140 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Of course the problem here is without any sort of structure some sort of structure would form naturally, so tyranny would still of course be there.

It does not follow from the premise "structure forms naturally" that "structure is tyranny".

Private law in the Wild West is an example of structure forming naturally. But it was not tyranny.

There wouldn't be 'rulers' that's kind of the point, there would be no class structure. Work places would be democratically run by workers.

You mean majority rule then?

Because you must have capital to buy the means of production. If you're born poor your chances of ever owning means of production are slim to zero as you're forced to sell your self for much less then what you produce. If you're born rich then you can just get handed them. Even if you don't get handed life on a silver plate you're more likely to go to private school and people thus get the connections and statically speaking you're much more likely to get a better job regardless of how well you do!

Right, so you're not really saying it's impossible for anyone to own the means of production in capitalism, but rather, it's more difficult to own the means of production in capitalism that it is on socialism, is this correct?

Publicly owned, no ownership. The point is that everyone that is put in a decision making role is voted there, so there is accountability, if they do a bad job you can kick them out. This is not possible if someone is able to form a monopoly which frequently happens even in a regulated system. In an unregulated system sooner or later all systems would become a monopoly in some way or another.

The state is a monopoly by its very definition

Edited by JLL, 25 August 2009 - 05:55 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Like the drugs trade is probably the freeiest market there is

You're kidding right? Its the most regulated market there is. Government regulation is the reason for the brutality. We are living in the prohibition era, and with all the organized crime it brings.

The point is that everyone that is put in a decision making role is voted there, so there is accountability, if they do a bad job you can kick them out.

this does not make sense. What determines if someone in management does a bad job is not whether he is the most popular boss the workers there have ever had, it is determined by whether or not people buy the companies products and the company makes wise financial decisions. [sarcasm]Those currently elected are really known for their wise financial decisions and for being the most upstanding citizens, aren't they?[/sarcasm]

Edited by eternaltraveler, 25 August 2009 - 05:56 PM.

[JLL]

This is the great irony I think of Libertarianism, it wants to remove one tyranny and replace it with another!

Insofar as libertarianism refers to 'small government', you are in my opinion right.

But if by libertarianism you mean the absence of State, then I disagree. Stefan Molyneux has an article about this here, if you are interested, I won't go into it in detail.

[eternaltraveler]

If (1) is true, then clearly, no government is needed.

If (2) is true, then a government won't help, because in democracy, the government is supposed to represent the opinion of the majority, which would thus consist mostly of people are not good. The case is made even worse by the fact that good people do not seek power to control other people; it's the bad people that do. The same applies to (4).

If (3) is true, as it seems to be, then government will also not work, because again, it's mostly bad people who seek to control others and avoid retaliation. If you wanted to do bad things to other people without fear of getting punished, which career path would you choose: one where you have to work and use your talent to produce goods and services that people will voluntarily buy from you, or one where you are among the small minority that has all the guns and the power?

You are worried about the goodness of people, but are you not worried about the goodness of the people in charge? The fact that there are evil people is an argument against the state, not for it.

How does one generate a stateless system that stably remains stateless. ie How can anarchy work? Who enforces the lack of laws?

Edited by eternaltraveler, 25 August 2009 - 06:04 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

So, what's the easiest way for me to get all your customers? I kill you and take everything you own for myself. After all, there is no government to stop me, and by my moral code, or lack thereof, I'm simply insuring my own survival, right? I simply out competed you in the FREE MARKET.

What a realistic scenario.

How does the state prevent this from happening? What if the state decides to use its "own moral code" and kill you? Who is there to protect you then? The people? The same people that for some reason are not protecting you when there is no state?

I just love statists

Everyone seem to forget that humans are not ALL peaceful, kind, loving, and caring people who are willing to "play by the rules" and that is why GOVERNMENT exists. When it is government ruled by the people it ensures that those who refuse to play by the rules cannot just do as they wish. In the absence of restraint, violence will always win.

I have not argued that all humans are peaceful.

But, there are four possible scenarios:

(1) All people are good
(2) The minority of people are good
(3) The majority of people are good
(4) All people are bad

If (1) is true, then clearly, no government is needed.

If (2) is true, then a government won't help, because in democracy, the government is supposed to represent the opinion of the majority, which would thus consist mostly of people are not good. The case is made even worse by the fact that good people do not seek power to control other people; it's the bad people that do. The same applies to (4).

If (3) is true, as it seems to be, then government will also not work, because again, it's mostly bad people who seek to control others and avoid retaliation. If you wanted to do bad things to other people without fear of getting punished, which career path would you choose: one where you have to work and use your talent to produce goods and services that people will voluntarily buy from you, or one where you are among the small minority that has all the guns and the power?

You are worried about the goodness of people, but are you not worried about the goodness of the people in charge? The fact that there are evil people is an argument against the state, not for it.

No government is perfect. There must always be checks and balances. It is up to the people to ensure that their government does it's job. And by your definitions, 3 is true, but hampered by the fact that the majority of people simply DON'T CARE ENOUGH to make an honest effort to make sure their government is serving them in their best interests. So yes, you end up with government by the crooks for the benefit of the crooks.

