Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

This is false. Labor theory of property does not justify property, certainly not with respect to individuals who do not subscribe to it.

In that case, without the justification of property out the window, it's even more imperative to uphold the a priori ethical axiom of absense of hierarchy (even though if we would to accept property as a natural right, this axiom still superior to it).

Can you explain this in more detail, it sounds as though it would specifically prohibit such a thing, as by interfering in the affairs of consenting adults you are impinging upon their autonomy.

Impinging on invalid contracts. Self-sale contracts are contracts that de jure trasfer something that is de facto inalienable, making them void. Same with employment contracts, which are self-rental contracts where the rentier buys man-hours, like he would buy car-days if he would to rent a car. Both self-sale and self-rental contracts are inherently unfulfillable, irregardless to whether someone really want to sign them.

If there was no need to rent capital from the capitalist, the laborer would not have done so

Exactly. That's why socialists want to a create a society where there is no such need, being that this 'need' is not a natural one, but one imposed on by the nature of the economic system.

a laborer without capital will not produce much of anything

A slim try of relativisation of the labor's central role. Labor will producte without capital, in fact it was the labor that produces the capital, being that only labor can produce anything. Labor and capital cannot be equated as inputs, if any process can be applied as a metaphorc, it would be to call land or capital reactants, and labor the catalyst.

Consider a cnc mill, .....

You should firstly recognize how reality works. Without labor, CNC mill will produce nothing. Capital without labor produces nothing. Whereas labor will create it's own capital (unless systematically contrained).

No one said "production just happens" we recognize that it is the entrepreneur/capitalist who makes it happen by accumulating capital and making contracts of voluntary employment with people in order to get labor inputs, and buying material inputs.

The capitalist makes nothing happen. He does no labor.

The owner is entitled to the products because he owns the inputs

Which are not productive. Marginal product of capital isn't produced by capital, it  is produced by labor. Capital without labor produces nothing. Labor produces everything.

he doesnt get continuous income, he gets that income which he produces with his firm.

The problem is he doesn't produce it. The workers of the firm produces it, he contributes no labor.

He has to continue to pay his workers, continue to purchase raw materials, continue to market his products and achieve sales

All that is done by the workers. The workers produce the products that other workers sell and then that money goes to the capitalist who then gives some of it to the workers.

So they make an agreement, and that someone waives any claim he may have on those products

It is impossible to waive control over one's action. I cannot say I am not responsible for murder because I was hired for it, likewise it is illegitimate for the employer to be considered responsible for the products of my labor.

preferring a paycheck and the use of someone else's capital for ownership of his own and the headaches thay come with all of that.

Someone's preference of having no headaches that come with being a person doesn't validate self-sale contracts. Likewise with employment.

given that the creation of the means of production can be traced back to specific individuals, not the collective at large, I have to say that argument is idiotic in the extreme.

I don't see why. CNC mills would never exist if workers didn't mine materials from which it was made of, and if people didn't make primitive mills in the 19th centrury, and if some other people did not make something even earlier, etc. If you start using previous labor as a justification for the present unearned income, there is nothing inconsistent in carrying on to the collectivist expropriation.

I'm glad you consider it dangerous, but do you see the fallacy or do you only oppose it on consequentialist grounds?

I don't see any internal inconsistency, I oppossite it on the grouds of the socialist labor theory of property to which collectivist forced expropriations would in contradiction.

In that case, without the justification of property out the window, it's even more imperative to uphold the a priori ethical axiom of absense of hierarchy (even though if we would to accept property as a natural right, this axiom still superior to it).

Negative, ghostrider. Property is justified through homestead and transfer theories of property. So no one has to accept your absence of hierarchy axiom (as they do not presently). These norms are entirely sufficient to the purpose, your norms are unnecessary.

Impinging on invalid contracts. Self-sale contracts are contracts that de jure trasfer something that is de facto inalienable, making them void.

making them unenforceable. Those consenting parties are free to continue their relationship as long as it is consensual. No matter the alleged performative contradictions in their charter. Mock all you like, just do not dare to lift a finger in aggression towards them.

Same with employment contracts, which are self-rental contracts where the rentier buys man-hours, like he would buy car-days if he would to rent a car. Both self-sale and self-rental contracts are inherently unfulfillable, irregardless to whether someone really want to sign them.

your opinion on whether the contract is fulfilled or not is irrelevant as you have no standing to a claim on anything in the contract. The contract is fulfilled as long as the parties to the contract agree that it is, regardless of your feelings on the matter. You are not in a hierarchical relationship with those parties where you may tell them whether they got what they paid for or not.

Exactly. That's why socialists want to a create a society where there is no such need, being that this 'need' is not a natural one, but one imposed on by the nature of the economic system.

now youre talking crazy talk. The need for capital is "natural" because humans are a tool-using species. Humans also recognize territoriality and permissions. Socialists want to create a society where they dont "need" capital because they stole capital from people who created it, or created enough goods to trade for capital.

A slim try of relativisation of the labor's central role. Labor will producte without capital, in fact it was the labor that produces the capital, being that only labor can produce anything. Labor and capital cannot be equated as inputs, if any process can be applied as a metaphorc, it would be to call land or capital reactants, and labor the catalyst.

I'm glad we are having this discussion. Means of production, or capital, are higher order goods. They only become useful when transforming inputs (labor, raw materials, thoughts, information) into products. The other error youre making is assuming that labor is central, production factors dont matter. This seems youre assuming labor is homogenous, and that goods are fungible. Neither is the case. Labor cant produce without means of production, you cant take the time to make snares if you dont have some caloric capital built up in the form of anatomical fat or dried berries in your satchel. What are you gonna do, hammer nails with your hands? Aborigines use capital drawn from the earth itself, labor cant produce anything without capital and production inputs.

You should firstly recognize how reality works. Without labor, CNC mill will produce nothing. Capital without labor produces nothing. Whereas labor will create it's own capital (unless systematically contrained).

oh boy, here we go. How is labor "systematically constrained" in what you call a "propertarian" system, and we call ancap?

The capitalist makes nothing happen. He does no labor.

first of all, we just got done explaining that the capitalist provides the means of production. So, he already did his share of the labor. Why do you assume it is necessary for the capitalist's labor to be chronologically simultaneous?

secondly, you act like running a business isnt work. Which leads me to believe that, contrary to your earlier assertions, you have never had to supervise anyone professionally. In a socialist system, who does the executive work?

Which are not productive. Marginal product of capital isn't produced by capital, it  is produced by labor. Capital without labor produces nothing. Labor produces everything.

there wouldnt be a product without inputs either, how can you claim that providing raw materials isnt an integral part of the productive process? What is the worker and his reappropriated hammer supposed to do, pound on his own inalienable body?

The problem is he doesn't produce it. The workers of the firm produces it, he contributes no labor.

theres plenty of labor involved in creating and managing a firm. Someone has to acquire the land, the buildings, the capital goods, and the inputs. Then he has to purchase labor in advance, including people who can account for the business process to make sure it works according tomplans, and people who will find customers for those products. Then after all of this is paid for, the capitalist can bein to replenish what the starting of the firm cost him. It might be a quarter-century before he goes back into the black, if his initial investment was sizeable, and in a competitive field. Arent you glad someone was willing to make this investment and assume all that risk?

All that is done by the workers. The workers produce the products that other workers sell and then that money goes to the capitalist who then gives some of it to the workers.

no, the capitalist pays the workers and then attempts to sell the products. He may also employ people to do these tasks, further spreading the wealth around. I'm still not convinced that any of this is a bad thing.

It is impossible to waive control over one's action. I cannot say I am not responsible for murder because I was hired for it, likewise it is illegitimate for the employer to be considered responsible for the products of my labor.

he doesnt waive control. He waives clam to title of the product. Stop equivocating. If the product were faulty the worker still bears some liability. Employer and employee both share liability and proceeds, both were an actual contributing factor to the product. If someone knowingly let you use their car to rob a bank, they too are liable. It doesnt matter that they "didnt do anything." they consented to the use of their capital. That is enough.

I don't see why. CNC mills would never exist if workers didn't mine materials from which it was made of, and if people didn't make primitive mills in the 19th centrury, and if some other people did not make something even earlier, etc. If you start using previous labor as a justification for the present unearned income, there is nothing inconsistent in carrying on to the collectivist expropriation.

presumably, all of those people were compensated for their work. This is on the presumption that if someone had a claim, then they would petition the defendant or a third party for relief. So if the property was justly acquired, all previous claims satisfied, then all those people were paid and they have no further claim. So theres no basis for collective ownership. You dont seem to understand the affect that accumulation of capital has on production. Its not even really the same good, to compare handmade boots to machine made boots, etc.

also adding, that if one or more of those previous owners were not justly compensated, there needs to be a claim, a claimant, and an alleged tortfeasor estate in order to satisfy the claim. That claim isnt against any human alive today, or just the rich ones, or whatever.

