Political Theory

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

excel — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:56:45 GMT

And you are under the delusion that lifespan depends on socio-economic system, not technology, medicine, pollution, etc?

And are you under the delusion that this obvious dodge will fly?

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

stsoc — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:18:56 GMT

And if that's the case explain to me the disparity in lifespan, since we are all equal capitalists?

And you are under the delusion that lifespan depends on socio-economic system, not technology, medicine, pollution, etc?

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

h.k. — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:43:31 GMT

stsoc:

Explain what the link says, your opinion is superfluous.

Expentance of life in todays societies has nothing to do with socialism, because none of those societies is organized according to socialist tenants.

Also tell me why you think all countries are equally capitalist?

All are organized around the capitalist notion of property, which is what defines capitalism.

And if that's the case explain to me the disparity in lifespan, since we are all equal capitalists? Again explain to me what the picture says, in detail. Why is Switzerland's color different from Cuba's?

Lol.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

stsoc — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:48:03 GMT

Explain what the link says, your opinion is superfluous.

Expentance of life in todays societies has nothing to do with socialism, because none of those societies is organized according to socialist tenants.

Also tell me why you think all countries are equally capitalist?

All are organized around the capitalist notion of property, which is what defines capitalism.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

h.k. — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:58:06 GMT

stsoc:

That has nothing to do with socialism and capitalism.

Explain what the link says, your opinion is superfluous.

Also tell me why you think all countries are equally capitalist? Oh right, they're not. Your entire argument is going to crumble whether you answer my questions or not.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

excel — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:31:33 GMT

Yes,

Concession accepted.

Yes, the free libertarian society (what is also known as anarcho-communist) society will be the natural state of humanking as the enlightenment espoused, all people will be treated as ends, and not means, there will be no subordination and no hieararchy.

And the oceans will turn to lemonade in our mouths.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

stsoc — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:12:55 GMT

That has nothing to do with socialism and capitalism.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

h.k. — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:55:00 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Esperanza_de_vida.PNG

Explain this link for me.

Use google translate in case you don't understand the Spanish in that link, or English. ;)

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

stsoc — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:42:21 GMT

Clearly then, the socialism you have in mind is not a free society.

Yes, just like societies today where you can't sell yourself into slavery are not free because of that fact.

The virtue of the free libertarian society that we desire is that it is the natural state of humankind.

Yes, the free libertarian society (what is also known as anarcho-communist) society will be the natural state of humanking as the enlightenment espoused, all people will be treated as ends, and not means, there will be no subordination and no hieararchy.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

Anenome — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:24:36 GMT

But this kind of hypotetical sitation is as unlikely as the one you mention- someone in socialism accepting employment as not being fraud. Socialism being established will mean that the brain-washing machinery of capitalism is abolished, and just like today no sane person wants to sell themselves and be a tool used to enrich it's owner, likewise in socialism no able-minded person will want to rent themselves and be a tool used to enrich it's rentier.

Clearly then, the socialism you have in mind is not a free society. I hope you realize that.

When you say socialism would be "established" what you mean is that you and people whom agree with you would take by force a monopoly in deciding what is ethical in the society. You would become tyrants, interfering with voluntary associations and structures. That's what tyranny is.

The virtue of the free libertarian society that we desire is that it is the natural state of humankind. It is the state that exists for all people when you remove all outwardly imposed power from a social system and leave everyone equals. If you do that, then our anarcho-capitalism results (and not your anarcho-socialism btw). For at that point, people engage in free transactions, purchase dispute resolution and rights-protection, and generally will get along well and be at their maximum wealth and productivity.

If your version of the ultimate society requires you to ban anything against people's will, then it's not a free society. It's one you've imposed upon them artificially. All this talk of interfering with contracts where there is no victim, that's not possible in a free society, it's possible only in one where someone has power, power to force things against another's will, which btw means hierarchy too. Only in a free society is there a complete lack of legitimate aggressive-coercion or coerced-hierarchy.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

Malachi — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:52:21 GMT

http://mises.org/community/forums/p/32191/499326.aspx#499326

thats nonsense.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

stsoc — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:39:06 GMT

in that case, please be so kind as to explain how mutually voluntary employment contracts are fradulent, given two informed parties who consent to transact.

http://mises.org/community/forums/p/32191/499326.aspx#499326

You're assuming that any given individual capitalist has the power to deny any given individual worker the opportunity to make a living because if all capitalists teamed up then indeed they could deny that worker all opportunity to make a living. You don't see how fallacious that it?