The Founding Fathers had a great idea, but failed to make the checks and balances strong enough, and failed to account for the very people who put the system together who immediately turned around and started gaming it. It is however the closest we have come to a true Government of the PEOPLE.

And the ONLY way to fix this is to use the system that is in place, voting, and keeping yourself informed of the issues. It is only recently that this second capability has become available to the majority. And so it is also only recently that major changes in the government have become possible. However, there is also an enormous number of people with a vested interest in maintaining the system as it is, because they profit enormously from it. And they use people like you to try and ensure that no meaningful change can occur.

But history shows that change in inevitable. It will ALWAYS occur. It took ten thousand years to get to where we are now, and it might only take another couple of decades before a true government OF the PEOPLE as a WHOLE is possible. But it MUST come if we as a species are to survive.

[captainbeefheart]

It does not follow from the premise "structure forms naturally" that "structure is tyranny".

No I don't think structure is tyranny, that's what Libratarism seems to say to me. It doesn't like any sort of central planning, but these would simply form. Like Corporations which are private companies but some almost have the power of governments, if not much more power. This would be even more extreme in a system with no relegation as they would be free to forum any sort of monopoly were as now there are rules to supposedly limit monopolies.

You mean majority rule then?

Yes, democracy, it's not a perfect system but IMO it's the fairest. Socialism is about being optimistic about human nature. I would argue it is the system we live in that makes us greedy, not us as people. We act selfishly because we live in a society centred around the individual. However I think as many examples have shown we can quite easily work collectively for good. Science, open source, raising children!

The state is a monopoly by its very definition

I suppose, the difference is that a public service is not run for profit. It is run to provide a service. It can run at a loss if the service is that important. Some vital services just aren't profitable. I know Libertarians say charity would replace welfare and other social problems but this is not a solution and is not guaranteed in anyway. I suggest also you read the communist manifesto, it explains the wage slave and the fact workers don't get what they produce much better then I can. Workers are stolen from to start with.

this does not make sense. What determines if someone in management does a bad job is not whether he is the most popular boss the workers there have ever had, it is determined by whether or not people buy the companies products and the company makes wise financial decisions. [sarcasm]Those currently elected are really known for their wise financial decisions and for being the most upstanding citizens, aren't they?

When did I mention the determiner was if they were popular or not? It's whether or not there doing a good job. You can't compare what Im talking about to the current government. We live in a corrupt system. MPs, Senators whatever get paid vastly above the average workers wage, they have no concept of what it's like to be a normal person within a country and look after the interests of their buddies. The state is so finally linked with many strands to the rich, to authority, here in Britain even the bloody monarchy still! We need a revolution in the sense that the entire system needs to change and be replaced with a bottom up approach, a true democracy as we don't live in one at the moment.

[Blue]

But wages and other benefits such as reduced working time could not improve before gdp/capita improved. Once gdp/capita had improved then wages will also improve in a free market since workers will move to higher paying jobs.

Nonsense, that is totally wrong that change ever occurs without some sort of workers movement, union etc. All the rights we have now have come from workers demanding them, not being given them because of economic growth. Just look at the current situation up until the 80s profit, wages and production went up at similar rates (unequal but still as one went up they all went up) since union power has decreased we have seen growth and profit sore and wages not keep pace at all, people work much longer hours and salary linked pensions have all but disappeared.

This I think is the very heart of much of debate.

First, you are right regarding one point. Wages for low-income workers in the US has in recent decades grown very little while gdp/capita has continued to grown. But this is due to the competition from low paid workers in the developing world due to increasing globalization. But overall, the situation for the lowest paid has increased dramatically during the recent decades and they they have thus benefited from the economic growth. The percentage of the world population living on less than 1.25 dollar/day has halved since 1981.
http://en.wikipedia....y_1981-2009.GIF

Secondly, the situation for the world population is dramatically and quickly improving since the industrial and capitalist revolution. The current system is working while the socialist experiments, both forced and by enthusiastic volunteers, failed:
http://www.boston.co...l_of_good_news/

Thirdly, you think that when the situation has improved for workers, this is due to unions or state legislation, not the free market. This obviously false for high-paid jobs such engineers whose wages do has increased dramatically in the US in recent decades. Similarly, the recent dramatic improvement for the world's poorest in the developing world is not explained by unions which are weak or nonexistant in these nations.

Edited by Blue, 27 August 2009 - 11:46 AM.

[Blue]

A comment regarding democracy and clueless voters. The vast majority of voters may very well be uninterested, uninformed, and clueless. That is not actually a problem so long as the clueless votes cancel each other out. If that is the case, only the informed voters matter. There is a similar situation in gambling. Most gambling bets are illinformed, based on astrology or lucky numbers, based on emotional feelings for a team, etc. Does not matter, these bets usually cancel each other. So only the minority informed bets matter for the final odds. Which are usually extremely good predictors for what willl happen.

[JLL]

If (1) is true, then clearly, no government is needed.