Property is justified through homestead and transfer theories of property.

I don't know what you mean. If there is no labor exerted, there is no physical connection to what is claimed as property. The only theories of property besides the labor theory of property, that I am aware of, are the Hobbsean theory of the "strongest authority on a territory" and Stirnerian theory of personal physical streght. The modern capitalist theory of property is arbitrary and inconsistent, calling upon labor of theory of property, but then using some form of Hobbsean theory to justify the inconsistent application of the labor theory, and leaving some inconsistencies unanswered.

So no one has to accept your absence of hierarchy axiom (as they do not presently)

If they have no problem with commiting a performative contradiction, they don't have to accept it.

making them unenforceable. Those consenting parties are free to continue their relationship as long as it is consensual.

They are not free to engage in fraud.  http://mises.org/community/forums/p/32191/499326.aspx#499326

The contract is fulfilled as long as the parties to the contract agree that it is, regardless of your feelings on the matter

You are not in a hierarchical relationship with those parties where you may tell them whether they got what they paid for or not.

It's not hierarchical to prevent fraud.

The need for capital is "natural" because humans are a tool-using species.

We were talking about not about the "need about capital", but the "need to rent capital from others".

Socialists want to create a society where they dont "need" capital because they stole capital from people who created it

Renting capital is theft in itself.

The other error youre making is assuming that labor is central, production factors dont matter.

They don't. If 10 of us rent 11 shovels to dig a hole, even though you demand rent for all 11 shovels, the 11th one had no "marginal production" whatsoever. Meaning you owner of capital is entitled to no "marginal product of capital" that is a part of the price of the products, firstly, because there is no such a thing, and secondly, even if the animistic theory that there is such a thing is accepted it still doen't entitle the owner the part of product of labor, but to a rent that is not related at all to the labor and those two are in no way connected as demonstrated by the rentier asking for the 11th showel as well.

Labor cant produce without means of production

Then how did the means of production come into being?

Aborigines use capital drawn from the earth itself

Capital is distinct from land in that capital must itself be produced by human labor before it can be a factor of production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29

How is labor "systematically constrained" in what you call a "propertarian" system, and we call ancap?

In any capitalist system, the workers are contrained by capitalist property. Capitalist hold property over land, which is illegitimate, and if they would not hold such property, any worker could go and till some land, or mine some ore, or chopp some timber without having to pay anything to anyone for the "permission" to do so, and then they could make earnings and make their own instruments of production. Of course, the main socialist critique is that the workers are also contrained by being stolen from by sistematical fraud that says that unearned incomes (that is- rent)  is ok.

So, he already did his share of the labor.

We just got done explaining that the capitalist is entitled to those to those means of production because he labored for them. He is not entitled to any part of part of the products of workers' labor if he doesn't meet the same condition.

Why do you assume it is necessary for the capitalist's labor to be chronologically simultaneous?

Because his income is chronologically simultaneous. He takes a part of all the earnings that are entirely the workers product.

you act like running a business isnt work

1. Owners mostly don't run the business, managers do. 2. Running the business mostly isn't productive, but exploitative work, just like capital- if the workers weren't there to produce something, it would produce nothing.

In a socialist system, who does the executive work?

Workers themselves or their delegates if there is need for coordination of a larger scale.

there wouldnt be a product without inputs either, how can you claim that providing raw materials isnt an integral part of the productive process?

Raw materials in their state of nature are in the ownership of the capitalist class, and it is illegitimate to be in ownership of them at all if they are in their state of nature.

theres plenty of labor involved in creating and managing a firm.

Likewise in planning and executing a robbery. And neither robbery nor exploatory work have much to do with productive labor.

Someone has to acquire the land

Which capitalists illegitimate own.

Arent you glad someone was willing to make this investment and assume all that risk?

No, I am not glad that thieves and fraudsters exist.

I'm still not convinced that any of this is a bad thing.

You would first have to get out of the capitalist propaganda mindset to consider it.

He waives clam to title of the product

One does that when he sell his products to a buyer. One alienates labor when he is an employee.

presumably, all of those people were compensated for their work.

And that presumption is based on what? That we live in a perfect word of perfect people?

there needs to be a claim, a claimant

If I murder you and there is to plaintiff, there was still a murder.

 

Stsoc: "It's not hierarchical to prevent fraud."

Here's the awesome thing.

In a free society, if you jump into a situation between two people and attack one of them for supposedly defrauding the other, even tho the other hasn't complained, in what would be, according to you, the same as stepping into a situation where someone's being attacked, using defensive coercion to stop an aggresion, the way this would go down is that you've now used force to stop that situation from happening. If there was no fraud, then you're the aggressor!

So, the matter goes to court. The two people in the transaction both express mystification as to why you attacked one of them. The one attacked counter-sues you for assault.

The judge takes one look at your claim of fraud, finds no fraud himself, notes that neither parties complain about the deal that was going down, and judges against you, ordering you to pay damages and restitution for your assault of an innocent party.

God, I so hope that happens to you. You're supposed superhero act will be popped like a ballon.

Stsoc: "If 10 of us rent 11 shovels to dig a hole, even though you demand rent for all 11 shovels, the 11th one had no "marginal production" whatsoever. Meaning you owner of capital is entitled to no "marginal product of capital" that is a part of the price of the products, firstly, because there is no such a thing, and secondly, even if the animistic theory that there is such a thing is accepted it still doen't entitle the owner the part of product of labor, but to a rent that is not related at all to the labor and those two are in no way connected as demonstrated by the rentier asking for the 11th showel as well."

Here's the problem. We live in a society which allows workers to either use the capital of the industrialists, OR, to rent capital as you suggest they should.

So why aren't people choosing to rent capital themselves rather than using the capitalist's capital as employees in the process of production? Solve that question and you might actually achieve a breakthrough that will lead you resolutely towards capitalism.

Or, you know, just rationalize it away like you have done everything else :P

 

If there was no fraud, then you're the aggressor

But there is fraud. To take someone fruits of labor is theft, and to convince them that is ok for their product of labor to belong to someone else is fraud. To conspire and to sistematically take away options other then to succumb to the fraud from the defrauded doesn't make it in any way legitimate.

The judge takes one look at your claim of fraud, finds no fraud himself,

Which would meand that the judge is also a supproter of capitalism, and thus- of theft.

We live in a society which allows workers to either use the capital of the industrialists

And it is the aim of socialists to live in a society where all workers will use their own capital.

to rent capital as you suggest they should.

I did not suggest that workers should do that, I just mentioned that employment can be abolished but the renting of means of production not to be.

So why aren't people choosing to rent capital themselves rather than using the capitalist's capital as employees in the process of production?

As I just said, I don't see that as a justified option, but I see what are you asking, it can be both applied to socialistic organization, which I do support. You can take a look at this chapter: If workers really want self-management then why are there so few co-operatives?

I don't know what you mean. If there is no labor exerted, there is no physical connection to what is claimed as property. The only theories of property besides the labor theory of property, that I am aware of, are the Hobbsean theory of the "strongest authority on a territory" and Stirnerian theory of personal physical streght. The modern capitalist theory of property is arbitrary and inconsistent, calling upon labor of theory of property, but then using some form of Hobbsean theory to justify the inconsistent application of the labor theory, and leaving some inconsistencies unanswered.

There doesnt need to be a physical connection, property is a social relation. We recognize first proprietor because this claim helps to reduce the amount of conflicts. We recognize transferable claims because this also is among consenting adults, there is no claim against prohibiting the transfer (barring a lien). We recognize rent as legitimate because it occurs between two consenting people. 

If they have no problem with commiting a performative contradiction, they don't have to accept it.

will you then force them to accept it?

It's not hierarchical to prevent fraud.

its hierarchical to inject yourself into a situation where there is no plaintiff and expect people to take your word for it that there is indeed fraud, when neither party feels defrauded.

We were talking about not about the "need about capital", but the "need to rent capital from others".

I thought you said that labor could produce capital all on its own.

Renting capital is theft in itself.

no one shares your definition of ownership. You might as well say that deep sea fishing was theft from the sharks.

