'Anarcho'-Capitalists: Why Property Rights Over Human Rights?
Mike Schneider
> In equality is not a product of capitalism, inequality is a fact of
> life. You'd seek to change this, but you can't.
Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
preventing the wise from speaking; 2. a hypocritical malignity who
conceals a nihilism borne of jealousy with hysteria; 3. a thief elected
by the unable to loot the able and distribute the spoils; 4. a common
lout who believes he can achieve greatness by stealing a great man's
possessions; 5. the attitude of the fox, after being denied the grapes
(re "Aesop's Fables").
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/links.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"Blood! Boobs! Swords! Snakes!"--fwfr.com four word film review of "Conan"
The Dunn Family
are entirely accurate, they might not have passively allowed socialists
to kill them as they rose to power.
Smiley
> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
> preventing the wise from speaking;
The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
into savagery. If leftists were truly about compassion and care and
providing for the starving and sick they would have no problem with church's
involvement. They claim this would be mixing church and state, starting
from the premise that it is the government's duty to care for the "needy".
Thus revealing their true agenda to take wealth out of the hands of
individuals and give it to those incapable of creating it, to level everyone
off to the bottom rung so that there are no threats.
xofpi
Schneider says...
>
>In article <apMgPcC=RAmQBDaPwo...@4ax.com>, John T. Kennedy
>
>> In equality is not a product of capitalism, inequality is a fact of
>> life. You'd seek to change this, but you can't.
>
>
>Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
>they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
>foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
>preventing the wise from speaking; 2. a hypocritical malignity who
>conceals a nihilism borne of jealousy with hysteria; 3. a thief elected
>by the unable to loot the able and distribute the spoils; 4. a common
>lout who believes he can achieve greatness by stealing a great man's
>possessions; 5. the attitude of the fox, after being denied the grapes
>(re "Aesop's Fables").
From a legitimate anarchist-libertarian Website, the actual anarchist
libertarian definition of "socialism":
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp001631.html
"Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers
democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a
definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such
means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and
awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than
passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers
themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and
only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state,
be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of
"socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political
con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token
adjustments for bearability."
Note that "anarcho"-capitalists object to the worker's democratic
ownership/control of the means of production precisely because it is, (in theory
at least, since it has not been allowed to actually *be* in practice),
*democratic*. These so-called "anarchists" would rather invest all authority
over the means of production in a single manager/owner or oligarchy--i.e., not
change the structure of authority at all except to get rid of any vestige of
democratic counterweight to it. And then they'll lie about what they're opposed
to, pretending that *they* are the guardians of liberty!
The key to the difference between real libertarian-anarchism and
proprietarianism (the proper name for "anarcho-captialism") hinges on the
question of authority vs. freedom. Proprietarians deny it--or are in denial
about it--but their system is based on the same mystical sources for authority
as feudalism and royalism. The proprietarian wants to sacralize heredity as a
rational basis for ownership rights. They claim that property is a "natural
right," but in effect their system endorses the same discredited system of
aristocracy and hereditary divine right that the Enlightenment threw over and
the American founders--at least the leftists among them--thought they had
banished for good.
Socialism is egalitarian, but not in the way the phony proprietarians claim.
Socialism is against the exploitation of humans by other humans, and its cure
for this ill is to empower the powerless the only way societies can hope to
empower each other--economically and politically--which means democratizing the
economic and political systems. Oddly enough, some proprietarians I have argued
with in the last couple of weeks have complained bitterly about unions and
government "profitting at someone else's expense." Don't they see the irony of
this position?! Of course not, because they aren't truly interested in ridding
the world of a system that rewards profit at others' expense. Indeed they
fantasize about getting rewarded by the same system some day. But in order to
profit themselves from the system, it's not enough for them to preserve native
inequalities of talent, etc., (which no system can ever hope to get rid of), but
to maintain the institutionalized inequalities that real anarchists oppose.
xofpi
>
>Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
>> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
>> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
>> preventing the wise from speaking;
>
>The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
>unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
>level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
>savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
>intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
>turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
>potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
>You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
>put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
>into savagery.
Red herring alert: no one that I know of, except for characters is a Kurt
Vonnegut story, has ever argued for equalizing people according to their
talents. The issue is not native inequalities, which no person has control over
(though give capitalists in the genetic engineering sector time), but
institutionalized inequalities, which *can* be changed for justice's sake.
>If leftists were truly about compassion and care and
>providing for the starving and sick they would have no problem with church's
>involvement.
An objectivist defending the church?!
They claim this would be mixing church and state, starting
>from the premise that it is the government's duty to care for the "needy".
Strawman alert: Show me one citation from a leftist who argues that there's no
role for the church in caring for the needy. The church-state controversy is not
over the church's involvement in care for the needy, it's in the state's funds
going to pay for evangelizing missions, which violates the establishment clause
of the First Amendment.
>Thus revealing their true agenda to take wealth out of the hands of
>individuals and give it to those incapable of creating it, to level everyone
>off to the bottom rung so that there are no threats.
What do you mean no threats? Aren't the wealthy the ones who are threatened?
xofpi
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>We are in the midst of negotiating treaties with First Nation's people.
>They have not ceded title to their lands in the last 200 years. I wonder
>how the Anarchos would define THEIR property rights.
>
>MW
I read somewhere recently that proprietarians consider the taking of property
through war as legitimate if the other side can be said to have "inititiated
force." Thus, because the governments of England, Holland, Spain, etc., were
"legitimate" ca 1492 and because their wars against the peoples who were in the
Americas were allegedly waged to protect the safety of their citizens against
marauding redskins, the appropriation of lands in the Americas were "just," and
all exchanges over property since then have been "just." (Whereas taxation is
"unjust"--even though taxation merely pays for the system that legitimizes
private property in the first place.)
The Baron
news:fAiW8.27411$15....@www.newsranger.com...
It would be more accurate to say that each individual has the knowledge of
what his or her own
freedom means and only the individual should be able to decide what is best
for himself or herself. I don't want "the workers" or any group deciding
how I should best live my life.
> Advocates of the state,
> be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of
> "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political
> con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token
> adjustments for bearability."
It's not just that they have defined it that way--that is what it has in
practice been!
> Note that "anarcho"-capitalists object to the worker's democratic
> ownership/control of the means of production precisely because it is, (in
theory
> at least, since it has not been allowed to actually *be* in practice),
> *democratic*.
Not true. In an anarcho-capitalist system, workers or anyone else would be
able set up whatever organizations they want to control their means of
production--They just wouldn't be able to force everyone else to belong to
those organizations.
> These so-called "anarchists" would rather invest all authority
> over the means of production in a single manager/owner or oligarchy--i.e.,
not
> change the structure of authority at all except to get rid of any vestige
of
> democratic counterweight to it. And then they'll lie about what they're
opposed
> to, pretending that *they* are the guardians of liberty!
Well, I'd say they would be better guardians of liberty than socialists, who
tend to lie about or obscure their aim of *forcing* everyone to submit to
their system. Even the anarcho-socialists seem to avoid the issue.
...
John Graeme
> In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...
> >
> >Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
> >> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
> >> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
> >> preventing the wise from speaking;
> >
> >The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
> >unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
> >level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
> >savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
> >intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
> >turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
> >potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
> >You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
> >put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
> >into savagery.
>
>
>
>
> Red herring alert: no one that I know of, except for characters is a Kurt
> Vonnegut story, has ever argued for equalizing people according to their
> talents. The issue is not native inequalities, which no person has control over
> (though give capitalists in the genetic engineering sector time), but
> institutionalized inequalities, which *can* be changed for justice's sake.
Ah, but does it make sense to change all inequalities if it results in
an overall loss in material terms and freedom? Is is better for
everyone to have an income of $10,000 a year or for nearly everyone to
have an income much higher than that, even if it means that some will
have an income hundreds of times that of others?
Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
do what the majority decides?
xofpi
says...
>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<EMiW8.27413$15....@www.newsranger.com>...
>> In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...