If (2) is true, then a government won't help, because in democracy, the government is supposed to represent the opinion of the majority, which would thus consist mostly of people are not good. The case is made even worse by the fact that good people do not seek power to control other people; it's the bad people that do. The same applies to (4).

If (3) is true, as it seems to be, then government will also not work, because again, it's mostly bad people who seek to control others and avoid retaliation. If you wanted to do bad things to other people without fear of getting punished, which career path would you choose: one where you have to work and use your talent to produce goods and services that people will voluntarily buy from you, or one where you are among the small minority that has all the guns and the power?

You are worried about the goodness of people, but are you not worried about the goodness of the people in charge? The fact that there are evil people is an argument against the state, not for it.

How does one generate a stateless system that stably remains stateless. ie How can anarchy work? Who enforces the lack of laws?

Here's some essays on private law:

http://www.lewrockwe.../molyneux1.html
http://mises.org/rot.../mes/chap13.asp
http://www.lewrockwe...molyneux16.html
http://mises.org/story/2542
http://mises.org/story/2497
http://mises.org/story/2265
http://mises.org/story/2701

[JLL]

Like Corporations which are private companies but some almost have the power of governments, if not much more power.

The fact that private companies can have any sort of power is because they can afford to bribe government officials. Remove the government from the equation, and what power do they have?

This would be even more extreme in a system with no relegation as they would be free to forum any sort of monopoly were as now there are rules to supposedly limit monopolies.

You are afraid of monopolies, so you want a monopoly to protect against them. How logical.

Yes, democracy, it's not a perfect system but IMO it's the fairest.

Right, so if the majority votes that they will kill the minority, that's fair in your opinion?

I suppose, the difference is that a public service is not run for profit.

And how are services that are not profitable funded? Through taxation, which is nothing but theft.

[eternaltraveler]

Here's some essays on private law:

http://www.lewrockwe.../molyneux1.html
http://mises.org/rot.../mes/chap13.asp
http://www.lewrockwe...molyneux16.html
http://mises.org/story/2542
http://mises.org/story/2497
http://mises.org/story/2265
http://mises.org/story/2701

Ok, I've read through the first two links, and skimmed a few more. I have found nothing that answers my question. It mostly just says how this system would be better for one reason after another and goes through some thought experiments on how various current government services could be supplied. It does not say how it could be started or how it could be sustained. Blanket assumptions that have throughout history always proven false are made. ie.Every time in history there has been statelessness a state has always arisen or moved in. There was competition for these too. It did not balance. One party always won for any given area. How can this be solved?

I'm not remotely claiming that having a state is good mind you. I'm claiming that not having one would be a short lived phenomena that is not sustainable. It also isn't even on the radar of things that could possibly happen before a societal collapse.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 27 August 2009 - 10:05 PM.

[JLL]

Here's some essays on private law:

http://www.lewrockwe.../molyneux1.html
http://mises.org/rot.../mes/chap13.asp
http://www.lewrockwe...molyneux16.html
http://mises.org/story/2542
http://mises.org/story/2497
http://mises.org/story/2265
http://mises.org/story/2701

Ok, I've read through the first two links, and skimmed a few more. I have found nothing that answers my question. It mostly just says how this system would be better for one reason after another and goes through some thought experiments on how various current government services could be supplied. It does not say how it could be started or how it could be sustained. Blanket assumptions that have throughout history always proven false are made. ie.Every time in history there has been statelessness a state has always arisen or moved in. There was competition for these too. It did not balance. One party always won for any given area. How can this be solved?

I'm not remotely claiming that having a state is good mind you. I'm claiming that not having one would be a short lived phenomena that is not sustainable. It also isn't even on the radar of things that could possibly happen before a societal collapse.

Is your question "how would private law work" or "how will we move from state-provided law to private law"?

Note also that if the assumption that anarchy among private law providers cannot last, then we are headed towards one world government. All the governments of the world are in anarchy in relation to each other.

If states -- monopolies on violence over a geographical area -- can be without a final arbitrator, why can't private companies providing the same services?

[Blue]

Here's some essays on private law:

http://www.lewrockwe.../molyneux1.html
http://mises.org/rot.../mes/chap13.asp
http://www.lewrockwe...molyneux16.html
http://mises.org/story/2542
http://mises.org/story/2497
http://mises.org/story/2265
http://mises.org/story/2701

Ok, I've read through the first two links, and skimmed a few more. I have found nothing that answers my question. It mostly just says how this system would be better for one reason after another and goes through some thought experiments on how various current government services could be supplied. It does not say how it could be started or how it could be sustained. Blanket assumptions that have throughout history always proven false are made. ie.Every time in history there has been statelessness a state has always arisen or moved in. There was competition for these too. It did not balance. One party always won for any given area. How can this be solved?

I'm not remotely claiming that having a state is good mind you. I'm claiming that not having one would be a short lived phenomena that is not sustainable. It also isn't even on the radar of things that could possibly happen before a societal collapse.

Is your question "how would private law work" or "how will we move from state-provided law to private law"?

Note also that if the assumption that anarchy among private law providers cannot last, then we are headed towards one world government. All the governments of the world are in anarchy in relation to each other.