They don't. If 10 of us rent 11 shovels to dig a hole, even though you demand rent for all 11 shovels, the 11th one had no "marginal production" whatsoever. Meaning you owner of capital is entitled to no "marginal product of capital" that is a part of the price of the products, firstly, because there is no such a thing, and secondly, even if the animistic theory that there is such a thing is accepted it still doen't entitle the owner the part of product of labor, but to a rent that is not related at all to the labor and those two are in no way connected as demonstrated by the rentier asking for the 11th showel as well.

Value is subjective. Rephrase your object in terms where I charge you the old price for 11 shovels, for the rental of 10, and because you say the 11th isnt necessary I rent it to your competitor, who has a contract where he watches from the shade drinking lemonade and his teenage son does the work.

Then how did the means of production come into being?

1 In the beginning(A) God created(B) the heavens(C) and the earth.(D) 2 Now the earth was formless(E) and empty,(F) darkness was over the surface of the deep,(G) and the Spirit of God(H) was hovering(I) over the waters. 3 And God said,(J) “Let there be light,” and there was light.(K) 4 God saw that the light was good,(L) and he separated the light from the darkness.(M) 5 God called(N) the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”(O) And there was evening, and there was morning(P)—the first day. 6 And God said,(Q) “Let there be a vault(R) between the waters(S) to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.(T) And it was so.(U) 8 God called(V) the vault “sky.”(W) And there was evening, and there was morning(X)—the second day. 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,(Y) and let dry ground(Z) appear.” And it was so.(AA) 10 God called(AB) the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters(AC) he called “seas.”(AD) And God saw that it was good.(AE) 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation:(AF) seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.(AG)” And it was so.(AH) 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds(AI) and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.(AJ) 13 And there was evening, and there was morning(AK)—the third day. 14 And God said, “Let there be lights(AL) in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night,(AM) and let them serve as signs(AN) to mark sacred times,(AO) and days and years,(AP) 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.(AQ) 16 God made two great lights—the greater light(AR) to govern(AS) the day and the lesser light to govern(AT) the night.(AU) He also made the stars.(AV) 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night,(AW) and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.(AX) 19 And there was evening, and there was morning(AY)—the fourth day. 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures,(AZ) and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”(BA) 21 So God created(BB) the great creatures of the sea(BC) and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it,(BD) according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.(BE) And God saw that it was good.(BF) 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”(BG) 23 And there was evening, and there was morning(BH)—the fifth day. 24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures(BI) according to their kinds:(BJ) the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.(BK) 25 God made the wild animals(BL) according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.(BM) And God saw that it was good.(BN) 26 Then God said, “Let us(BO) make mankind(BP) in our image,(BQ) in our likeness,(BR) so that they may rule(BS) over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,(BT) over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created(BU) mankind(BV) in his own image,(BW)     in the image of God(BX) he created them;     male and female(BY) he created them.(BZ) 28 God blessed them and said to them,(CA) “Be fruitful and increase in number;(CB) fill the earth(CC) and subdue it. Rule over(CD) the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.(CE)” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.(CF) 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life(CG) in it—I give every green plant for food.(CH)” And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made,(CI) and it was very good.(CJ) And there was evening, and there was morning(CK)—the sixth day.

I certainly hope that answers your question. People on a starvation diet cant do much of anything. Caloric surplus is required.

Capital is distinct from land in that capital must itself be produced by human labor before it can be a factor of production.

well, theyre wrong. A wild gamelands is capital, you can go hunt grouse and search for truffels.

In any capitalist system, the workers are contrained by capitalist property. Capitalist hold property over land, which is illegitimate

can you say why?

We just got done explaining that the capitalist is entitled to those to those means of production because he labored for them. He is not entitled to any part of part of the products of workers' labor if he doesn't meet the same condition.

first of all, he is entitled to the services of his laborers, because they have agreed to come work with him. Secondly, you admit that the use of capital is necessary for products, but you do not explain why the capitalist must not only provide capital, but also labor simultaneously, whereas the laborer only labors simultaneously. Third, you again neglect the contributions of executive and managerial functions to the running of a successful enterprise.

Because his income is chronologically simultaneous. He takes a part of all the earnings that are entirely the workers product.

first of all, thats not true. His income is after the labor gets paid. I explained this above.

secondly, his income comes much later than the laborers when measured from his labors in producing the capital. Laborers assume less risk and get paid much sooner than capitalists.

third, those earnings are not entirely the workers product, as they used the capitalist's capital to produce them.

1. Owners mostly don't run the business, managers do. 2. Running the business mostly isn't productive, but exploitative work, just like capital- if the workers weren't there to produce something, it would produce nothing.

yes, and someone has to pick good managers and audit the sales numbers and provide for the reinvestment of proceeds, and managers that are involved in day-to-day affairs simply dont have the time to be experts at those things too, even so, its not their money to invest.

secondly, if the business wasnt there, the workers wouldnt be producing much of anything anyway, seeing as they havent had the foresight to accumulate much capital of their own, and they seem to think they are better off working for someone who knows a thing or two about capital.

Workers themselves or their delegates if there is need for coordination of a larger scale.

so you acknowledge than an executive can be a worker, and you acknowledge that this authority is transferable. Do you realize that all of your objections to market propertarianism can be answered with legerdemain?

Raw materials in their state of nature are in the ownership of the capitalist class, and it is illegitimate to be in ownership of them at all if they are in their state of nature.

ownership is a social relation. Its legit as long as everyone involved says it is. Unless you want to throw hierarchy into the mix...

Likewise in planning and executing a robbery. And neither robbery nor exploatory work have much to do with productive labor.

interesting that you would say this, as these workers who organize themselves and dont need capital ought to be outproducing these exploitative firms in a free market, which would mean you wouldnt have to deprive them of their property, market forces would do it all on their own.

If I murder you and there is to plaintiff, there was still a murder.

by definition, of course. Likewise if you sleep in a factory because you are homeless and the owner's representative locked the gate and went home, and no one ever catches you, you are still a trespasser.

There doesnt need to be a physical connection, property is a social relation.

If there is no physical connection then property is a social construct, based on some form of consequentialism.

We recognize first proprietor because this claim helps to reduce the amount of conflicts.

Consequentialist perspective is much more in favor of socialism them capitalism.

I thought you said that labor could produce capital all on its own.

It is how capital came into existence in the first place. Tools didn't grow on trees.

no one shares your definition of ownership.

Capitalists dont. Socialists do.

Value is subjective.

That's another subject, I was not talking about value, but about property.

A wild gamelands is capital

You have used "capital" the same way as me, to name the instruments of production, until you felt the need to confuse the subject in order to change the topic or what ever. I will not participate in that.

. Rephrase your object in terms where I charge you the old price for 11 shovels, for the rental of 10

The example clearly shows the disconnection between "marginal product of capital" in the part of price that the product is sold for (that the capitalist takes) and both the productive process and the rent of means of production. Capitalist taking income is justified by the "margical product of capital" and that example show that the 11th shovel produced nothing, meaning capital produces nothing but labor does, and by capitalist asking payment even for the 11th shovel shows that renting of means of production has nothing to do with the product of labor (a part of which is called "marginal product of capital" and taken by capitalist), and therefore shows that capitalist taking any part of the product of the labor of the workers is unjustified.

can you say why?

Labor theory of property. Areas of land not being products of labor cannot be property, but only "occupied-and-used".

he is entitled to the services of his laborers, because they have agreed to come work with him.

No more then he is entitled to the service of his slaves, who have agreed to sell themselves to him. That is to say- not at all.

Secondly, you admit that the use of capital is necessary for products

I do not admit that. Labor creates capital. Capital is created by labor, and without labor creates nothing. Even with labor it creates nothing, it is labor that creates by using it.

capitalist must not only provide capital, but also labor simultaneously, whereas the laborer only labors simultaneously

Because labor is central to property. LTP.

Third, you again neglect the contributions of executive and managerial functions to the running of a successful enterprise.

I see those function as not only largely superfluous to the productive process, but damaging to it, being that much of work of the manager is not to coordinate workers (which workers' delegates could do) but to maintain the hierarchical structure of the workplace that keed workers disempowed and deskilled (effectively making them into tools, and thus be easier to train, thus increasing the pool of workers available to replace any specific worker), so the majority of the work that the manager does is not productive, but exploitative.

his income comes much later than the laborers when measured from his labors in producing the capital.

Yes. Being that capital sitting around produces nothing, the capitalist has to wait for someone else to produce something and then to defraud him of his of the product of his labor.

Laborers assume less risk and get paid much sooner than capitalists.

