most everything, you can. Lots of things can be seen at an egoistic level. But most people don't think it counts as egoism/selfishness unless you are aiming at that egoistic desire (good psychological feelings, material benefits, etc). If you do something because it is your Christian duty, even if you are greatly rewarded for it, they will not consider that to be selfish.
Capitalism simply allows people to pursue their self-interest.
Except, evidently, if that self-interest involves Christianity.
One cannot praise capitalism and remain true to Christianity, since vital aspects of any of them goes against the other
Does one need to praise capitalism in order to live in a capitalistic society? One needn't praise humanity to live in a human society. It could be a second best situation that people are willing to accept.
Let this stand in contrast with Christianity which says that worldly possessions are not important.
I don't think you quite understand what they mean by this. Christianity doesn't say, "have no wordly possessions." If it did, all Christians would have long ago died from thirst/starvation - food and water are "worldly possessions." What it says is, "worldly possessions are not as important as spiritual goods." So, a Christian gives to charity because the wordly possession (money, food, clothing, whatever) is less important than the spiritual good of helping the needy. You see? And all that is completely compatible with capitalism, indeed, it's good that people like that exist, for those who couldn't make it on their own.
Morty: C.H. Hellstrom:It's incompatible in that it opposes many things that are part of the capitalist system. Christianity doesn’t believe in individual rights in any liberal/capitalist sense. The Bible is full of violations of people’s rights, and in many places such violations are viewed as moral. Does capitalism require people morally oppose aggression? It seems to me that it would only require that people think aggression is imprudent. Also, Christians normally make excuses like "the Bible describes a different time" when archaic rules are brought up (i.e., mixing synthetic and natural fibers is considered wrong, slavery is legitimate, polygamy is okay, etc), but I've yet to see a Christian who says, "The Ten Commandments are just from a different time."
Capitalism is based on individual rights, and is thus against the use of force, and an ideology, philosophy or religion that condones such things in one way or the other is against the fundamental principles of capitalism. And Christians own inconsistent applications of their religion don’t make Christianity in and of itself more compatible with capitalism on a philosophical level.
Morty: Furthermore it opposes important aspects of the capitalist system, such as profit, profit motive, wealth, selfishness etc. Capitalism as a system enables selfishness. The right to own property is the right to enjoy ones possessions and dispose of them as one pleases, which is a fundamentally selfish thing. See, the problem is you are doing that Randian thing with the word "selfish" and thinking anyone else means it the way you do. When a Christian gives to charity and feels good about it, they don't think of the act as "selfish" just because they got some benefit. If you want to see "selfishness" in most everything, you can. Lots of things can be seen at an egoistic level. But most people don't think it counts as egoism/selfishness unless you are aiming at that egoistic desire (good psychological feelings, material benefits, etc). If you do something because it is your Christian duty, even if you are greatly rewarded for it, they will not consider that to be selfish.
Well, I'm not primarily talking about charity, but rather basic things that Christianity is against, thinks is immoral etc. Capitalism (as a system) brings about certain things that Christianity speaks disfavor ably of.
Morty: One cannot praise capitalism and remain true to Christianity, since vital aspects of any of them goes against the other Does one need to praise capitalism in order to live in a capitalistic society? One needn't praise humanity to live in a human society. It could be a second best situation that people are willing to accept.
No you don't, but you cannot praise a system that goes against your ethics, and that your system/ethics speaks out against - and remain consistent with it.
C.H. Hellstrom:Capitalism is based on individual rights, and is thus against the use of force, and an ideology, philosophy or religion that condones such things in one way or the other is against the fundamental principles of capitalism.
No offense, every consequentialist libertarian ever. Mises, David Friedman, among many others apparently oppose capitalism because they do not morally oppose force in all circumstances?
Like what? Killing, stealing, etc? Or do you mean like not worshiping God, not being adulterous, etc? I don't see how that matters much, so long as Christianity doesn't demand that they use violence to impose their morality (which is doesn't).
I don't see how capitalism goes against Christian ethics. You should read up on the Spanish Scholastics, a favorite of Murray Rothbard, who developed very advanced and very free market economic theories.