If states -- monopolies on violence over a geographical area -- can be without a final arbitrator, why can't private companies providing the same services?

Most likely because military protection if a natural monopoly. Why explains why this supposedly fantastically good idea has never been seen in reality.

[captainbeefheart]

First, you are right regarding one point. Wages for low-income workers in the US has in recent decades grown very little while gdp/capita has continued to grown. But this is due to the competition from low paid workers in the developing world due to increasing globalization. But overall, the situation for the lowest paid has increased dramatically during the recent decades and they they have thus benefited from the economic growth. The percentage of the world population living on less than 1.25 dollar/day has halved since 1981.

You can find many statistics to make the developing world poverty look good or bad. Things have got cheaper and clearly, at least here in the west at the expense of others which doesn't seem right, the standards of living have improved. But not relative to profit and production. And also as I have said before this better standard of living is somewhat of an illusion because credit became very much easier to get hold of. People don't really own a house if they have a huge great mortgage on it, same with there car or expensive electronic equipment. Of course this great bubble exploded and caused a huge great mess!

Secondly, the situation for the world population is dramatically and quickly improving since the industrial and capitalist revolution. The current system is working while the socialist experiments, both forced and by enthusiastic volunteers, failed:

I'm not sure it's working, poverty outside the west in many parts of the world has increased. You simply move the problem around and around until you can't anymore i.e. the 'race to the bottom'.

I also think it's incorrect to say socialism has failed. As I said workers movements have always had to fight against the system to achieve things, it's hardly been given a fair crack at the whip to work. But we can look at examples of many socialised systems around the work which are vital and couldn't possible be achieved in the private sector because profit gets in the way of service.

Thirdly, you think that when the situation has improved for workers, this is due to unions or state legislation, not the free market. This obviously false for high-paid jobs such engineers whose wages do has increased dramatically in the US in recent decades. Similarly, the recent dramatic improvement for the world's poorest in the developing world is not explained by unions which are weak or nonexistant in these nations.

Yes they are and as we both agree since the weakening of union movements wages have stagnated against profit and production! Same with pensions etc. It's also about laying down the foundations. Look back at who got us many of the rights we take for granted even basic ones like laws against forcing kids to work 16 hour days, the weekend, minum wage, etc was all achieved from various union movements. the free market fought against them all the way.

fact that private companies can have any sort of power is because they can afford to bribe government officials. Remove the government from the equation, and what power do they have?

Absolute power! I really don't get how you don't see this. The Government is Tyranny, the Monarchy is Tyranny, and the Free market is Tyranny. All three give absolute power to a small group of people. Libertarians seem to get the first two but fail on the third, I really don't understand why.

You are afraid of monopolies, so you want a monopoly to protect against them. How logical.

Private monopolies, monopolies that are run and controlled by one or a few people I disagree with. They will do things in their interest, whereas if things are publicly owned it's in all are interests.

Right, so if the majority votes that they will kill the minority, that's fair in your opinion?

That's a bit of a silly example isn't it? I could equally say if you give privateers absolute power like you suggest is it ok if that individuals thinks it's ok to kill who they please? Or in fact a more sensible, actual example, if the boss decides to work his workers into the ground in dangerous conditions with no regulation they can get away with it...

and we get loonies like these guys: http://www.cracked.c...osses-all-time/

And how are services that are not profitable funded? Through taxation, which is nothing but theft.

Theft how, it goes to public services which we all benefit from. Even in a system like ours which we will privatise as much as possible there are still public services because many things can't make a profit, or would just be to unethical even in our system to not make sure everyone has access to.

Bosses steal from workers anyway. Workers see on average 1-10% of the profit of what they produce, and proportionality the poor pay more tax then the rich anyway as the rich can afford to use all the loopholes. Then huge wads of that tax goes to fighting wars in the interest of the rich at any rate, either to maintain free markets or to secure oil supplies!

[JLL]

Most likely because military protection if a natural monopoly. Why explains why this supposedly fantastically good idea has never been seen in reality.

How does that answer the question? If it's a natural monopoly, how can we have many states with their own military protection? Why is there not a one world government with a monopoly on violence over the entire earth?

[JLL]

Absolute power! I really don't get how you don't see this. The Government is Tyranny, the Monarchy is Tyranny, and the Free market is Tyranny. All three give absolute power to a small group of people. Libertarians seem to get the first two but fail on the third, I really don't understand why.

Define 'power'.

Private monopolies, monopolies that are run and controlled by one or a few people I disagree with. They will do things in their interest, whereas if things are publicly owned it's in all are interests.

Is the government publicly owned?

Right, so if the majority votes that they will kill the minority, that's fair in your opinion?

That's a bit of a silly example isn't it? I could equally say if you give privateers absolute power like you suggest is it ok if that individuals thinks it's ok to kill who they please? Or in fact a more sensible, actual example, if the boss decides to work his workers into the ground in dangerous conditions with no regulation they can get away with it...

You are avoiding the question. Besides, why is it okay for you to make statements like "libertarianism is tyranny, everyone would die if there was no state, corporations would just start killing people", but it's not okay for me to ask if majority decisions that involve killing the minority are bad?