Do profits reflect a reward for risk?

those earnings are not entirely the workers product, as they used the capitalist's capital to produce them.

And being that both "marginal product of labor" and "marginal product of capital" are produced by labor (because capital itself produces nothing), both belong to the laborer.

and someone has to pick good managers and audit the sales numbers and provide for the reinvestment of proceeds, and managers that are involved in day-to-day affairs simply dont have the time to be experts at those things too, even so, its not their money to invest.

Slaveowners too had to pick good slave drivers to control slaves picking cotton. They did not contribute to picking cotton, but to the hierarchical relation.

if the business wasnt there, the workers wouldnt be producing much of anything anyway

They would be producing everything, like everything that is is produced by workers, everything is produced by labor, that is how reality works. At least until someone makes a AI perpetuum mobile productive machine/ robot.

seeing as they havent had the foresight to accumulate much capital of their own

Or were prevented to do so by the way the system works. When the workers did establish an economy of their own and shown that it is not only possible, but that is more effective and humane and has better utilitarian results, Bolshevik, fascists, and "liberal democracies" joined toghether to destroy it by force.

so you acknowledge than an executive can be a worker, and you acknowledge that this authority is transferable.

Authority is not tranferable, it is representable. Delages in political or economic or military structures of a socialist society would not have control over the body that delegated them, but would remain equal, he would be just someone filling a job position, which is like all job position, controled by the community in question.

Do you realize that all of your objections to market propertarianism can be answered with legerdemain

Leherdemain- Deception; trickery?

ownership is a social relation. Its legit as long as everyone involved says it is.

Which would mean that by the merit of me not accepting that you own something I am legitimate to take it? Unless you want to throw coercion in the mix to stop me.

these workers who organize themselves and dont need capital ought to be outproducing these exploitative firms in a free market, which would mean you wouldnt have to deprive them of their property, market forces would do it all on their own.

If self-management were more efficient then surely capitalists would introduce it?

by definition, of course. Likewise if you sleep in a factory because you are homeless and the owner's representative locked the gate and went home, and no one ever catches you, you are still a trespasser.

Likewise, capitalism is still fraud, even though there is no plaintiff.

stsoc:

I'm saying that in order to get the full product of one's labor, one must own the means of production that he uses in his laboring.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether this claim is axiomatic, or whether you have an unstated premise. In other words, are you saying that by definition "getting the full product of one's labor" entails owning the means of production, or is there a reason that one must own the means of production in order to receive the full product of one's labor?

We both agree that the owner of the machine has earned it, so I don't see anything wrong with buying / selling it. But when the owner of the machine rents it, he takes a part of the product of someone else's labor, without laboring

1. Doesn't that apply to the seller as well? He takes part of the product of someone else's labor in payment for the machine.

2. What exactly do you mean by "without laboring"? The owner did labor. So then the problem lies in how/where/when/with-whom he labored? Or you just mean that, by definition, whatever labor the worker does is the worker's, whatever labor the owner does is the owner's, etc?

If he buys the means of production he makes a one-time payment, and is then the owner of the means of production. If he rents the means of production, he makes continuous payments and does not own the means of production. I don't see how those two cases can be called the same.

They aren't identical, they are the same insofar as in each case the worker must hand over some of the product of his labor to someone else in order to obtain the capital he requires for production.

the wigdet producer sold in advance the product of his labor, which were then (before they were complete) sold by that first buyer to multiple people. That's not employment.

We can call "that" anything we like. Call it chicken soup. I call it employment. The point is that if you agree that "that" is legitimate, well then we have no disagreement, as you agree that what I consider employment is legitimate.

The employer-employee relationship would be the widget producer being told exactly at what times, where and how he should make the widgets.

If I'm a cobbler with my own shop (I own all the capital), one way to do business is to make shoes and sit them in the store window for whoever might come along. Another way to do business is to find customers in advance, and make shoes to order. These customers might want specific kinds of shoes, delivered at a specific time, and at a specific location. Is the customer "telling" me what to do? Well, he's telling me what he wants, but he's not ordering me, he's not forcing me. It's the same as if I'm a worker in a shoe factory. The customers have certain demands, the owner organizes production to meet those demands (X shoes of a certain type ready for delivery on a certain date etc), and he then "tells" the workers what they need to do in order to achieve this goal. But he doesn't order them, he doesn't force them. Producers, whether self-employed or employed by others, are always being "told what to do" by their customers if by no one else. If you want to eliminate that, you'd have to either eliminate production altogether or take away the freedom of consumers to buy what they please, and force them to buy whatever the producers choose to produce.

Even though this doesn't concern the legitimacy of rent of means of production, I think that the notion of rent could be useful here to illustrate the difference, and to say that rent of means of production can happen without employment. A worker' self-managed firm could rent a factory from a capitalist in the same way someone would rent a car, that someone rents it and uses it the way he wants to, he is not being told where, when and how he must use the car, in that case the capitalist would be just the rentier taking whatever the price was agreed to for the rent of his capital, and he would not have anything to do with how the workers use that capital, they would self-manage....So, just like employment is not rent of means of production, and when just renting of means production happens it is not emploment, because it mises something crucial to make it employment, likewise, buying the producer's product in advance is not emplyoment, and when buying producer's product in advance happens is is not employment because it lacks something crucial to make it employment. That crucial component is the hierarchial relation.

Would you define "hierarchical relation" please?

If there is no physical connection then property is a social construct

exactly

Consequentialist perspective is much more in favor of socialism them capitalism.

says the guy who favors prohibition of voluntary relations as part of socialism. Depriving people of rents would create vastly more conflicts.

It is how capital came into existence in the first place. Tools didn't grow on trees.

capital absolutely grows on trees. Or have you not heard of spears, fruit, vines and the like?

You have used "capital" the same way as me, to name the instruments of production, until you felt the need to confuse the subject in order to change the topic or what ever. I will not participate in that.

a wild gamelands is the instrument of producing wild game, youre employing special pleading.

The example clearly shows the disconnection between "marginal product of capital" in the part of price that the product is sold for (that the capitalist takes) and both the productive process and the rent of means of production. Capitalist taking income is justified by the "margical product of capital"

capitalist taking income is justified by mutual consent.

I see those function as not only largely superfluous to the productive process, but damaging to it, being that much of work of the manager is not to coordinate workers (which workers' delegates could do) but to maintain the hierarchical structure of the workplace that keed workers disempowed and deskilled (effectively making them into tools, and thus be easier to train, thus increasing the pool of workers available to replace any specific worker), so the majority of the work that the manager does is not productive, but exploitative.

so you have not worked in management after all. Thank you.

Yes. Being that capital sitting around produces nothing, the capitalist has to wait for someone else [willing] to produce something and then to defraud [help] him [create] of his [share] of the product of his labor.

Fixed this for you

They would be producing everything, like everything that is is produced by workers, everything is produced by labor, that is how reality works. At least until someone makes a AI perpetuum mobile productive machine/ robot.

how reality works is that without capital accumulation by capitalists and investors they would have the living standard of cavemen, continually having to create spears and game snare anew, never progressing beyond an aboriginal way of life. Not that theres anything wrong with that.

Or were prevented to do so by the way the system works. When the workers did establish an economy of their own and shown that it is not only possible, but that is more effective and humane and has better utilitarian results, Bolshevik, fascists, and "liberal democracies" joined toghether to destroy it by force.

that sounds exactly like what you would do to successful capitalist firms.

Authority is not tranferable, it is representable. Delages in political or economic or military structures of a socialist society would not have control over the body that delegated them, but would remain equal, he would be just someone filling a job position, which is like all job position, controled by the community in question.

concomitant with your decision to contract as an independent service provider, you agree to vest your executive authority as a member of this community in the existing ceo. You are free to decline to do this, just as you are free to decline to associate with this worker's community. You cant force people to associate in your system, right? Otherwise theyd be slaves.

Deception; trickery?

bookkeeping. Worker managed enterprises, in order to be a member you agree to delegate your authority to a trusted manager, as a condition of employment. As a condition of employment, you agree to sell the products of your labor to the sales representative. No labor is alienated and every worker is represented by his chosen surrogate executive.

Which would mean that by the merit of me not accepting that you own something I am legitimate to take it? Unless you want to throw coercion in the mix to stop me.

yes, I will resort to coercion to prevent you from depriving me of my property. Youre not involved in my affairs, you have no claim to my property nor any standing to bring a claim. Your willingness to aggress against me by attempting to misappropriate my property is in fact the abandonment of social relations, meaning you dont respect property norms. In this case youre just doing me the service of talking about it beforehand.