>> >
>> >Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
>> >> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
>> >> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
>> >> preventing the wise from speaking;
>> >
>> >The subjective mentality seeks to level off life, to make it static,
>> >unchanging. But you cannot equalize humans by dragging everyone up to the
>> >level of the elite, only by shoving everyone down to the level of the
>> >savage. Not everyone is capable of greatness; they lack the talent,
>> >intelligence, and mentality. However, everyone is capable of going down, of
>> >turning off their minds, leaving talents undeveloped, not fulfilling their
>> >potential. They can be convinced, fooled, and forced into the lowest level.
>> >You cannot convince someone of low intelligence to be of high. You cannot
>> >put a gun to the head of a savage and get genius, but you can beat a genius
>> >into savagery.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Red herring alert: no one that I know of, except for characters is a Kurt
>> Vonnegut story, has ever argued for equalizing people according to their
>> talents. The issue is not native inequalities, which no person has control over
>> (though give capitalists in the genetic engineering sector time), but
>> institutionalized inequalities, which *can* be changed for justice's sake.
>
>
>Ah, but does it make sense to change all inequalities if it results in
>an overall loss in material terms and freedom?
Who said anything about changing *all* inequalities? Isn't it possible to
effect changes that will distribute resources more equitably, which will
increase liberty overall for most people, without causing the harms you imagine?
There are certain people who have access to more resources than they could
possibly know what to do with while many millions more can barely feed
themselves. Why not create the conditions for a world in which this imbalance of
needs is put in greater balance? How can this present kind of inequality be
morally justified?
Is is better for
>everyone to have an income of $10,000 a year or for nearly everyone to
>have an income much higher than that, even if it means that some will
>have an income hundreds of times that of others?
According to real anarchists, everyone in a society should be able to have their
basic needs met. No one should starve. No child should be deprived of health
care and decent education just because his parents are poor. Everyone should
have shelter. Equality means equal access to the resources that meet basic
needs. Everything beyond that is gravy--and is permitted. The only thing that is
not permitted is exploitation of other people for the purposes of personal
profit, which is the heart and soul of capitalism. This is why
"anarcho"-capitalists are oxymorons, so to speak.
>Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
>main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to distribute
resources more equally.
>Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
>do what the majority decides?
You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any more
oppressive than the rule of the few?
John Graeme
> In article <787f8b2d.02070...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme
> says...
> >
> >xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<EMiW8.27413$15....@www.newsranger.com>...
> >> In article <1026081334.3341@savina>, Smiley says...
> >> >
> >> >Socialist: 1. one who believes all persons are or should be equal when
> >> >> they are not and cannot be; if unable to enrich the poor or educate the
> >> >> foolish, the socialist will settle for impoverishing the wealthy and
> >> >> preventing the wise from speaking;
> >> >
> Is is better for
> >everyone to have an income of $10,000 a year or for nearly everyone to
> >have an income much higher than that, even if it means that some will
> >have an income hundreds of times that of others?
>
>
>
> According to real anarchists, everyone in a society should be able to have their
> basic needs met. No one should starve. No child should be deprived of health
> care and decent education just because his parents are poor. Everyone should
> have shelter. Equality means equal access to the resources that meet basic
> needs. Everything beyond that is gravy--and is permitted. The only thing that is
> not permitted is exploitation of other people for the purposes of personal
> profit, which is the heart and soul of capitalism. This is why
> "anarcho"-capitalists are oxymorons, so to speak.
I don't see how the left-anarchists can co-opt the word that way--By
definition, an anarchist is someone who wants no government (and
that's from the anarchist theory FAQ). The anarcho-capitalists do not
say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>
>
> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to distribute
> resources more equally.
Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
than others.
> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
> >do what the majority decides?
>
>
> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any more
> oppressive than the rule of the few?
Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
agreements with others that they choose?
xofpi
I'll bet that was Bryan Caplan's "anarchist" FAQ, right? Well real anarchists
object to Caplan's dictionary definition on the basis of the fact that
anarchism--real anarchism--has been opposed not just to *government* but to
*arbitrary authority* from its beginnings in the Romantic era after the French
Revolution. This makes it squarely anti-capitalist.
The anarcho-capitalists do not
>say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
>excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
>reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
>right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
>> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>>
>>
>> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to distribute
>> resources more equally.
>
>
>Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>than others.
Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
>> >do what the majority decides?
>>
>>
>> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any more
>> oppressive than the rule of the few?
>
>
>Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
>themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
>agreements with others that they choose?
If you want capitalism, someone has to rule. You can have anarchy and you can
have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
self-contradiction.
Bill Christensen
Exploitation of other people for economic profit is not allowed? Who are you
to stop it? That sounds like arbitrary authority to me.
> The anarcho-capitalists do not
> >say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
> >excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
> >reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
> >right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
>
>
>
> I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>
>
>
>
> >> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
> >> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
> >>
> >>
> >> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to
distribute
> >> resources more equally.
> >
> >
> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
> >than others.
>
>
> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
It is.
> >> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
> >> >do what the majority decides?
> >>
> >>
> >> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any
more
> >> oppressive than the rule of the few?
It's not, who is advocating the rule of the few?
> >
> >Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
> >themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
> >agreements with others that they choose?
>
>
>
> If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
?You can have anarchy and you can
> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
> self-contradiction.
No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?
xofpi
And you're complaining about the possibility that teenagers might have fun at
your expense? But it's allright if a system requires people to work for another
person's profit just so they can eat and feed their families?
>> The anarcho-capitalists do not
>> >say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
>> >excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
>> >reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
>> >right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is the
>> >> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to
>distribute
>> >> resources more equally.
>> >
>> >
>> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>> >than others.
>>
>>
>> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>
>It is.
All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting even one?
>> >> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has to
>> >> >do what the majority decides?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority any
>more
>> >> oppressive than the rule of the few?
>
>It's not, who is advocating the rule of the few?
You are. See below.
>> >
>> >Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
>> >themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
>> >agreements with others that they choose?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
See above. My point exactly. Why is one person's rule more reliable than the
majority's rule?
>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
First of all, it's not "my" anarchy. It's *real* anarchy, as it has been defined
since its inception in the 19th and 20th centuries. In real anarchy, there is no
property, which requires a controlling legal authority, but there is a
recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is *immoral*
rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any kind in
real anarchy).
I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a necessary
evil.
>?You can have anarchy and you can
>> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
>> self-contradiction.
>
> No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?
I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property, which
requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it. Anarchy is by
definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal authorities
of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
"anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they shoud
properly be called, are not anarchists.
Care to explain your point of view that it is not a self-contradiction?
Bill Christensen
Sure, if they choose to do so. Why does your arbitrary decision over the
choices of others create anarchism?
You are a kook. You respond to your own sentence as if you made a point!
See this sentence below? That was my response to your sentence above.
>
> >Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
> >property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
having
> >a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
>
> First of all, it's not "my" anarchy. It's *real* anarchy, as it has been
defined
> since its inception in the 19th and 20th centuries. In real anarchy, there
is no
> property, which requires a controlling legal authority
I've already explained this to you, it does not require a controlling legal
authority.
>, but there is a
> recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is
*immoral*
> rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any
kind in
> real anarchy).
And capitalism only requires "recognition of possession" to use your
definitions.
> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
necessary
> evil.
Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
> >?You can have anarchy and you can
> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
> >> self-contradiction.
> >
> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?
>
>
> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
you call it.
>which
> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it does
not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
second premise, take your choice.
> Anarchy is by
> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
authorities
> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
shoud
> properly be called, are not anarchists.
It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
> Care to explain your point of view that it is not a self-contradiction?
I just did.
xofpi
>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:e9YW8.27755$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3d2bc816$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:hoMW8.27674$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> >> In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John
>Graeme
>
>> >> >I don't see how the left-anarchists can co-opt the word that way--By
>> >> >definition, an anarchist is someone who wants no government (and
>> >> >that's from the anarchist theory FAQ).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet that was Bryan Caplan's "anarchist" FAQ, right? Well real
>anarchi
>> >sts
>> >> object to Caplan's dictionary definition on the basis of the fact that
>> >> anarchism--real anarchism--has been opposed not just to *government*
>but
>> >to
>> >> *arbitrary authority* from its beginnings in the Romantic era after the
>> >French
>> >> Revolution. This makes it squarely anti-capitalist.