You can choose the context in any way you like. If the majority of people is white, and they decide to kill the black minority, is it fair in your opinion? That's not even a silly example if you look at history.

Or you could imagine being on a boat with three starving people. Is it okay for two of them to decide to eat the third one?

This is a moral question and I'm interested in your answer. No Marxist bullshit, just a straight up answer.

and we get loonies like these guys: http://www.cracked.c...osses-all-time/

And how are services that are not profitable funded? Through taxation, which is nothing but theft.

Theft how, it goes to public services which we all benefit from.

Does something being theft or not depend on what the money is spent on? If I force you to give me your money but promise to spend it on charities, is it theft?

Bosses steal from workers anyway. Workers see on average 1-10% of the profit of what they produce, and proportionality the poor pay more tax then the rich anyway as the rich can afford to use all the loopholes. Then huge wads of that tax goes to fighting wars in the interest of the rich at any rate, either to maintain free markets or to secure oil supplies!

Is there force involved in the transaction between an employer and an employee? If not, how is it theft in your opinion?

In fact, I would very much like to hear your definition of theft before we continue any further.

[JLL]

I could equally say if you give privateers absolute power like you suggest is it ok if that individuals thinks it's ok to kill who they please?

I'm not suggesting giving absolute power to anyone (I bet we have differing definitions for 'power' anyway), but to answer your question, no, I don't think it's okay for anyone to kill who they please. Or if your question really is do I think it's okay for someone to THINK it's okay to kill someone, then my answer is yes, it's okay to think so - as long as that person doesn't act on his/her thoughts.

Or in fact a more sensible, actual example, if the boss decides to work his workers into the ground in dangerous conditions with no regulation they can get away with it...

I don't understand how this would work in practice -- how does a boss work his workers into the ground? Does he force them at gunpoint? Don't the workers have a right to quit? Or are they too stupid to quit?

If your question is "Is it okay for someone to run a company where there are no safety regulations and then attempt to hire people?" then my answer is yes, of course it is.

[captainbeefheart]

Define 'power'.

power |ˈpou(-ə)r|
noun
1 the ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality : the power of speech | [with infinitive ] the power to raise the dead | ( powers) his powers of concentration.
2 the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events : the idea that men should have power over women | she had me under her power.
• political or social authority or control, esp. that exercised by a government : the party had been in power for eight years | [as adj. ] a power struggle.
• a right or authority that is given or delegated to a person or body : police do not have the power to stop and search | emergency powers.
See note at jurisdiction .
• the military strength of a state : the sea power of Venice.
• a state or country, esp. one viewed in terms of its international influence and military strength : a great colonial power.
• a person or organization that is strong or influential within a particular context : he was a power in the university.
• a supernatural being, deity, or force : the powers of darkness.
• ( powers) (in traditional Christian angelology) the sixth highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy.
• [as adj. ] informal denoting something associated with people who hold authority and influence, esp. in the context of business or politics : a red power tie.

Is the government publicly owned?

The government as it stands is corrupt and only has the interests on the millionaires not the millions, so presently no. This is why I believe in revolution that comes from the bottom up through labour struggles. If we want a fair and equal society we must take it not be handed it.

You are avoiding the question. Besides, why is it okay for you to make statements like "libertarianism is tyranny, everyone would die if there was no state, corporations would just start killing people", but it's not okay for me to ask if majority decisions that involve killing the minority are bad?

You can choose the context in any way you like. If the majority of people is white, and they decide to kill the black minority, is it fair in your opinion? That's not even a silly example if you look at history.

Or you could imagine being on a boat with three starving people. Is it okay for two of them to decide to eat the third one?

This is a moral question and I'm interested in your answer. No Marxist bullshit, just a straight up answer.

It happened under a capitalist system, if you're referring to Hitler! And yes yes Hitlers party was called the national socialist party but any analysis of the Nazi system would tell you that it was based on the free market and national was in the title and nationalism and socialism are opposites, socialism is about internationalism. It was the Socialists that fought against Hitler, and along with the trade unionists were the first to be sent to the camps!

In regard to that happening under socialism then no. The very principals of socialism is that we're all equal, if enough people agreed and saw socialism working then there wouldn't be an occaiton for killing a minority. Socialists take a stand against fascism, and for LGBT rights all the time, it's illogical to think it would.

Personally I'm against the death penalty for anyone, be it Sadam Hussein, Goarge Bush, whoever.

Does something being theft or not depend on what the money is spent on? If I force you to give me your money but promise to spend it on charities, is it theft?

Is there force involved in the transaction between an employer and an employee? If not, how is it theft in your opinion?

In fact, I would very much like to hear your definition of theft before we continue any further.

There is a force yes, a person has to work, and if you don't own the means of your production you have to take what an employer is willing to pay, which for many is never enough to raise in society, some do but this is the minority and a bit of luck can go a long way!