Likewise, capitalism is still fraud, even though there is no plaintiff.

that is not likewise the case.

In other words, are you saying that by definition "getting the full product of one's labor" entails owning the means of production, or is there a reason that one must own the means of production in order to receive the full product of one's labor?

It's not by definition, he can use someone else's means of production, as long as he doesn't have to pay for them. If you have to pay for a permission to labor, you never recieve the full product of your labor.

Doesn't that apply to the seller as well? He takes part of the product of someone else's labor in payment for the machine.

And transfers the machine to him. Capitalist never does such a thing, the machine remains his.

Or you just mean that, by definition, whatever labor the worker does is the worker's, whatever labor the owner does is the owner's, etc?

That's the labor theory of property as socialists espuse it ever since the Owenites and Ricardians.

These customers might want specific kinds of shoes, delivered at a specific time, and at a specific location.

But you still remain in control of your productive life. He doesn't tell you where, exactly how and at what times you have to make those shoes.

But he doesn't order them, he doesn't force them

He doesn't force them, but he does order them.

Producers, whether self-employed or employed by others, are always being "told what to do" by their customers if by no one else.

Socialists just want it to be "and by no one else".

Would you define "hierarchical relation" please?

Giving and taking orders, subordination.

exactly

Then we have no futher point in talking about property being that you think it a personal preference, and not a normative concept.

says the guy who favors prohibition of voluntary relations as part of socialism.

Which only capitalists complain about. I doubt that any worker will see anything wrong with it.

Depriving people of rents would create vastly more conflicts.

I am confident that the vast majority of people (who do not rent anything to someone else, but have to rent out houses, money and means of production from others) will full-heartedly embrace that kind of system.

capital absolutely grows on trees. Or have you not heard of spears, fruit, vines and the like?

As I said, I will not participate in that. Capital = tools, machines, factories.

capitalist taking income is justified by mutual consent.

It is not. If a worker would recieve the full of the product of his labor, as he is entitled to, I doubt any workers would voluntarily give a part of it to a capitalist as a gift.

how reality works is that without capital accumulation by capitalists and investors they would have the living standard of cavemen

Actually, progress would be much faster without the capitalists taking large unearned incomes and keeping the ones that actually produce anything disempowered and deskilled in order for them to be more easily controled, defrauded and replaced.

that sounds exactly like what you would do to successful capitalist firms.

Payback to all those three will be a b*.

you agree to vest your executive authority as a member of this community in the existing ceo.

I don't see how. The decision making power will be in the worker coop as a whole.

Worker managed enterprises, in order to be a member you agree to delegate your authority to a trusted manager, as a condition of employment.

By becoming a member you get in a system where people are jointly self-employed, and the worker coop as a whole always has the authority, and that authority is never delegated to anyone, and the manager position, if needed, will be a job position just like production line or janitor positions.

yes, I will resort to coercion to prevent you from depriving me of my property.

But it's not your property unless I accept it as such. Being that, according to you, there is not such a thing as property in natural law/ ethics, it depends on being accepted by people, right?

 

stsoc:

Would you define "hierarchical relation" please?

Giving and taking orders, subordination.

So if a business owner nicely suggested that an employee act in a certain way or kindly leave his premises, then there is no hierarchy. Surely, you don't consider it to be hierarchical on your part when you kindly suggest that your dinner guest stops belching and throwing plates at your wife or kindly leave your house?

Which only capitalists complain about. I doubt that any worker will see anything wrong with it.

How many non-working capitalists and non-capital-owning workers (i.e. with zero-share ownership in means of production on which others labor) are you aware exist today?

In your "ban whatever I don't like rampage" is it possible that you may (just may) have missed something very important which even a simple janitor has figured out? Namely, assume an expert operator of a machine that costs $200,000. He has $200,000 in his account and is faced with two choices: (1) Buy the machine, work with it, and enjoy the "full product of his labor", down to and including going completely bust if no one bought his widgets, or (2) Offer his expert services to someone else who owns the machine, and invest $10,000 each in 20 other businesses in which other expert operators make different widgets with different machines? Only someone completely oblivious to risk and uncertainty would not only consider (1) to be by far the better choice but then go ahead and outright ban others from choosing (2). 

EDIT: You still haven't provided a single example for an employment contract which you deem would be impossible to re-write as a service contract using your definitions of both terms. 

 

Then we have no futher point in talking about property being that you think it a personal preference, and not a normative concept.

norms are social constructs. Property is normative. i never understood why you lefties think you can dismiss something by labeling it a "social construct." Language is a social construct. Human law is a social construct. Norms are social constructs.

Which only capitalists complain about. I doubt that any worker will see anything wrong with it.

the would see a lot wrong with it the moment you attempt to interfere with their employment.

I am confident that the vast majority of people (who do not rent anything to someone else, but have to rent out houses, money and means of production from others) will full-heartedly embrace that kind of system.

because they would rather be forced into homelessness by you then allowed to continue the arrangement they have already chosen? They are just waiting for you to come along and liberate them from their lease so they can go love on a park bench, right?

As I said, I will not participate in that. Capital = tools, machines, factories.

yep, youre denying the facts of reality here.

It is not. If a worker would recieve the full of the product of his labor, as he is entitled to, I doubt any workers would voluntarily give a part of it to a capitalist as a gift.

blah blah blah, you cant win an argument by repeating fallacies. The laborer isnt entitled to the capitalists share of the products. If he doesnt want to capitalist to take his (the capitalist's) fair share, he can always start a business by himself, as you said, capital is unnecessary, all he needs is labor.

Actually, progress would be much faster without the capitalists taking large unearned incomes and keeping the ones that actually produce anything disempowered and deskilled in order for them to be more easily controled, defrauded and replaced.

then why dont the workers accumulate capital themselves? Its because they prefer to labor for a secure wage rather than make more money by assuming risk. Rather than accumulate capital, the would prefer to consume their proceeds. Theres nothing wrong with that, it just means capitalists play a vital role in the market.

I don't see how. The decision making power will be in the worker coop as a whole.

sounds like collectivist tripe to me. When an offer of employment is tendered, it is tendered upon condition that the prospective employee delegates his authority to the current ceo. If he prefers not to do so, the offer of employment is withdrawn. The executory act for reclaiming this authority is to leave the company property for 24 consecutive hours. The executory act for resigning employment is to leave the company property for 24 hours. Therefore all current employees have willingly delegated their management authority to the current ceo.

By becoming a member you get in a system where people are jointly self-employed, and the worker coop as a whole always has the authority, and that authority is never delegated to anyone, and the manager position, if needed, will be a job position just like production line or janitor positions.

you just said above that the workers could appoint a representative. In this case, appointing the current ceo as representative is a necessary condition of membership in the worker's collective.

But it's not your property unless I accept it as such. Being that, according to you, there is not such a thing as property in natural law/ ethics, it depends on being accepted by people, right?

wrong. One monkey doesnt stop the show. You are bound by antecedent social relations, such as my property rights, you cant just decided that "property is a social relation, and as a social participant, I decide that I own my neighbor's 16-year-old daughter." your mutualist revolution could only happen after you have resolved the contradictions in your system, because that would be necessary for convincing people to accept your preferred norms. If, in the meantime, you demonstrate that you dont repect my property, then you have just proven to everyone that you dont care about norms, you dont care about social relations, you dont care about property rights, what you care about is your own profit material gain and fulfillment of wants.

But stoc your whole philosophy is based on the idea that labouring for someone else is not legitimate. What about sub contracting? There is little difference between sub contracting and being an employee, one of the differences is that the sub contractor has to deal with his own administration while the employee, his employer handles the administration and often takes on some of the risk associated with the labour as well.

If you are an employee you get a fixed salary even if the business is not doing well, while if you are in a coop or an independent contractor if there is no work you don't get paid. There are also many other benefits for being an employee that you are not taking into consideration. You just see it as illegitimate because you are hung up on this idea that man should get to keep the full fruits of his labour, whatever that means.

norms are social constructs.

Natural law (/correct ethics) isn't.

the would see a lot wrong with it the moment you attempt to interfere with their employment.

We'll see when that interferance happens.

because they would rather be forced into homelessness by you then allowed to continue the arrangement they have already chosen?

Because they will own their house, their money and their means of production, and they will be able to live by their labor without anyone parasitizing on them.

The laborer isnt entitled to the capitalists share of the products.

Because he cannot be entitled to something that is nonexistent.

capital is unnecessary, all he needs is labor.

And he will be able to easily do so in socialism.

then why dont the workers accumulate capital themselves?