>> >
>> >Exploitation of other people for economic profit is not allowed? Who are
>you
>> >to stop it? That sounds like arbitrary authority to me.
>>
>>
>> And you're complaining about the possibility that teenagers might have fun
>at
>> your expense? But it's allright if a system requires people to work for
>another
>> person's profit just so they can eat and feed their families?
>
>Sure, if they choose to do so. Why does your arbitrary decision over the
>choices of others create anarchism?
If people choose to act out master-slave relationships becasue both parties come
to their roles by free choice and not out of economic compulsion, there's
absolutely no harm in it. But if one comes to a dominated position, not by free
choice but out of economic necessity, that results in harm. Right "libertarians"
call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a system that
benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
>> >> The anarcho-capitalists do not
>> >> >say that anarcho-syndicalist or other types of organizations should be
>> >> >excluded from the setup they propose--From what I've read, and keep
>> >> >reading, it is most of the left-anarchists who think they know the one
>> >> >right way and want to exclude all other types of organizations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet you keep reading phony right-wing pseudo "anarchists".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >Even if it means that it stifles technological progress, which is
>the
>> >> >> >main means by which people's lives are improved overall?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People's lives overall are not improved if there is no mechanism to
>> >distribute
>> >> >> resources more equally.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>> >> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>> >> >than others.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>> >
>> >It is.
>>
>>
>> All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting even
>one?
Well?
>> >> >> >Even if it means that overall freedom is lost because everyone has
>to
>> >> >> >do what the majority decides?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You overly simplify democracy, but why is the rule of the majority
>any
>> >more
>> >> >> oppressive than the rule of the few?
>> >
>> >It's not, who is advocating the rule of the few?
>>
>>
>> You are. See below.
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >Why does *anyone* have to rule? Why can't each person choose for
>> >> >themselves how to live their lives and enter into whatever voluntary
>> >> >agreements with others that they choose?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>
>>
>> See above. My point exactly. Why is one person's rule more reliable than
>the
>> majority's rule?
>
>You are a kook. You respond to your own sentence as if you made a point!
Guilty as charged.
>
>See this sentence below? That was my response to your sentence above.
>
>>
>> >Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>> >property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
>having
>> >a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>
>>
>> First of all, it's not "my" anarchy. It's *real* anarchy, as it has been
>defined
>> since its inception in the 19th and 20th centuries. In real anarchy, there
>is no
>> property, which requires a controlling legal authority
>
>I've already explained this to you, it does not require a controlling legal
>authority.
You have not explained this to me. Where did you "explain" this?
>>, but there is a
>> recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is
>*immoral*
>> rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any
>kind in
>> real anarchy).
>
>And capitalism only requires "recognition of possession" to use your
>definitions.
The difference between possession and private property, in real anarchism, is
the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that what a person
uses, a person possesses. This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own* them. Thus,
in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>
>> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
>necessary
>> evil.
>
>Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You call it
"anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state capitalism"
and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
"capitalist"?
>> >?You can have anarchy and you can
>> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
>> >> self-contradiction.
>> >
>> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with another?
>>
>>
>> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
>
>How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
>you call it.
No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on *title*.
Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of one's
property. Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
>>which
>> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
>
>Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it does
>not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
>controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
>needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
>second premise, take your choice.
The problem you will run into is when you try to rent property you don't live
on, or loan money or any other item expecting a profitable return for doing so.
If there's no controlling legal authority, why should anyone pay you for what
you don't use? Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own the
building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize that if
there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
>> Anarchy is by
>> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
>authorities
>> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
>> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
>shoud
>> properly be called, are not anarchists.
>
>It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
>would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your claim to
your property is pure smoke. Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from you,
who's to stop them? Why should anyone stop them?
chris.holt
> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...
>>In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme
>>>Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>>>boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>>>than others.
>>Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
> It is.
You might want to recheck your statistics; there are a lot of
countries (and people within countries, which is just as important)
that are worse off than 20 years ago by just about any measure.
There are a variety of reasons, rich countries subsidizing agriculture
being a major one.
>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Bill Christensen
Now are you going to arbitrarily determine who is harmed? Your version of
anarchism sure has a lot of arbitrary authority.
> Right "libertarians"
> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a system
that
> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to do
anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
wish.
[Snip]
> >> >> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
> >> >> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some
more
> >> >> >than others.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
> >> >
> >> >It is.
> >>
> >>
> >> All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting
even
> >one?
>
>
> Well?
Here's an example of India's growth
http://www.indiaonestop.com/gnp.htm
Different thread where you made the same claim, about two weeks ago.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=christensen+xofpi&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=
3d15eee6%241_2%40nopics.sjc&rnum=1
> >>, but there is a
> >> recognition of possession. One's body is one's possession, so rape is
> >*immoral*
> >> rather than illegal (there are no controlling legal authorities of any
> >kind in
> >> real anarchy).
> >
> >And capitalism only requires "recognition of possession" to use your
> >definitions.
> The difference between possession and private property, in real anarchism,
is
> the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that what a
person
> uses, a person possesses.
So if I am at work, others can use my house at will? My car is free for the
taking while I am not driving it?
>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own* them.
Thus,
> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
So all "unused" things are up for grabs?
> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
> >necessary
> >> evil.
> >
> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
call it
> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
capitalism"
> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
> "capitalist"?
If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I believe
in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.
> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
> >> >> self-contradiction.
> >> >
> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
another?
> >>
> >>
> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
> >
> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
> >you call it.
>
>
> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
*title*.
> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
one's
> property.
Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of production.
>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property that
they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument rather
than simply asserting.
> >>which
> >> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
> >
> >Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it
does
> >not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
> >controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
> >needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
> >second premise, take your choice.
>
>
>
> The problem you will run into is when you try to rent property you don't
live
> on, or loan money or any other item expecting a profitable return for
doing so.
> If there's no controlling legal authority, why should anyone pay you for
what
> you don't use?
Because they recognize my ownership of it and I will not let them use it if
they don't.
>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
the
> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize that
if
> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
> >> Anarchy is by
> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
> >authorities
> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
> >shoud
> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
> >
> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
>
>
> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your claim
to
> your property is pure smoke.
No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help. Since
most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.
>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
you,
> who's to stop them?
Me, my neighbors, etc.
>Why should anyone stop them?
In order to keep their property also. I recognize theirs, they recognize
mine. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. If someone was stealing your
neighbor's bike, would you do anything to stop it?
xofpi
Right "libertarianism" values freedom to associate as one wishes without
compulsion to associate with anyone one doesn't want to associate with, right?
So does it result in harm to liberty, on this view, if an "anarcho"-capitalist
is compelled to serve in the military during wartime? After all, it's not really
*his* war he's being compelled to fight, is it? This unfree association could
even get him killed. On the other hand, he gets room and board, and if he isn't
killed, he may even get a college education, free health care and a housing loan
when the Big One is done.
This, in my view, is almost exactly analogous to the worker-boss relationship.
The only reason the worker is in it is that the system makes food and living
very expensive. You are compelled to sell your labors to someone who is going to
profit at your expense if you want to live. The buyer of labor is exploiting
your *compulsion* to sell your labor.
This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't get
it. Then I realize that you guys think capitalism *has to be.* You guys think
that working so you can shelter yourself and your family is a "natural" state of
affairs, don't you? Well, it isn't. This state of affairs has only been around
for a few hundred years.
>> Right "libertarians"
>> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a system
>that
>> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
>> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
>
>If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to do
>anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
>wish.
If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for self-sufficiency or
self-employment, *you* might have a point.
>[Snip]
>
>> >> >> >Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>> >> >> >boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some
>more
>> >> >> >than others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>> >> >
>> >> >It is.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All boats in the Third World? Where's your evidence that it's lifting
>even
>> >one?
>>
>>
>> Well?
>
>Here's an example of India's growth
>http://www.indiaonestop.com/gnp.htm
http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html
That is so non-anarchist! You possess your domicile, in real anarchy, and
whatever you use *habitually*. God! Do you think real anarchists are as
literal-minded as you are?!
>>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
>> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own* them.
>Thus,
>> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>
>So all "unused" things are up for grabs?
Why, would you run around looking for a coal mine or a mansion to start using
and possessing?
>> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
>> >necessary
>> >> evil.
>> >
>> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
>
>> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
>call it
>> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
>capitalism"
>> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
>> "capitalist"?
>
>If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I believe
>in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.
So what is the boss if not a ruler?
>> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
>> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is a
>> >> >> self-contradiction.
>> >> >
>> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
>another?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
>> >
>> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession" as
>> >you call it.
>>
>>
>> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
>*title*.
>> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
>one's
>> property.
>
>Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of production.
So you would do away with interest and rents?
>>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
>
>Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property that
>they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument rather
>than simply asserting.
So you would do away with interest and rents?
>> >>which
>> >> requires a controlling legal authority to legitimize it.
>> >
>> >Only because you define it that way. If you define property as I do, it
>does
>> >not require a controlling legal authority; if you define it as needing a
>> >controlling legal authority then capitalism doesn't need property it only
>> >needs recognized possessions. Therefore you logic fails at your first or
>> >second premise, take your choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem you will run into is when you try to rent property you don't
>live
>> on, or loan money or any other item expecting a profitable return for
>doing so.
>> If there's no controlling legal authority, why should anyone pay you for
>what
>> you don't use?
>
>Because they recognize my ownership of it and I will not let them use it if
>they don't.
I don't see why they should recognize your property. They could easily outforce
you, kill you and keep the property for themselves. Maybe they'll even hire some
Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
>>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
>> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
>the
>> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize that
>if
>> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
>
>Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
They might be willing to level your place and just build something fresh on top
of its ashes.
>> >> Anarchy is by
>> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
>> >authorities
>> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
>> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as they
>> >shoud
>> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
>> >
>> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those who
>> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
>>
>>
>> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your claim
>to
>> your property is pure smoke.
>
>No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help. Since
>most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.
What do you mean without the government's help? You mean just because you don't
pay taxes on it?
>>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
>> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
>you,
>> who's to stop them?
>
>Me, my neighbors, etc.
Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want your
property for themselves.
>>Why should anyone stop them?
>
>In order to keep their property also. I recognize theirs, they recognize
>mine. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. If someone was stealing your
>neighbor's bike, would you do anything to stop it?
If you live in close quarters with a postage stamp-sized lawn, I don't think
your property, or possession, as it were, is in danger of being ripped out of
your hands. Unless you owe a lot of back taxes and/or mortgage on it.
xofpi
>
>Bill Christensen wrote:
>> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...
>>>In article <787f8b2d.0207...@posting.google.com>, John Graeme
>
>>>>Technological progress is usually the rising tide that lifts all
>>>>boats. Overall, everyone has benefited from it--to be sure, some more
>>>>than others.
>
>>>Why isn't it lifting boats in the Third World?
>
>> It is.
>
>You might want to recheck your statistics; there are a lot of
>countries (and people within countries, which is just as important)
>that are worse off than 20 years ago by just about any measure.
>There are a variety of reasons, rich countries subsidizing agriculture
>being a major one.
That's one of the points the WTO itself makes in this unusually, scathingly
self-critical paper on the failure of liberalization policies in the Third
World:
http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html
Bill Christensen
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3D2C7DF0...@ncl.ac.uk...
The same way it is done today, they fight it out. Today it is done many
times through courts so I would expect that under anarchism it would be done
through arbitration. But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property and
morals precede government.
Bill Christensen
Most definitely.
> After all, it's not really
> *his* war he's being compelled to fight, is it? This unfree association
could
> even get him killed. On the other hand, he gets room and board, and if he
isn't
> killed, he may even get a college education, free health care and a
housing loan
> when the Big One is done.
You're right, compulsory military service is evil.
> This, in my view, is almost exactly analogous to the worker-boss
relationship.
> The only reason the worker is in it is that the system makes food and
living
> very expensive. You are compelled to sell your labors to someone who is
going to
> profit at your expense if you want to live. The buyer of labor is
exploiting
> your *compulsion* to sell your labor.
You are not compelled to sell your labors to someone else, you can be self
employed or self sufficient. People do it every day.
> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
get
> it.
Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
done it twice in my life so far.
>Then I realize that you guys think capitalism *has to be.* You guys think
> that working so you can shelter yourself and your family is a "natural"
state of
> affairs, don't you? Well, it isn't. This state of affairs has only been
around
> for a few hundred years.
What, did manna fall from heaven? Or are you talking about not working for
others, in other words being self sufficient? That is still an option.
> >> Right "libertarians"
> >> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a
system
> >that
> >> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
> >> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
> >
> >If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to
do
> >anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
> >wish.
>
>
>
> If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for
self-sufficiency or
> self-employment, *you* might have a point.
They do. A measly couple of acres are all that is needed for self
sufficiency, and even less is required for self employment. You obviously
have a computer, you could be self employed tomorrow if you wanted to be.
They should be. If you think that people won't respect your property rights
in an apartment building, then why would they respect them in your house?
> >>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
> >> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own*
them.
> >Thus,
> >> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
> >
> >So all "unused" things are up for grabs?
>
>
>
>
> Why, would you run around looking for a coal mine or a mansion to start
using
> and possessing?
I wouldn't because I understand and respect property. You are the one
claiming that government is needed to secure property.
> >> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
> >> >necessary
> >> >> evil.
> >> >
> >> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
> >
> >> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
> >call it
> >> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
> >capitalism"
> >> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
> >> "capitalist"?
> >
> >If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I
believe
> >in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.
>
>
> So what is the boss if not a ruler?
He is only the ruler over his possessions just as I would presumably be the
ruler over my house in your form of anarchy. He is not the ruler over others
as those others aren't forced to associate with him.
>
> >> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
> >> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is
a
> >> >> >> self-contradiction.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
> >another?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
> >> >
> >> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession"
as
> >> >you call it.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
> >*title*.
> >> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
> >one's
> >> property.
> >
> >Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of
production.
>
>
> So you would do away with interest and rents?
No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.
>
> >>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
> >
> >Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property
that
> >they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument
rather
> >than simply asserting.
>
>
> So you would do away with interest and rents?
No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.
No they couldn't. My neighbors would help me protect it as I would help them
protect theirs. And if property were that easy to steal, then he would have
to worry about being killed himself for the property.
>Maybe they'll even hire some
> Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
>
> >>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
> >> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
> >the
> >> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize
that
> >if
> >> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
> >
> >Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
>
>
> They might be willing to level your place and just build something fresh
on top
> of its ashes.
And what is to keep their place from being levelled the day they finish it?
People have an incentive to recognize property, and it is inherent in us.
>
> >> >> Anarchy is by
> >> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
> >> >authorities
> >> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
> >> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as
they
> >> >shoud
> >> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
> >> >
> >> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those
who
> >> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
> >>
> >>
> >> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your
claim
> >to
> >> your property is pure smoke.
> >
> >No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help.
Since
> >most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.
>
>
> What do you mean without the government's help? You mean just because you
don't
> pay taxes on it?
No, I mean that other people recognize it because it is mine, not because
the government says it is mine.
> >>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
> >> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
> >you,
> >> who's to stop them?
> >
> >Me, my neighbors, etc.
>
> Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want your
> property for themselves.
Then theirs is insecure also.
xofpi
xofpi
>
>
Government clearly precedes property. Possession, as I have talked about it, has
been around as long as we have been around, and government has been around as
long as humans have had language and communities. But private property is a much
more recent phenomenon.
Billy Beck
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Bill Christensen wrote:
>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>
>> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
none of your business.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
xofpi
But the people who do it are those who have resources to do it. Many people do
not.
>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
>get
>> it.
>
>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>done it twice in my life so far.
This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no resources,
who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not interested in
forming their own business.
Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for
you? If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor force?
Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire. You
can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your eyes.
I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you compensate
for it.
>>Then I realize that you guys think capitalism *has to be.* You guys think
>> that working so you can shelter yourself and your family is a "natural"
>state of
>> affairs, don't you? Well, it isn't. This state of affairs has only been
>around
>> for a few hundred years.
>
>What, did manna fall from heaven? Or are you talking about not working for
>others, in other words being self sufficient? That is still an option.
Let's compare working for shelter in this society and in a "primitive" society.