In regards to tax in a moneyless system which would be the ultimate goal of society tax wouldn't play a part, we'd all get what we want and need. In regard to now as I said indivdules don't generate wealth. Value is attached to what we produce, how much, the quality, etc. We are all involved in producing stuff, yet only a small number of people get to see large sums from it. I believe most of the money is stolen from workers in the first place. Tax and public services make it slightly more fair. Under a capitalist definition of property you could call it theft but capitalism isn't a just, fair or ethical system to start with. So it doesn't bother me as crimes that matter have taken place for that so called theft to take place...

I don't understand how this would work in practice -- how does a boss work his workers into the ground? Does he force them at gunpoint? Don't the workers have a right to quit? Or are they too stupid to quit?

If your question is "Is it okay for someone to run a company where there are no safety regulations and then attempt to hire people?" then my answer is yes, of course it is.

Again, you need a job. If employers think they can get away with it they will (generally) pay the least they can and get the most time out of people. I.e. out sourcing to countries with less rules. If most employers do this what choice does a person have? You have to work, if you don't work you have no money for food and living space for you and your family.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 28 August 2009 - 01:25 PM.

[JLL]

Define 'power'.

I asked for your definition. Which of these applies to a libertarian world with corporations having "absolute power"? Is it "the powers of darkness"? Or perhaps "the sea power of Venice?"

In my mind, power is the ability to make people do something against their will.

It happened under a capitalist system, if you're referring to Hitler! And yes yes Hitlers party was called the national socialist party but any analysis of the Nazi system would tell you that it was based on the free market and national was in the title and nationalism and socialism are opposites, socialism is about internationalism. It was the Socialists that fought against Hitler, and along with the trade unionists were the first to be sent to the camps!

Okay, well I'm not even going to argue against this, you are so gravely mistaken. EVERYTHING was controlled in the Nazi system.

Here's a quote from Mises:

"The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a free market means...

In regard to that happening under socialism then no. The very principals of socialism is that we're all equal, if enough people agreed and saw socialism working then there wouldn't be an occaiton for killing a minority. Socialists take a stand against fascism, and for LGBT rights all the time, it's illogical to think it would.

Right, so then you don't really believe in killing people just because the majority says it's okay.

But you do believe that the majority can force people to pay taxes, for example. Therefore, you believe that the majority is correct in deciding when to use violence and when not to.

This is a contradiction. Either the majority has absolute power or it doesn't. Democracy is the argument that "might is right". Here you're saying that the majority is right whenever you agree with it, but what happens when you're in the minority? How will argue against them? You can't have it both ways.

Does something being theft or not depend on what the money is spent on? If I force you to give me your money but promise to spend it on charities, is it theft?

^ You didn't answer this one. Again, nothing to do with socialism/capitalism or whatever the hell it is we live under, just a very basic question about what you believe in.

There is a force yes, a person has to work

Says who? Is there someone out there forcing people to work against their will?

Perhaps you mean that 'nature' somehow 'forces' people to work, because food doesn't fall from the sky. In which case any arguments about employers 'forcing' people to work are invalidated, because the fact that food doesn't fall from the sky cannot in any way be their fault.

In regard to now as I said indivdules don't generate wealth.

Then who does?

Under a capitalist definition of property you could call it theft

Great, so then we agree that you are a proponent of theft (in some cases), whereas I'm not. That explains a lot.

Again, you need a job. If employers think they can get away with it they will (generally) pay the least they can and get the most time out of people. I.e. out sourcing to countries with less rules.

Of course, just like employees will demand as much pay as they can and work as little as they can if they think they can get away with it. Or do you see people actively turning down raises and demanding that they be allowed to work more than 40 hours per week?

You have to work, if you don't work you have no money for food and living space for you and your family.

Ah, there you go. You think it's everyone else's responsibility to give you money, food, and living space for your family.

What happens when other people demand the same from you?

[captainbeefheart]

I asked for your definition. Which of these applies to a libertarian world with corporations having "absolute power"? Is it "the powers of darkness"? Or perhaps "the sea power of Venice?"

In my mind, power is the ability to make people do something against their will.

The ones that own the means of production have the power. If the current government owns this then the government have power, if you allow private property a few individual will have power, if it's publicly owned we all have power.

Okay, well I'm not even going to argue against this, you are so gravely mistaken. EVERYTHING was controlled in the Nazi system.

Here's a quote from Mises:

"The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a free market means...

I wasn't calling it a unregulated capitalist country. It did have private ownership, and it was also in the racial interest rather then talking about class interest, so it was inherently anti socialist.

Right, so then you don't really believe in killing people just because the majority says it's okay.

But you do believe that the majority can force people to pay taxes, for example. Therefore, you believe that the majority is correct in deciding when to use violence and when not to.

This is a contradiction. Either the majority has absolute power or it doesn't. Democracy is the argument that "might is right". Here you're saying that the majority is right whenever you agree with it, but what happens when you're in the minority? How will argue against them? You can't have it both ways.

Again you're arguing this from the point of view of the system we live under. Forcing people to pay more tax shouldn't be an issue, as people shouldn't have more then others in the first place, as the the boss stole it from the worker in the first place. Property is theft.