Because they are oppressed by hierarchical structures.

When an offer of employment is tendered, it is tendered upon condition that the prospective employee delegates his authority to the current ceo.

Socialism doesn't want to keep capitalism and just rename it, we want to abolish the way it fuctions. Workers would apply to be an employee of the coop, but would join coops.

you just said above that the workers could appoint a representative.

In the need for coordination in large scale coops.

In this case, appointing the current ceo as representative is a necessary condition of membership in the worker's collective.

Which has nothing to do with delegating authority.

wrong. One monkey doesnt stop the show.

So basically, you are forcing your personal preferences on me because you're have the power? And socialism is "tyrrany"? Yeah right.

your mutualist revolution could only happen after you have resolved the contradictions in your system

There are no contradictions in socialism, and socialist revolution will happen when enough people organize well enough.

If, in the meantime, you demonstrate that you dont repect my property, then you have just proven to everyone that you dont care about norms, you dont care about social relations, you dont care about property rights, what you care about is your own profit and fulfillment of wants.

Just like abolitionists didn't respect slaveowners' property.

Natural law (/correct ethics) isn't.

Are you a theist or are you just confused?

We'll see when that interferance happens.

I can tell you right now that if you try to take away someone's job, they are going to be pissed at you, and if you try to take away someone's factory, the are going to be pissed at you. If you likewise try to steal someone's investment home and at the same time deprive their tenant of his lease, then none of these four people is going to tolerate your behavior. So how is it that you propose to do such an irrational, nonsensical thing without anything that could be described as a hierarchy? you have to convince those people to go along with you, right? Or are you just going to force your will upon them?

Because they will own their house, their money and their means of production, and they will be able to live by their labor without anyone parasitizing on them.

how would they own the house and the means of production if they did not do so already? Youre talking about theft. If you were concerned with proper ownership, you would recognize that when the landlord and capitalist become aware of the new criteria for ownership, they would decline to cede ownership of their capital, and instead work it themselves. Your workers and tenants would become homeless and jobless.

Because they are oppressed by hierarchical structures.

yes, ownership of land, which you somehow still believe in when it suits your purpose. They can own a hoise if their a worker, but not if they are a landlord. You havent explained why.

Socialism doesn't want to keep capitalism and just rename it, we want to abolish the way it fuctions. Workers would apply to be an employee of the coop, but would join coops.

meaning, you want to force them into specific types of rigid social relationships instead of respecting their right to self-determination.

In the need for coordination in large scale coops.

right, and they accept the pre-existing coordination mechanism as a condition of membership.

Which has nothing to do with delegating authority.

I believe you missed the part where I said that it does.

So basically, you are forcing your personal preferences on me because you're have the power?

By responding to your force with force, I am respecting your personal preferences in human relations. One could say you were attempting to force your personal preferences upon me but for the simple fact that you were kind enough to announce that you do not in fact respect social norms, and so I was prepared for your assault upon my liberty.

And socialism is "tyrrany"? Yeah right.

I'm glad we agree.

There are no contradictions in socialism, and socialist revolution will happen when enough people organize well enough.

you have been quite helpful in illustrating the contrary to the former, and the latter goal is impossible without voluntary hierarchical relations, as you call them. Theyre actually quite equilateral as long as the order carries no coercive force. The imperative format is a grammatical expediency

Just like abolitionists didn't respect slaveowners' property.

nothing could be more different. You think the manufacturers of capital goods should be yuor slaves.

Are you a theist or are you just confused?

My religious views are irrelevant to the topic. Imposition of harm and hierarchies are wrong just like 2+2=5 is wrong.

and if you try to take away someone's factory, the are going to be pissed at you.

Of course, slaveowner were pissed when their property was taken away from them, too.

how would they own the house and the means of production if they did not do so already?

Capitalists would be expropriated.

Youre talking about theft.

Theft is taking legitimate property. So it wouldn't be theft.

If you were concerned with proper ownership, you would recognize that when the landlord and capitalist become aware of the new criteria for ownership

Yeah, that's how slavery was abolished, slaveowners "became aware" that their property is illegitimate.

they would decline to cede ownership of their capital, and instead work it themselves.

It would be expropriated from and taken by the workers as a recompensation for the thievery they have endured.

yes, ownership of land, which you somehow still believe in when it suits your purpose.

I have never said that land can be owned, exactly the opposite.

They can own a hoise if their a worker, but not if they are a landlord. You havent explained why.

Rent as an earned income would be abolished.

you want to force them into specific types of rigid social relationships instead of respecting their right to self-determination.

Yes, we will "force" people not to be slaves.

I believe you missed the part where I said that it does.

And you missed the part where I said that is doesn't. Being a delegate would be no more of a position of authority then being a janitor.

By responding to your force with force

I would not apply any force to you. I would just take something that you consider you property, but it is not your property, being that property in itself doesn't exist.

you have been quite helpful in illustrating the contrary to the former

You have failed in pointing out a single one.

You think the manufacturers of capital goods should be yuor slaves.

Workers are the manufacturers of capital. And they should be free of the capitalists.

My religious views are irrelevant to the topic. Imposition of harm and hierarchies are wrong just like 2+2=5 is wrong.

Then perhaps you might be kind enough to explain how you have managed to transcend the fact/value dichotomy. Please.

Of course, slaveowner were pissed when their property was taken away from them, too.

I'm not sure that the slaves were ever their property. Remember, property is a social relation. The opinion of the slave needs to be considered here.

Capitalists would be expropriated.

so, the truth comes out at last, plunder is what you are really after.

I have never said that land can be owned, exactly the opposite.

earlier you said the tenant would own his house, because the landlord would be expropriated.

Rent as an earned income would be abolished.

if two people agree to rent, you would agress upon them rather than respect their social relation. Thats aggression.

Yes, we will "force" people not to be slaves.

I think you mean :

Yes, we will force people not to be "slaves."

as the force isnt a question here, you admit to that. You somehow think someone can consent to "slavery" and its "just as bad" as someone who is forced into actual slavery defined as involuntary servitude. to the point where you equivocate between freeing a captured involuntary slave with splitting up a husband and wife who enjoy kinky games. Youre off your rocker and you need to start thinking about how the social component of ownership involves people besides yourself.

And you missed the part where I said that is doesn't. Being a delegate would be no more of a position of authority then being a janitor.

yet another internal contradiction of the worker's paradise. "delegating authority doesnt mean delegating authority."

You have failed in pointing out a single one.

youre just not payng attention, and using language games to fool yourself. Words are just symbols for concepts, you cant conceptualize an m.c. Escher economy, then define your terms so everything is grammatical, then coherently argue that water runs uphill. Youve actually done all of that except the coherence part. Good job. Now are you ready to actually make sense? Words are just symbols for concepts, they are social constructs. Try expanding your horizons.

Workers are the manufacturers of capital. And they should be free of the capitalists.

thats like saying "businesses should be free of customers." who do you think paid for the capital to be manufactured?

Then perhaps you might be kind enough to explain how you have managed to transcend the fact/value dichotomy.

They are value-free ethical exioms, being that they are a priori norms of communication (through which alone anything can be justified).

I'm not sure that the slaves were ever their property.

They were considered as such by law.

so, the truth comes out at last, plunder is what you are really after.

Reclamation.

earlier you said the tenant would own his house, because the landlord would be expropriated.

And the house is synonimous with land how?

You somehow think someone can consent to "slavery" and its "just as bad" as someone who is forced into actual slavery defined as involuntary servitude.

I don't think it's just as bad, but that doesn't make it good. Slavery and all other hierarchies will be abolished in socialism.

thats like saying "businesses should be free of customers."

The metaphor with the closes meaning would be "slaves should be free from their owners", your example has nothing to do with mine, being that buyer/seller of a commodity are not in a hierarchical relationship.

who do you think paid for the capital to be manufactured?

Who do you think he exploited to get the money?

stsoc:

Imposition of harm and hierarchies are wrong just like 2+2=5 is wrong.

Hierarchies are not innately wrong. Only using force to establish a hierarchy is wrong. That is, as with all other issues, it is the aggression element that makes it unethical. Sex is not wrong, but sex + aggression is rape. Trade is not wrong, but trade + aggression is extortion. Etc.

stsoc:

and if you try to take away someone's factory, the are going to be pissed at you.

Of course, slaveowner were pissed when their property was taken away from them, too.

So the factory is the slave of the owner? lol

I'm so bored with his class-baiting. As if a capitalist wasn't a worker before he was a capitalist. How do you think he earned enough money to buy productive capital?