In this society, most likely you buy (which really means finance, for most
people) or rent shelter that already exists. All the labor to construct it has
been done; you just move into your home. While you may tinker with improvements
or alterations to your shelter, you don't have to labor to actually produce it.
But very, very few people own their shelter outright. Most of us have to make
monthly payments, either to a landlord or a bank, in order to remain living
where we live. Most of us do not have deep pockets that allow us to make these
payments on demand with no labor at all; we *have* to sell something we own or
produce--for the vast majority, what we sell is our labor--in order to afford
just the space we live in. Most of us work at least 37 hours a week, many work
as much as twice that much.
In primitive societies, you labor a few hours to produce the home and it is
yours. Case closed.
>> >> Right "libertarians"
>> >> call it "initiation of force," though they don't recognize that a
>system
>> >that
>> >> benefits some more than others yet compels everyone to play by these
>> >> asymmetrical rules, may, by being compulsory, be considered "force."
>> >
>> >If it were compulsory, you may have a point. Nobody is being compelled to
>do
>> >anything, they can easily become self sufficient or self employed if they
>> >wish.
>>
>>
>>
>> If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for
>self-sufficiency or
>> self-employment, *you* might have a point.
>
>They do. A measly couple of acres are all that is needed for self
>sufficiency, and even less is required for self employment. You obviously
>have a computer, you could be self employed tomorrow if you wanted to be.
Don't be like that jackass whose name I can't remember who thought all my
efforts were to mask misplaced whining about my lot. I'm relatively comfortable
and mostly happy with my life as it is. This has been a very good year for me in
a lot of ways. So this train of thought represented by this thread is not about
me, and it's not about you, and it's not about that jackass whose name I forget
(Matt something, I think). It's about the (ill)logic and (super)nature of your
system.
<snip>
>> >> The difference between possession and private property, in real
>anarchism,
>> >is
>> >> the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that what
>a
>> >person
>> >> uses, a person possesses.
>> >
>> >So if I am at work, others can use my house at will? My car is free for
>the
>> >taking while I am not driving it?
>>
>>
>> That is so non-anarchist! You possess your domicile, in real anarchy, and
>> whatever you use *habitually*. God! Do you think real anarchists are as
>> literal-minded as you are?!
>
>They should be. If you think that people won't respect your property rights
>in an apartment building, then why would they respect them in your house?
In real anarchy there are no property rights.
>> >>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
>> >> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own*
>them.
>> >Thus,
>> >> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>> >
>> >So all "unused" things are up for grabs?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why, would you run around looking for a coal mine or a mansion to start
>using
>> and possessing?
>
>I wouldn't because I understand and respect property. You are the one
>claiming that government is needed to secure property.
In real anarchy, there would be no property rights.
>> >> >> I am not an anarchist. I believe, pace Paine, that government is a
>> >> >necessary
>> >> >> evil.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why are you trying to tell us what we believe?
>> >
>> >> I'm telling you that what you believe is not what you think it is. You
>> >call it
>> >> "anarchy," but this is like a communist saying he believes in "state
>> >capitalism"
>> >> and is therefore a "capitalist." Would you call such a communist a a
>> >> "capitalist"?
>> >
>> >If he believes in the private ownership of capital, yes; likewise I
>believe
>> >in "no ruler" therefore I am an anarchist.
>>
>>
>> So what is the boss if not a ruler?
>
>He is only the ruler over his possessions just as I would presumably be the
>ruler over my house in your form of anarchy. He is not the ruler over others
>as those others aren't forced to associate with him.
Is he or is he not *the law* on his property or in his business, once the
contract is signed, in your system of proprietarianism? Does a worker who
refuses to do something that he claims is not in the contract have any rights
other than to leave the job, even if it's a tight job market and he will most
likely be out of work for some time if he does so? From what I understand, in
proprietarianism, it's the workers tough luck--but of course none of you can
bear to paint the picture so darkly.
>>
>> >> >> >?You can have anarchy and you can
>> >> >> >> have capitalism, but you cannot have "anarcho"-capitalism. It is
>a
>> >> >> >> self-contradiction.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No it's not. See how easy it is to follow your assertion with
>> >another?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've explained the self-contradiction: capitalism requires property,
>> >> >
>> >> >How does it require property, it only requires "recognized possession"
>as
>> >> >you call it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, because, as I explained above, possession is based on *use*, not on
>> >*title*.
>> >> Capitalism doesn't work without usury--charging others for the use of
>> >one's
>> >> property.
>> >
>> >Sure it does, it only requires private ownership of the means of
>production.
>>
>>
>> So you would do away with interest and rents?
>
>No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
>of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.
And you would not object to someone charging exorbitant interest and rents, as
long as someone's sucker enough to pay for them, even if it means that others
may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible hand's
law of the land?
>
>>
>> >>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
>> >
>> >Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the property
>that
>> >they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument
>rather
>> >than simply asserting.
>>
>>
>> So you would do away with interest and rents?
>
>No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the use
>of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.
And you would not object to someone charging exorbitant interest and rents, as
long as someone's sucker enough to pay for them, even if it means that others
may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible hand's
law of the land?
We're not talking about a he; we're talking about a syndicate that looks at your
neighborhood and sees gold, a syndicate that has not had any success in getting
you and your neighbors to sell to them. A syndicate that has a professional
defense force, some biological weapons, and no fear of government or a pitchfork
brigade to get what it feels it must have.
>>Maybe they'll even hire some
>> Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
>>
>
>> >>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
>> >> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you own
>> >the
>> >> building they actually live in and use. But why should they recognize
>that
>> >if
>> >> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
>> >
>> >Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
>>
>>
>> They might be willing to level your place and just build something fresh
>on top
>> of its ashes.
>
>And what is to keep their place from being levelled the day they finish it?
>People have an incentive to recognize property, and it is inherent in us.
This is a syndicate with a professional defense force.
>>
>> >> >> Anarchy is by
>> >> >> definition anti-capitalist because it is against controlling legal
>> >> >authorities
>> >> >> of any kind. Private law, which is the legalistic crutch of
>> >> >> "anarcho"-capitalists, is a dead giveaway that proprietarians, as
>they
>> >> >shoud
>> >> >> properly be called, are not anarchists.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is not a crutch, it is a prediction of what might happen for those
>who
>> >> >would choose to purchase defense rather than perform their own.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But you can't deal with the basic fact that without government, your
>claim
>> >to
>> >> your property is pure smoke.
>> >
>> >No it's not. I claim a lot of property without the government's help.
>Since
>> >most people recognize my claim, I have few problems.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean without the government's help? You mean just because you
>don't
>> pay taxes on it?
>
>No, I mean that other people recognize it because it is mine, not because
>the government says it is mine.
Easy for you to say in a system that relies on the government's word over who
owns what. If your neighbor claims a favorite tree on the border of your
properties is his, how do you resolve the issue? What if he will not take no for
an answer?
>> >>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
>> >> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it from
>> >you,
>> >> who's to stop them?
>> >
>> >Me, my neighbors, etc.
>>
>> Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want your
>> property for themselves.
>
>Then theirs is insecure also.
You better hope they agree with you!
xofpi
Assume he does, Einstein. (Freakin' question dodger!)
Bill Christensen
Sure they do.
>
> >> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians
can't
> >get
> >> it.
> >
> >Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start
your
> >own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
> >done it twice in my life so far.
>
>
> This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
> economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no
resources,
> who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk,
Sure it is. Do you think that all businesses need credit?
>or who is just plain not interested in
> forming their own business.
You are claiming that people are compelled because they prefer it over the
alternative? I'm compelled to eat steak because I don't want to eat chicken.
> Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work
for
> you?
Not yet.
>If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor force?
> Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
> consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to
hire.
Sure it does, everyone can be self employed. Some of these self employed
people might even choose to contract out to others.
>You
> can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change
the fact
> that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were
just
> dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you
don't
> work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't
clothe
> yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
And they don't like the risk of being self employed or self sufficient. They
are insuring themselves against that risk by working for someone else who
can give them a steady income.
> It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you
all
> have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your
own
> rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
> struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your
eyes.
> I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you
compensate
> for it.