I don't think I'm having it both ways because a principal of socialism is each to his ability each to his need. If someone is doing all they can within a system then they shouldn't be punished for it.

I'm optimistic that when we eliminate class from society that will remove much of the other social problems in society, greed, crime, hatred etc. These are systematic of the system we live in.

You didn't answer this one. Again, nothing to do with socialism/capitalism or whatever the hell it is we live under, just a very basic question about what you believe in.

I did answer it, the point was null and void because from a Marxist perspective the worker is stolen from and denied what is there's before tax comes into it. It would be like saying you stole my wallet then I forcefully took it back from you, did I steal my own wallet back?

Great, so then we agree that you are a proponent of theft (in some cases), whereas I'm not. That explains a lot.

...ok? Isn't that obvious, I don't agree with capitalism, I think it's evil and causes huge suffering. Under Capitalism great injustice and theft takes place legally. Clearly you have a different idea of theft then me either because your not from the same class (so you put your classes interests first) or you're not class conscious.

Of course, just like employees will demand as much pay as they can and work as little as they can if they think they can get away with it. Or do you see people actively turning down raises and demanding that they be allowed to work more than 40 hours per week?

But individually as a worker, unless they organise they have little to bargain with so will come out of the descion worse off then the boss. An this also highlights the ineffienacy of the system. It forces one to try and do the least they can for the most money.

Ah, there you go. You think it's everyone else's responsibility to give you money, food, and living space for your family.

What happens when other people demand the same from you?

...no I think we all put into the society so we should get are fair share back. Most don't get there fair share back. I think you miss my point about wage slaves, and the means of production. i suggest you do some background reading.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 28 August 2009 - 03:37 PM.

[Blue]

Most likely because military protection if a natural monopoly. Why explains why this supposedly fantastically good idea has never been seen in reality.

How does that answer the question? If it's a natural monopoly, how can we have many states with their own military protection? Why is there not a one world government with a monopoly on violence over the entire earth?

Natural monopolies, like for example water services, means a de facto monopoly over a certain area, not the whole world. See the wikipedia article.

[JLL]

Found this funny:

http://democracysuck...-to-the-market/

[Blue]

First, you are right regarding one point. Wages for low-income workers in the US has in recent decades grown very little while gdp/capita has continued to grown. But this is due to the competition from low paid workers in the developing world due to increasing globalization. But overall, the situation for the lowest paid has increased dramatically during the recent decades and they they have thus benefited from the economic growth. The percentage of the world population living on less than 1.25 dollar/day has halved since 1981.
http://en.wikipedia....y_1981-2009.GIF

You can find many statistics to make the developing world poverty look good or bad. Things have got cheaper and clearly, at least here in the west at the expense of others which doesn't seem right, the standards of living have improved. But not relative to profit and production. And also as I have said before this better standard of living is somewhat of an illusion because credit became very much easier to get hold of. People don't really own a house if they have a huge great mortgage on it, same with there car or expensive electronic equipment. Of course this great bubble exploded and caused a huge great mess!

Secondly, the situation for the world population is dramatically and quickly improving since the industrial and capitalist revolution. The current system is working while the socialist experiments, both forced and by enthusiastic volunteers, failed:
http://www.boston.co...l_of_good_news/

I'm not sure it's working, poverty outside the west in many parts of the world has increased. You simply move the problem around and around until you can't anymore i.e. the 'race to the bottom'.

I also think it's incorrect to say socialism has failed. As I said workers movements have always had to fight against the system to achieve things, it's hardly been given a fair crack at the whip to work. But we can look at examples of many socialised systems around the work which are vital and couldn't possible be achieved in the private sector because profit gets in the way of service.

Thirdly, you think that when the situation has improved for workers, this is due to unions or state legislation, not the free market. This obviously false for high-paid jobs such engineers whose wages do has increased dramatically in the US in recent decades. Similarly, the recent dramatic improvement for the world's poorest in the developing world is not explained by unions which are weak or nonexistant in these nations.

Yes they are and as we both agree since the weakening of union movements wages have stagnated against profit and production! Same with pensions etc. It's also about laying down the foundations. Look back at who got us many of the rights we take for granted even basic ones like laws against forcing kids to work 16 hour days, the weekend, minum wage, etc was all achieved from various union movements. the free market fought against them all the way.

Please provide the statistics you claim shows that the developing world is going in the wrong direction and that poverty has increased. I have provided numerous showing the opposite. You have still not have explained have worker groups such as engineers have increased their wages without unions.

[JLL]

Natural monopolies, like for example water services, means a de facto monopoly over a certain area, not the whole world. See the wikipedia article.

I think you're missing the point. I asked:

"If states -- monopolies on violence over a geographical area -- can be without a final arbitrator, why can't private companies providing the same services?"

And you said:

"Most likely because military protection if a natural monopoly. Why explains why this supposedly fantastically good idea has never been seen in reality."

But states are really not natural monopolies, though they are monopolies. A natural monopoly is not one where people are forced at gunpoint to pay for services (see the Wikipedia article if you disagree).

Further, state vs. state situations do not have an absolute arbitrator; hence, states exist in anarchy in relation to each other, despite the fact that they are monopolies over a given geographical area.