Hierarchies are not innately wrong.

Yes, they are.

it is the aggression element that makes it unethical

No, it is imposition of harm that is unethical. Harm can be impossed without aggression, and aggression can be used without imposing harm, so, no, aggression in itself in not unethical.

So the factory is the slave of the owner?

The worker is pretty close.

As if a capitalist wasn't a worker before he was a capitalist.

Almost none were, but gained their wealth by inheritance or connections.

 

Here's what Stsoc wants, he wants a scapegoat for what's wrong with the world. He wants someone to blame. For stsoc, the capitalist becomes the scapegoat for everything that's wrong with the world. Socialism creates an ethical boogeyman, an enemy, that can be hated and aggressed against, a lightning rod of anger for everything anyone's mad at.

stsoc:

Hierarchies are not innately wrong.

Yes, they are.

You realize this is not an argument, right? It's not reason, it's not rationale, it's just bald restatement of your position. I gave an argument about aggression. Please give your argument for what it is that makes hierarchies in any way unethical.

stsoc:

it is the aggression element that makes it unethical

No, it is imposition of harm that is unethical. Harm can be impossed without aggression, and aggression can be used without imposing harm, so, no, aggression in itself in not unethical.

How do you define harm? I define harm as invasion of property rights. Please lay out how you knew when harm has occurred.

stsoc:

As if a capitalist wasn't a worker before he was a capitalist.

Almost none were, but gained their wealth by inheritance or connections.

Those who gained it by inheritance may still be legitimate, if their ancestors had been workers and can legitimately give their money to whomever they want. This is especially true in the US.

As for those whom earned their wealth by feudal style appropriation, I'll agree their wealth is suspect and despicable, but such is not true in the US such as in much of the world, and it's not legitimate to denigrate all rich people as a class on such a basis.

They are value-free ethical exioms, being that they are a priori norms of communication (through which alone anything can be justified).

unilateral expropriation is not justified by a priori norms of communication. Indeed, such an activity is unjustifiable.

They were considered as such by law.

property is a social relation, governmental permission is but one component.

Reclamation

plunder. You cant justify reclaimation by your own axioms. A renter depreciates the house while the landlord must input labor and materials to maintain its value. The landlord mixed his labor with the house that he already owns. You just want to impoverish people who were wise and fortunate enough to create more than one house. Of course, if people cant own houses they arent occupying, fewer houses will be built. Workers who build houses will be impoverished. People who accumulate surplus capital, having no means of investing it, will spend it on consumption items, thus driving up the price of consumption goods and further impoverishing the working class.

And the house is synonimous with land how?

because it occupies it permanently and immovably, much like how you cannot simultaneously have a citrus orchard and a limestone quarry on the same land.

I don't think it's just as bad, but that doesn't make it good. Slavery and all other hierarchies will be abolished in socialism.

It means you implicitly acknowledge a difference and so you also acknowledge the equivocation. Youre learning. Now learn to use a different word than "slavery" for mutually voluntary relations so we can be clear when we discuss these things.

The metaphor with the closes meaning would be "slaves should be free from their owners", your example has nothing to do with mine, being that buyer/seller of a commodity are not in a hierarchical relationship.

yes they are. One person has a comparitive advantage at producing commodities, whereas one person is offering the most liquid good, money. Even in a barter transaction, there is someone who has relatively greater demand andso initiates the transaction, and thus pays a slight premium for the exchange. This is seperate from, but related to, the premium that is paid by the party with the less liquid good.

Who do you think he exploited to get the money?

I dont think he exploited anyone and neither do you, since he didnt have any capital to rent out, seeing as how he was saving to buy capital goods in the first place.

For stsoc, the capitalist becomes the scapegoat for everything that's wrong with the world.

The capitalist is the true culprit of many things that are wrong in the world.

I gave an argument about aggression.

Where exactly? You have just muptile times restated your fetishism of non-aggression. Whereas I have multiple times given the rationale for lack of hierarchies by reffering to what you call "argumentation ethics".

How do you define harm?

Physical damage done to person's body or legitimate property. NAP validates murdering someone by starvinging him. Also NAP invalidates saving someone's life unless you are explicitly warranted by the person in question to do so.

Those who gained it by inheritance may still be legitimate, if their ancestors had been workers and can legitimately give their money to whomever they want.

Which is pretty much irrelevant. Making your money honestly doesn't justify you in buying slaves, nor in doing anything else whish is illegitimate.

unilateral expropriation is not justified by a priori norms of communication. Indeed, such an activity is unjustifiable.

No imposition of harm (physical harm to someone's body or their legitimate property) and absence of power inequality (hierarchies) are a priori norms of discourse.

As far as the reclamation is conserned, taking someone's illegitimately gained property is not theft.

plunder.

Reclamation.

You just want to impoverish people who were wise and fortunate enough to create more than one house.

I want to impoverish people who were "wise and fortunate" enought to live off other people's labor.

Workers who build houses will be impoverished.

What a waste, they would stop being robots moulded by division of labor and would have to learn do something else.

People who accumulate surplus capital, having no means of investing it, will spend it on consumption items, thus driving up the price of consumption goods and further impoverishing the working class.

Investmens are a bait to fraud capitalism is based on, and would be abolished. Also, only the working class would exists, that is, it would be a classless society.

because it occupies it

A, that can be occupied, and B, that occupies it, are identical? Wow.

permanently

Houses are industructable?

Now learn to use a different word than "slavery" for mutually voluntary relations so we can be clear when we discuss these things.

Wage-slavery? :)

No imposition of harm (physical harm to someone's body or their legitimate property) and absence of power inequality (hierarchies) are a priori norms of discourse.

they are not. Discourse can occur with a starving man and between the members of what you consider a hierarchy.

As far as the reclamation is conserned, taking someone's illegitimately gained property is not theft.

only if you have a superior claim to it. In a deal between Gerald and Xavier, Archibald may not justifiably unilaterally decide that Xavier has been defrauded and expropriate Gerald. You have no standing to a claim.

I want to impoverish people who were "wise and fortunate" enought to live off other people's labor.

thats another concession I value. Youre not concerned with increasing wealth, but depriving a class of people of their wealth. You absolutely do not care if other people (working class) suffer as a result.

What a waste, they would stop being robots moulded by division of labor and would have to learn do something else.

like live in caves, all because you dislike their lifestyle. Sounds awfully hierarchical and authoritarian to me.

Investmens are a bait to fraud capitalism is based on, and would be abolished. Also, only the working class would exists, that is, it would be a classless society.

too bad people will decide to stratify themselves no matter what you do because humans are diverse and multivarious individuals. We have division of labor specifically because people are not robots and posess different skills, including the skill of choosing wise investments, which makes capital available to workers who havent accumulated any themselves.

A, that can be occupied, and B, that occupies it, are identical? Wow

the uses are rivalrous. Articulate an effective distinction and I will listen.

Houses are industructable?

you could stop trying to be a smartass and realize a distinction between permanence and invincibility, but if you had that much sense you wouldnt be a left-libertarian.

Wage-slavery? :)

"employment" works just fine, although given the weakness of your argument I can see why you might resort to histrionics.

Clearly stsoc does not believe in free association, because he does not believe that people should be allowed to freely stratify themselves in voluntary hierarchies.

Further, he admits he is a tyrant, for he would impose himself into voluntary contracts where there is no victim.

Stsoc, i would defend your right to try to explain to an empoloyee why you think he's being taken advantage of and see if it he agrees, at which point he can voluntarily withdraw from the contract and join your co-op.

But at no point do you have a right to go thieving property you claim is stolen, nor to impose yourself between voluntary associations. Those are examples of aggression.

stsoc:

It's not by definition, he can use someone else's means of production, as long as he doesn't have to pay for them. If you have to pay for a permission to labor, you never recieve the full product of your labor.

This "pay for permission to labor" concept is a little fuzzy, could you clarify it? It seems to me that a worker is not asking or paying for permission to labor, he's asking or paying (in some sense) for permission to use someone else's property. You make it sound as if the capitalist can prevent the worker from laboring in general, but that's not true: he can only prevent the worker from using his property to labor. Hence, I think the way you phrase this "pay for permission to labor" idea is deceptive, it would be like saying consumers have to pay for permission from McDonald's to eat, but that's absurd; consumers have to pay for permission to eat food belonging to McDonald's, not food in general.

And transfers the machine to him. Capitalist never does such a thing, the machine remains his.