>
I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to work for
others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for others,
thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for others unless
you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work for
others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not being
allowed to make them.
A few hours? You can live in a shack today if you want, that you chose a
home that you can't afford is your own problem.
I'm using you for example purposes only.
> <snip>
>
>
> >> >> The difference between possession and private property, in real
> >anarchism,
> >> >is
> >> >> the difference between use and usury. Real anarchists believe that
what
> >a
> >> >person
> >> >> uses, a person possesses.
> >> >
> >> >So if I am at work, others can use my house at will? My car is free
for
> >the
> >> >taking while I am not driving it?
> >>
> >>
> >> That is so non-anarchist! You possess your domicile, in real anarchy,
and
> >> whatever you use *habitually*. God! Do you think real anarchists are as
> >> literal-minded as you are?!
> >
> >They should be. If you think that people won't respect your property
rights
> >in an apartment building, then why would they respect them in your house?
>
>
> In real anarchy there are no property rights.
Property rights are inherent to humans.
But I'll play along, let me rephrase:
They should be. If you think that people won't respect your possession of an
apartment building, then why would they respect your possession of your
house?
No, the worker is free to leave.
> Does a worker who
> refuses to do something that he claims is not in the contract have any
rights
> other than to leave the job,
There, you just admitted that he can leave. Therefore it is a position of
mutual consent, no ruler.
>even if it's a tight job market and he will most
> likely be out of work for some time if he does so? From what I understand,
in
> proprietarianism, it's the workers tough luck--but of course none of you
can
> bear to paint the picture so darkly.
Of course it is his tough luck, just as it is the employers tough luck if
the job goes unfilled. If someone wants to end his portion of an exchange,
the other party is not required to perform their portion.
It's none of my business.
> even if it means that others
> may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible
hand's
> law of the land?
They may follow suit, but that just leaves the door open for competition.
> >>
> >> >>Anarchism doesn't work *with* usury.
> >> >
> >> >Sure it does, as long as people are not barred from owning the
property
> >that
> >> >they are renting, there is no ruler. You need to make your argument
> >rather
> >> >than simply asserting.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you would do away with interest and rents?
> >
> >No, if someone owns something and someone else wants to pay him for the
use
> >of it, who am I to stop it? That wouldn't be very anarchist of me.
>
>
> And you would not object to someone charging exorbitant interest and
rents, as
> long as someone's sucker enough to pay for them, even if it means that
others
> may follow suit and exorbitant rents and interest become the invisible
hand's
> law of the land?
Ditto above
Then I am SOL, aren't I? No difference with a government or not.
>
> >>Maybe they'll even hire some
> >> Canadian snipers so you won't even know what's coming.
> >>
> >
> >> >>Who's to say "your" apartment building is "your" apartment
> >> >> buidling? Everything is fine if everyone kindly recognizes that you
own
> >> >the
> >> >> building they actually live in and use. But why should they
recognize
> >that
> >> >if
> >> >> there's no state or other authority to compel them to?
> >> >
> >> >Because they wouldn't get in the front door without recognizing it.
> >>
> >>
> >> They might be willing to level your place and just build something
fresh
> >on top
> >> of its ashes.
> >
> >And what is to keep their place from being levelled the day they finish
it?
> >People have an incentive to recognize property, and it is inherent in us.
>
>
>
> This is a syndicate with a professional defense force.
And again, you have thugs that steal property with government also.
It depends on what he wants to do with the tree. Matters such as this could
end up in a fight just as they do today with government. Many times it is
settled with a court battle to avoid bloodshed, so I would expect that in
anarchy we would go to an arbitrator to avoid bloodshed.
>
> >> >>Yes you can defend your property with arms if you
> >> >> want to, but if someone comes along with bigger arms and takes it
from
> >> >you,
> >> >> who's to stop them?
> >> >
> >> >Me, my neighbors, etc.
> >>
> >> Why would your neighbors necessarily be on your side? Maybe they want
your
> >> property for themselves.
> >
> >Then theirs is insecure also.
>
>
> You better hope they agree with you!
If you steal my stuff, why wouldn't I steal yours?
Bill Christensen
> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property and
> >morals precede government.
> Government clearly precedes property.
Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
property given to us by our creator.
"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
Property." - Locke
Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists government.
I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property to
mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.
Steven Canyon
Answer: You work it out. If you need to know more, try and take
something of mine.....
....or hurt someone I care about.
--Ace
Steven Canyon
Bullshit. Anybody can do it if they are industrious enough. You
lefties are just to lazy and fearful of failure.
>
>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
>>get
>>> it.
>>
>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>>done it twice in my life so far.
>
>
>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
>economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no resources,
>who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not interested in
>forming their own business.
Many people came here from viet nam after the war with zero resources
and built successful business in a very short time.
>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for
>you? If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor force?
>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.
<chuckle> Any old argument you can come up with huh? If there was a
shortage of laborers the demand for laborers would go up and the pay
would then go up and voila........
>You
>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>
>It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
>have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
>rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
>struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your eyes.
>I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you compensate
>for it.
>
It's amazing how lefties will scratch and dig in the dirt for any
argument to support their need for a communalistic society that
doesn't require them to take the risks that they so fear....
I wonder how many grown lefties still live with their mommas...
--Ace
xofpi
>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>[Snip]
>
>> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
>> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property and
>> >morals precede government.
>
>> Government clearly precedes property.
>
>Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
>property given to us by our creator.
Prove it.
>"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
>putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
>Property." - Locke
>
>Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists government.
>I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property to
>mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.
And what precisely is that?
Bill Christensen
> In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >
> >
> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> >> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property
and
> >> >morals precede government.
> >
> >> Government clearly precedes property.
> >
> >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
> >property given to us by our creator.
>
>
> Prove it.
>
It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
from a lion.
>
> >"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
> >putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
> >Property." - Locke
> >
> >Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists
government.
> >I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property
to
> >mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.
>
>
>
> And what precisely is that?
An owned item. What you call "recognized possession"
xofpi
I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not as free in
capitalism as you claim, especially not working people. Last night I was reading
Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would probably
never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read it?
Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis, and I don't
know whether or not he's a socialist, but I don't think that disqualifies him
from having a worthwhile and penetrating perspective on capitalism. So last
night, while I was reading this critique, I came upon the following quote:
"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
Why does this basic inequality of **freedom** escape right "libertarians?
Brian T. Wolf
news:3d2da11e$1...@nopics.sjc...
>
> "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > >[Snip]
> > >
> > >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
> > >property given to us by our creator.
> >
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
>
> It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
> from a lion.
>
I am interested in both sides of this discussion; although it is getting a
bit tedious to read - not your fault, just the nature of the net.
Anyway I just wanted to chime in on this point: Just because someone (or
something) is willing to fight for what they have does not prove that they
have an "inherent right" to that property. Are you saying "might makes
right"?
If I kill the lion I get her steak, but if she kills me she gets it back.
Obviously that is true, but is it relevant?
-Brian
xofpi
>
>
>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>> >[Snip]
>> >
>> >> >But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
>> >> >commonly recognized system of property and moral principles? Property
>and
>> >> >morals precede government.
>> >
>> >> Government clearly precedes property.
>> >
>> >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right to
>> >property given to us by our creator.
>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>
>It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
>from a lion.
It's interesting that you pick the lion as an example. In lion society, it's the
lioness who almost always captures the meat. But she gives up the *lion's share*
before she consumes what's left over. If anything *is* left over.
If you think this information is a nonsequitur, imagine how I felt when I read
yours!
>> >"The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and
>> >putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their
>> >Property." - Locke
>> >
>> >Clearly Locke would have agreed with me that property preexists
>government.
>> >I've had enough of using your definitions, I will use the term property
>to
>> >mean what it means, and what it has meant for centuries.
>>
>>
>>
>> And what precisely is that?
>
>An owned item. What you call "recognized possession"
So the air you breathe is your property while its in your lungs? Or by "owned"
are you referring to something you have title to?
xofpi
>
>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <21upiucb757jrs01a...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...
>
>>>"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>>>
>>>>> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>>> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>>>>> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>>>
>>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>>>
>>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>>>none of your business.
>
>>Assume he does, Einstein.