It isn't because they do team up, that's how capitalism works.

Why do you assume it's so much easier to find new customers than it is to find new employment?

Being that the customers are everyone, and the capitalists are a minority that rules everyone else.

Providing the initial capital, paying the workers before the products are produced and sold, taking all the risk, and managing the company (you realize production involves more than working the machines?)....that's nothing.

Yes, that is nothing. All that is not only possible, but would be done more easily in a socialist society.

Okay, so then what's an "order" in your view? All this talk about hierarchy and you still haven't really defined what constitutes unequal power relations.

You can check some questions here: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secBcon.html

But I'd recomend reading the entire section.

This kind of thinking is the legacy of John Stuart Mill

Yes, he was for worker self-management, but it's not the legacy of Mill, it's the legacy of enlightenment, Rousseau, Humboldt, Kant, etc, it's central notion was that men are free and no man should be a machine under the command of another man.

According to you and your premises, but not them and their premises.

They can accept 2+2=5 all they want, but it's 4. It's 4 even if the only one in the world who says so, and that wouldn't mean I'm schizophrenic, but that everyone else is brainwashed. But this kind of hypotetical sitation is as unlikely as the one you mention- someone in socialism accepting employment as not being fraud. Socialism being established will mean that the brain-washing machinery of capitalism is abolished, and just like today no sane person wants to sell themselves and be a tool used to enrich it's owner, likewise in socialism no able-minded person will want to rent themselves and be a tool used to enrich it's rentier.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

Anenome — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:41:18 GMT

stsoc:

It is fraud whether I am the transactor or not, and it is fraud whether the transactors recognize it as such or not.

According to you and your premises, but not them and their premises. What gives you the right to interfere then? If you try to interfere and they disagree that they've been wronged and ask you to go away, will you use force to right the wrong that only your perceive still?

Such borders on schizophrenia, seeing imaginary slights where none exist.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

Minarchist — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:40:44 GMT

Minarchist:
You make it sound as if the capitalist can prevent the worker from laboring in general, but that's not true

stsoc:
It is, being that capitalists as a class own all the means of production.

You're assuming that any given individual capitalist has the power to deny any given individual worker the opportunity to make a living because if all capitalists teamed up then indeed they could deny that worker all opportunity to make a living. You don't see how fallacious that it? It's like saying I have the power to deprive the world of drinking water because I own some drinking water.

stsoc:
By extension that only labor should entitle one to income most probably all rent will be abolished in socialism, nor only rent of means of production, and almost all socialists are for abolishing all rent.

I see.

Minarchist:
The boss says to the worker, "Make widgets like this Jones or I'm not paying you." The customer says to the self-employed worker, "Make widgets like this Jones or I'm not paying you."

stsoc:
And the employee not being payed say "ok, I'll go starve untill I find another master to sell my labor to", and the self-employed worker not being payed would say "ok, f* you, I'll make it and sell it to someone else".

Why do you assume it's so much easier to find new customers than it is to find new employment?

stsoc:
The boss being the superflous connection between Jones and the customers, that is- society, that also does some productive labor that Jones benefits from, whereas the boss doesn't contribute anything, but the opposite, he parasitizes.

Sure. Providing the initial capital, paying the workers before the products are produced and sold, taking all the risk, and managing the company (you realize production involves more than working the machines?)....that's nothing. /sarc

Minarchist:
Doesn't a waiter take orders from the customer? Doesn't a butler take orders from the customer? Doesn't a building contractor take orders from the customer?

stsoc:
No.

Okay, so then what's an "order" in your view? All this talk about hierarchy and you still haven't really defined what constitutes unequal power relations. Obviously. you feel that there can be unequal power relations even without violence or the threat thereof. So we're talking about the non-violent influencing of one person by another. So, where to draw the line? What's too much influence?

N.B. This kind of thinking is the legacy of John Stuart Mill, who replaced the idea of liberty (freedom from aggression) with "autonomy," (freedom from external influence in some vague sense) which either means nothing at all too clearly (e.g. whatever the State decides it means), or it means complete isolation and self-sufficiency: which in turn would mean the end of labor specialization, the end of exchange...the end of civilization. You see the fingerprints of John Stuart Mill throughout Leftist thought.

Re: Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

Groucho — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:07:32 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)