There's not a sharp distinction between owning and renting. To have property rights in some object is to have the right to exclusive use of it in some sense. To own an object means to have the right to exclusive use of it, period (i.e. in all ways, with no conditions). To rent something is to have the right to exclusive use of it on certain conditions. To say that a worker can buy a machine but not rent it because in the latter case the machine "remains [the property of the capitalist" is to make the own-rent distinction appear more black-and-white than it is. When a worker buys a machine, he is buying the right to use the machine, period. When he rents it, he is buying the right to use it on certain conditions (e.g. for a certain period of time, or provided he doesn't damage it, etc). To say that one is absolutely just and one is abslutely unjust misses the fact that it is only a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

Now, let me ask you this. You say it is illegitimate for a person to pay for the use of someone else's property for the purpose of using that property in production. What if someone wants to rent property for a purpose other than production (i.e. consumption)? For example, can I rent a vacation home? Can I rent a storage unit? Can I rent an apartment? Consider that any time a person pay someone else for the use of their property, but does not buy it outright, he is renting. Though it sounds funny in the common parlance, strictly speaking a person who eats at a restaurant is renting (he is paying to use the facilities, but isn't buying them); likewise if you buy a ticket to a concert, an amusement park, or any other such venue. Are these all illegitimate?

If you say that those instances of rental are all legitimate because they involve someone renting property for consumption, not for production, well then let me suggest that the distinction between property-for-consumption and property-for-production is not so clear. One and the same unit of property can be a capital good or a consumer good depending on how it's used, and this can vary day to day. For example, one would normally consider an apartment a consumer good and insofar as I use it for protection from the elements, or for sleeping, etc, it is a consumer good. But suppose I make eggs. Remember that production is nothing but the transformation of something into something else which the producer values more highly. Turning raw eggs into scrambled eggs is production. What are the factors of production here? The eggs, the pan, and the spoon, all of which I own, but also the stove in the apartment. Do I own the stove? Nope, I'm renting it. Therefore, I am renting some of the means of production involved in the production of these scrambled eggs. By your view, this must be illegitimate, the landlord is exploiting me and denying me the full product of my labor because he is renting me the means of production, correct?

But you still remain in control of your productive life. He doesn't tell you where, exactly how and at what times you have to make those shoes.

The underlined bit is another fuzzy concept, it's not clear to me what it means. In your view, a wage laborer is not "in control of his productive life" because the capitalist can "tell him what to do" - but this does not include forcing him to do anything. While, in your view, a self-employed craftsmen like a cobbler remains "in control of his productive life," because...the demands of his customers are somehow less an instance of "telling him what to do" than the demand's of a capitalist on a wage laborer? How so? What is the reason that customer's requests don't lead to loss of control, while bosses' requests do? It's seems to me an arbitrary distinction. Let me put it this way; if you were explaining your system to an alien, and he asked you for a rule/guideline to follow in order to distinguish between economic relations between people that cause one party to lose of control over his productive life, and economic relations between people that don't cause such a loss of control for one party, what would you tell him?

He doesn't force them, but he does order them.

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." It seems to me that part of the socialist objection to employment is this idea that the boss sort of coerces the worker with the threat of unemployment and impoverishment....but doesn't the customer do the same thing? If Jones the worker doesn't obey the boss, he loses his livelihood. If Jones the cobbler doesn't obey his customers, he loses his livelihood.

Socialists just want it to be "and by no one else".

Right, but it seems like an arbitrary distinction based on some intuitive bias against capitalists; whereas, when customers stand in essentially the same power-relation to self-employed workers, somehow that's unobjectionable. 

Giving and taking orders, subordination.

You say that service jobs are legitimate. Doesn't the plumber take orders from the customer? 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? In each case, can't the customer prevent the service-worker from laboring, by refusing to hire him? Just like the boss can prevent the wage worker from laboring, by refusing to employ him?

 

they are not. Discourse can occur with a starving man and between the members of what you consider a hierarchy.

So it can between a aggressor and aggressed, I can beat you up and when I catch my breat explain mathemathics. Or I could explain the mathematics before or after beating you up. The point is the manifestation of imposition of harm or hierarchy invalidates discourse, just like aggression, only aggression is much narrower and sometimes in contradiction with imposition of harm; So, discourse can happen between people practicing those things, but not really while practicing those things, that is- manifestation of those two things invalidates discourse, meaning they are it's a priori norms, meaning no imposition of harm and no hierarchy are axioms of ethics.

only if you have a superior claim to it. In a deal between Gerald and Xavier, Archibald may not justifiably unilaterally decide that Xavier has been defrauded and expropriate Gerald. You have no standing to a claim.

So you say.

Youre not concerned with increasing wealth, but depriving a class of people of their wealth.

Yes, depraving of wealth a class that has gained it by depraving another class of it's fruits of labor.

You absolutely do not care if other people (working class) suffer as a result.

I don't see how will they suffer in getting back what is theirs.

too bad people will decide to stratify themselves no matter what you do because humans are diverse and multivarious individuals.

Abolishing social stratification will not bring uniformity, but power equality.

Clearly stsoc does not believe in free association, because he does not believe that people should be allowed to freely stratify themselves in voluntary hierarchies.

By accepting hierarchies you reject free association, being that hierarchies are the opposite to freedom.

Further, he admits he is a tyrant

Yes, I would ban tyrannies. How tyranic of me.

Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?

Why is voluntarism not enough?

This "pay for permission to labor" concept is a little fuzzy, could you clarify it? It seems to me that a worker is not asking or paying for permission to labor, he's asking or paying (in some sense) for permission to use someone else's property.

To use someone else's property to labor.

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

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

There's not a sharp distinction between owning and renting.

There's a diametrically opposite distrinction. If you rent something, that means you don't own it.

You say it is illegitimate for a person to pay for the use of someone else's property for the purpose of using that property in production. What if someone wants to rent property for a purpose other than production

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.

Though it sounds funny in the common parlance, strictly speaking a person who eats at a restaurant is renting (he is paying to use the facilities, but isn't buying them)

He uses the facilities for free, and buys food. There is no rent.

The underlined bit is another fuzzy concept, it's not clear to me what it means.

Hint: read the next sentence.

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."

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".

If Jones the worker doesn't obey the boss, he loses his livelihood. If Jones the cobbler doesn't obey his customers, he loses his livelihood.

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.

when customers stand in essentially the same power-relation to self-employed workers, somehow that's unobjectionable.

Exaclty. Absense of power ineqality is an a priori ethical axiom.

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?

No.

ok, f* you, I'll [steal your machines and tools so I can] make it and [try to find a customer so I can] sell it to someone else"

The boss being the superflous connection between Jones and the customers

Fixed this so you could see the irony, stsoc.

So I could see how brainwashed by capitalist propaganda you are? You didn't have to, I saw that before.

Then why did you wrongly label the capitalist as "superfluous"?

The capitalist is not only superfluous, but a damaging factor.

Funny how the workers consider capitalists both necessary and beneficient. But its alright for you to consider him "damaging" as your definitions of words are not customary, for example you consider "leaving someone alone" to be the same as "causing someone harm."

Funny how the workers consider capitalists both necessary and beneficient.

Maybe managers and bank employees. From other workers, hundreds of whom I've met, I have met only two workers, total, that support capitalism and support existence of the capitalist class.

for example you consider "leaving someone alone" to be the same as "causing someone harm."

So you propertarians not only hijack and redifine word but also project your misdeeds onto others.

Maybe managers and bank employees. From other workers, hundreds of whom I've met, I have met only two workers, total, that support capitalism and support existence of the capitalist class.

Well then you must live in a mutualist habitat somewhere. Nearly all the workers I know of support capitalism.

So you propertarians not only hijack and redifine word but also project your misdeeds onto others.

you seem to have lost your last connection to reality.

Well then you must live in a mutualist habitat somewhere.

Serbia, where we have a "transitional economy" for over two decades, and I have mostly woker blue-collar and gray-collar jobs and among those workers, almost none support capitalism.

you seem to have lost your last connection to reality.

By reality I'm sure you mean "capitalist propaganda".

Serbia, where we have a "transitional economy" for over two decades, and I have mostly woker blue-collar and gray-collar jobs and among those workers, almost none support capitalism.

maybe you guys should figure out how to make your own economy work before suggesting that other people stop renting and whatnot because you dont like it?

maybe you guys should figure out how to make your own economy work

We had two socialist economies in Europe, and they work.

before suggesting that other people stop renting and whatnot because you dont like it?

...because it's illegitimate.

Says you. But, unless you are in a hierarchical relationship with others, they do not have to submit their contracts to you for approval.