>
>
> If you have that kind of a problem, then you go solve it. Don't
>try to bill me for it.
Dodge and dodge again.
Assume it's your problem. How do you deal with it?
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote ...
>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
>>
> having
>
>>>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
> The same way it is done today, they fight it out.
That's effectively an abdication of moral principle, and gives
you no comeback if anyone more powerful than you takes whatever
they want of yours. It effectively legitimizes rape (in answer
to your question).
> Today it is done many
> times through courts so I would expect that under anarchism it would be done
> through arbitration.
Why would you expect that? Courts depend on a commonly
recognized system of property, enforced by an empowered
government. In densely populated areas (as opposed to
Iceland) it is relatively easy to cheat anonymously, and
many people do so. Keeping that number to a manageable
level is difficult at the best of times.
> But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> commonly recognized system of property and moral principles?
Because right now, there are many disagreements about systems
of property and moral principles; and even with the current
supposed consensus, people are willing to fight and kill over
these disagreements.
> Property and morals precede government.
For some value of 'precede' that also says chickens
precede eggs. I'm not saying that any of these are
necessary or sufficient for any other; I'm just saying
that viewing these things in terms of a logical
hierarchy where there is a notion of precedence doesn't
actually help you understand any of them.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
Billy Beck
xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <21upiucb757jrs01a...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...
>>"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>>
>>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>>>
>>>> Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>> property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>>>> a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>>>
>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>>
>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>>none of your business.
>Assume he does, Einstein.
Why should I? It's none of *my* business.
If you have that kind of a problem, then you go solve it. Don't
try to bill me for it.
chris.holt
On the one hand, suppose I think I have a direct interest, but
others disagree (consider the old situation of a wife who wanted
her husband to spend some of his wages on food for her and her
children, as opposed to blowing it all on drink and gambling).
On the other hand, you're effectively dismissing the case for
third party intervention, e.g. stopping an act of aggression
that happens to be going on as you walk down the street.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
xofpi
>
>
>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.
>
>
>>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
>
> ...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
>might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
>let your ignorance get in your doddering way.
The quote you snipped was from actual capitalist economics:
"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
Billy Beck
xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.
Well, that's what you "think", and...
>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
>Last night I was reading Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism,"...
...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
let your ignorance get in your doddering way.
xofpi
says...
>
>>>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>
> >> I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to work for
> >> others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for others,
> >> thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for others unless
> >> you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
> >> employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work for
> >> others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not being
> >> allowed to make them.
>
> xofpi> a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not as free in
>
>I do not think so. It depends on supply and demand. Not so long
>ago, a good programmer had a huge "advantage" over employers. Now
>that is not so.
But usually, for most laborers or employees, the employer usually has more
freedom, no? As a rule.
> xofpi> capitalism as you claim, especially not working people. Last night I was reading
> xofpi> Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would probably
> xofpi> never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read it?
> xofpi> Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis, and I don't
> xofpi> know whether or not he's a socialist, but I don't think that disqualifies him
> xofpi> from having a worthwhile and penetrating perspective on capitalism. So last
> xofpi> night, while I was reading this critique, I came upon the following quote:
>
>
>--
>Andrew Hall
>(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
Bill Christensen
Let me try again: property is an item that you control and defend. Title
just means that your ownership is recognized by others.
Bill Christensen
> Bill Christensen wrote:
> > "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote ...
> >>Bill Christensen wrote:
> >>>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote...
>
> >>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>
> >>>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over
their
> >>>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers
> >>
> > having
> >
> >>>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
> >>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
> >>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>
> > The same way it is done today, they fight it out.
>
> That's effectively an abdication of moral principle, and gives
> you no comeback if anyone more powerful than you takes whatever
> they want of yours. It effectively legitimizes rape (in answer
> to your question).
Not really, I asked why you thought that there wouldn't be a recognized
system of property and moral principles. I believe that there would be one.
> > Today it is done many
> > times through courts so I would expect that under anarchism it would be
done
> > through arbitration.
>
> Why would you expect that? Courts depend on a commonly
> recognized system of property, enforced by an empowered
> government. In densely populated areas (as opposed to
> Iceland) it is relatively easy to cheat anonymously, and
> many people do so. Keeping that number to a manageable
> level is difficult at the best of times.
>
> > But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
> > commonly recognized system of property and moral principles?
>
> Because right now, there are many disagreements about systems
> of property and moral principles; and even with the current
> supposed consensus, people are willing to fight and kill over
> these disagreements.
Where are there disagreements about systems of property and moral
principles? I think that if you took two people and plunked them down in an
uninhabited place, they would recognize property virtually the same as we
do, and would have virtually the same morals, at least as they relate to
inalienable rights.
> > Property and morals precede government.
>
> For some value of 'precede' that also says chickens
> precede eggs.
Off topic but, eggs obviously precede chickens, eggs existed before any
birds did. The first chicken came from an egg that was laid by a biological
ancestor of the chicken.
>I'm not saying that any of these are
> necessary or sufficient for any other; I'm just saying
> that viewing these things in terms of a logical
> hierarchy where there is a notion of precedence doesn't
> actually help you understand any of them.
Sure, but when one defines property as needing a controlling legal
authority, ie government; and the other believes that governments were
instituted to protect property, we obviously have differing definitions of
the word property.
Bill Christensen
Accepted by socialists.
>People are not as free in
> capitalism as you claim, especially not working people. Last night I was
reading
> Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would
probably
> never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read
it?
No.
> Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis, and I
don't
> know whether or not he's a socialist, but I don't think that disqualifies
him
> from having a worthwhile and penetrating perspective on capitalism. So
last
> night, while I was reading this critique, I came upon the following quote:
>
> "Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and
scarce
> any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as
necessary
> to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so
immediate."
How have we subsisted for millions of years before the industrial revolution
then?
Bill Christensen
"Brian T. Wolf" <noe...@nodomain.com> wrote in message
news:3d2db...@nopics.sjc...
> "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3d2da11e$1...@nopics.sjc...
> >
> > "xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > news:PVgX8.28374$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > > In article <3d2d253f$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:fm6X8.28332$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> > > >> In article <3d2ce62b$1...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> > > >[Snip]
>
> > > >
> > > >Only because *you* define it that way. People have an inherent right
to
> > > >property given to us by our creator.
> > >
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> > >
> >
> > It's self evident. But if you don't believe me try taking some meat away
> > from a lion.
> >
> I am interested in both sides of this discussion; although it is getting a
> bit tedious to read - not your fault, just the nature of the net.
> Anyway I just wanted to chime in on this point: Just because someone (or
> something) is willing to fight for what they have does not prove that they
> have an "inherent right" to that property.
I am not saying that they have an inherent right to *that* property, I am
saying that they have an inherent right to property. We don't have the right
to own any particular item, we do have the right to own. My belief is that
the right to property is inherent in us, we are born with it; and as an
example I show that animals understand property, they use and defend it.
Many animals will respect other's property rights, a large dog will leave
the property of a smaller dog for example.
Are you saying "might makes
> right"?
No, but doesn't it really come down to that in the end? When people go to
court to settle a dispute, aren't they merely trying to get the might of the
government to take their side in the case?
> If I kill the lion I get her steak, but if she kills me she gets it back.
> Obviously that is true, but is it relevant?
Usually property fights in the animal kingdom do not come down to killing,
they fight until one gives up its claim. That is what happens with humans
also, but we usually fight it out in court.
Billy Beck
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>>Bill Christensen wrote:
>
>>>>>If you want capitalism, someone has to rule.
>
>>>>Only over their own property. In your anarchy, do people rule over their
>>>>property? Can I get a good night sleep without some random teenagers having
>>>>a party in my house? Do they own their bodies? Is rape legal?
>
>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>
>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>> none of your business.
>
>On the one hand, suppose I think I have a direct interest, but
>others disagree (consider the old situation of a wife who wanted
>her husband to spend some of his wages on food for her and her
>children, as opposed to blowing it all on drink and gambling).
>On the other hand, you're effectively dismissing the case for
>third party intervention, e.g. stopping an act of aggression
>that happens to be going on as you walk down the street.