How is this different from private defense companies, other than the fact that they would be funded voluntarily instead of through taxation?

[JLL]

By the way, water services in most countries are not natural monopolies, but state-granted monopolies...

[JLL]

people shouldn't have more then others in the first place

So if there are twins, all alone on this planet, and both of them have a farm (no capitalist slave workers though), and one is hard-working and the other one is lazy, and their harvests match the amount of work they put into it, that's wrong? The one with more carrots should give some of his carrots to his twin?

As the the boss stole it from the worker in the first place.

So if my friend starts a farm and needs a helper, and agrees to pay me $5 an hour for work, and I gladly accept, there is theft going on? You would tell me that I don't know what's best for me?

Property is theft.

Now that may be the single most absurd thing I've heard all week.

If I pick a fruit from a tree on no man's land, is that fruit my property? Did I steal it?

I'm optimistic that when we eliminate class from society that will remove much of the other social problems in society, greed, crime, hatred etc. These are systematic of the system we live in.

No, these are evolutionary traits.

[Blue]

Natural monopolies, like for example water services, means a de facto monopoly over a certain area, not the whole world. See the wikipedia article.

I think you're missing the point. I asked:

"If states -- monopolies on violence over a geographical area -- can be without a final arbitrator, why can't private companies providing the same services?"

And you said:

"Most likely because military protection if a natural monopoly. Why explains why this supposedly fantastically good idea has never been seen in reality."

But states are really not natural monopolies, though they are monopolies. A natural monopoly is not one where people are forced at gunpoint to pay for services (see the Wikipedia article if you disagree).

Further, state vs. state situations do not have an absolute arbitrator; hence, states exist in anarchy in relation to each other, despite the fact that they are monopolies over a given geographical area.

How is this different from private defense companies, other than the fact that they would be funded voluntarily instead of through taxation?

My point is that whenver there has been anarchy it has quickly been replaced by de facto states controlling military protection in certain areas. This is likely because military protection is a natural monopoly. Once the proto-states achieve this natural monopoly they use their monopoly to limit competition, as monopolies usually try to do, and outlaw the competition in their controlled area, becoming de jure states. You have not explained how this process can be avoided.

There are nations were water services are private natural monopolies. Other examples include electicity or gas transmission. Usually you have only the following choices: pay or refuse until someone with a gun ultimately shows up threatening you with some punishment or move to another provider. How is this different from being forced to move from an area if you dislike the military protection provider? How is this more "voluntary"? You have the just the same choices regardless of if the provider of the natural monopoly is private or a state.

Edited by Blue, 28 August 2009 - 04:53 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Is your question "how would private law work" or "how will we move from state-provided law to private law"?

what he said

Once the proto-states achieve this natural monopoly they use their monopoly to limit competition, as monopolies usually try to do, and outlaw the competition in their controlled area, becoming de jure states. You have not explained how this process can be avoided.

You have the just the same choices regardless of if the provider of the natural monopoly is private or a state.

indeed the distinction between a private party and a state becomes muddy as a private party acquires more power and said party uses this power to force involuntary actions in others. How do you prevent this from arising in your system (otherwise all you have is a system like any other system that once initiated invariably leads to decreasing freedom. If you have this answer you have found the holy grail of human organization which has never been achieved, I care nothing for intellectual exercises in idealism with no pragmatic applications.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 28 August 2009 - 05:29 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

So if there are twins, all alone on this planet, and both of them have a farm (no capitalist slave workers though), and one is hard-working and the other one is lazy, and their harvests match the amount of work they put into it, that's wrong? The one with more carrots should give some of his carrots to his twin?

How is this relevant in the slightest?

Now that may be the single most absurd thing I've heard all week.

So if my friend starts a farm and needs a helper, and agrees to pay me $5 an hour for work, and I gladly accept, there is theft going on? You would tell me that I don't know what's best for me?

Well yes, it's irrelevant as to whether you're happy to accept it, you have no choice, this job for five dollars or a different jobs for five dollars, if you don't have any capital or property to start with. That's kind of the point people are born into there social class and largely stay within it.

If I pick a fruit from a tree on no man's land, is that fruit my property? Did I steal it?

I don't think you get it...

Please provide the statistics you claim shows that the developing world is going in the wrong direction and that poverty has increased. I have provided numerous showing the opposite.

Lies lies and damn statistics

You have still not have explained have worker groups such as engineers have increased their wages without unions.

As I mentioned engineers would have benefited from the foundation unions have laid, why so transfixed on engeers at any rate? I could list many industries that have benefited with union help, more then your...one that hasn't, supposedly.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 28 August 2009 - 05:50 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

principal of socialism is each to his ability each to his need.

there really is no way to have a discussion with this level of wanton ignorance. Why would people in your system be stupid enough to even try to exercise whatever ability they might posses if they cannot by definition, profit from it (hint, we know the answer already, they wouldn't). It is contrary to human nature, and it is contrary to evolution as it cripples the fittest and elevates the least fit. If this were instituted on a global scale the way you envision it the end result could only be the decline of our species