Try to understand the essence of my position here, Chris: I
reserve the right to make up *my own mind* about any given case of
dispute. Now, you might not find that completely satisfying, it might
not light you up with a nice glowy feeling of social solidarity, but
it's a natural fact of human existence: values (the things for whcih
they act) are individually personal things, and some people think for
themselves in order to judge values. That's just the way it is. It's
a fact of reality. It has lots of implications, and they generally
run out from the context of any given situation. You've posed two
situations, above. Fine: have at 'em, if you want to, and knock
yourself out. You are not competent, however, to go around enforcing
*other* peoples' participation in the project, nor is anyone at work
in resolving their dispute obliged to explain it to *you*.
The issue here is about the right of reservation. "I don't want
to get involved." That's what freedom is all about: the right to
decide for oneself. And you might think someone else's decision is
unwise in any given circumstance, but that's about all you can say
about it.
Dana
> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >
> >
> >"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:F97X8.28336$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>
> >>You
> >> can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change
> >the fact
> >> that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were
> >just
> >> dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you
> >don't
> >> work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't
> >clothe
> >> yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
Well their labor is their property, so when they work they have property
which is needed for all the above that you cite.
No not at all.
>People are not as free in
> capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
They sure are.
> Last night I was reading
> Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism," which I would
probably
> never have read if it hadn't been for this discussion. Have you ever read
it?
> Admittedly, Heilbroner seems highly influenced by Marxian analysis,
Ah yes, good old marx, lets kill off the middle class and the rich.
Anything written by Marx is suspect.
Dana
Sounds just like marxist propaganda.
Dana
Dana
<ah...@no-spam-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodn0sy...@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> >>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>
> >> I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to
work for
> >> others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for
others,
> >> thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for
others unless
> >> you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
> >> employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work
for
> >> others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not
being
> >> allowed to make them.
>
> xofpi> I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis
that labor is at
> xofpi> a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not
as free in
>
> I do not think so. It depends on supply and demand. Not so long
> ago, a good programmer had a huge "advantage" over employers. Now
> that is not so.
Depends on what you can program.
robert parker
Capitalist do not refer to a worker as a
servant. Nor do capitalist workers refer to a
employers as a master.
Truthfully few employers could subsist for a
week if there were no sales for the product.
Indeed the employer sometimes goes broke, because
of poor performance by employees. And the employer
has a lot more to lose than the employees, many
times everything he has worked for is collateral
for loans to operate the business, including the
wages to the workers.
Establish a socialist utopia, where no one HAS
to work, soon there will be nothing to supply
their needs. Then out comes the whips and the
forced labor. Bottom line most people will have to
work in order to produce the needs Try to get a
few thousand volunteers to harvest potatoes,
tomatoes, beans, feed chickens,gather eggs,
slaughter cows and hogs, work in canneries. Try to
get the A/C repairman to come to your house and
fix your unit in 100 degree weather.
Billy Beck
xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <8bgriugjlibpivbkk...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...
>>>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>>>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.
>>
>> Well, that's what you "think", and...
>>
>>>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
>>>Last night I was reading Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism,"...
>>
>> ...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
>>might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
>>let your ignorance get in your doddering way.
>The quote you snipped was from actual capitalist economics:
*Bullshit*.
xofpi
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
Book I, Chapter VIII
Of the Wages of Labour
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html#B.I,%20Ch.8,%20Of%20the%20Wages%20of%20Labour
"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon
all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other
into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can
combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not
prohibit their combinations,*10 while it prohibits those of the workmen.*11 We
have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but
many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold
out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant,
though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two
upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist
a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In
the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to
him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free
Woodard R. Springstube
news:6_qX8.28502$15....@www.newsranger.com:
<SNIP>
>
> Funny. Those are exactly the terms Adam Smith uses:
>
And, who says that Adam Smith represents the last word in
economics? There has been a lot of research and work on
economic theory since Adam Smith or even Karl Marx. In fact,
Jevons, Menger, etc., as well as Alfred Marshall made many
advances in economic theory shortly after Marx' death.
Why do you insist on arguing 225 year-old economics when modern
economic theory works much better, even though it is still not
(and never will be) perfect?
Woodard
xofpi
robert parker says...
>
>On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:52:35 GMT, xofpi
><nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <8bgriugjlibpivbkk...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...
>>>
>>>
>>>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>>>>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.
>>>
>>> Well, that's what you "think", and...
>>>
>>>>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
>>>>Last night I was reading Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism,"...
>>>
>>> ...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
>>>might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
>>>let your ignorance get in your doddering way.
>>
>>
>>The quote you snipped was from actual capitalist economics:
>>
>>"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
>>any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
>>to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
>>
>>
> Capitalist do not refer to a worker as a
>servant. Nor do capitalist workers refer to a
>employers as a master.
Funny. Those are exactly the terms Adam Smith uses:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html#B.I,%20Ch.8,%20Of%20the%20Wages%20of%20Labour
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though
frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters
are always and every where in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform
combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To
violate this combination is every where a most unpopular action, and a sort of
reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of
this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of
things which nobody ever hears of. Masters too sometimes enter into particular
combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always
conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and
when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though
severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such
combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive
combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this
kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their
usual pretences*12 are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the
great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their
combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In
order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the
loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They
are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who
must either*13 starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance
with their demands. The masters upon these occasions are just as clamorous upon
the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil
magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted
with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and
journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the
violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition
of the civil magistrate, partly from the superior steadiness of the masters,
partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of
submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but
the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders."
xofpi
I was hoping someone would be careless enough to say such a stupid thing.
Actually, it's Smithian propaganda. It's from Book I, Chapter VIII, of the
Wealth of Nations.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:v2rX8.28504$15....@www.newsranger.com:
Why don't you argue from current conditions instead of 18th
century British conditions? Are you afraid that workers
today, are, to a great extent, so much better off than they
were then that your argument would collapse?
Marx was a moron. Smith was one of the first economists to
systematically study the economy. You are making a straw man
out of the capitalist belief by claiming (implicitly) that
Smith is the only economist whose writings support capitalism
or markets. There has been much work done since then. Your
tactic is like quoting an 18th century physician on the cause
of disease. We have learned a lot since then.
Read Jevons, Menger, Marshall, Hicks, etc. to see more more
recent, but still old, economic theory. Then, work your way
up to the modern economists. Try Hayek. His works are still
printed by the University of Chicago. He was a Nobel Laureate
in 1973. Read, _The Road to Serfdom_ or _The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism_.
Woodard
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <3d2ce...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>>
>>
>>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>news:_11X8.27816$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>
>>
>>> This, in my view, is almost exactly analogous to the worker-boss
>>relationship.
>>> The only reason the worker is in it is that the system makes food and
>>living
>>> very expensive. You are compelled to sell your labors to someone who is
>>going to
>>> profit at your expense if you want to live. The buyer of labor is
>>exploiting
>>> your *compulsion* to sell your labor.
>>
>>You are not compelled to sell your labors to someone else, you can be self
>>employed or self sufficient. People do it every day.
>
>
>But the people who do it are those who have resources to do it. Many people >do not.
>
Most of the self employed started as employees.
Learned the trade and went into business for
themselves. Many and I am one worked for a company
and built a separate business on the side. Few of
the wealthy today inherited their wealth. And even
of those that have, their parents or grand parents
earned the family fortune. Many of those with
inherited wealth are simply parasites, who produce
nothing.
>
>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
>>get
>>> it.
>>
>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>>done it twice in my life so far.
>
>
>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
>economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no >resources,
>who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not >interested in
>forming their own business.
>
IOW a lazy ass deadbeat. And you would have the
workers support them?
>
>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for
>you? If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor >force?
>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.
>
And it sure as hell wouldn`t work, if their were
no business men to provide them with employment.
>
>You
>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>
Now you get the idea, it takes work to provide
food, shelter, and clothing. And each worker has
to be paid for his labor.
>
>It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
>have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
>rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
>struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your >eyes.
>I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you >compensate for it.
>
You the one with the faulty vision. All consumer
goods are the result of capital plus labor. In
order to live in a civilized manner, not a hunter
gatherer or subsistence farmer. Wages are
essential, each worker is paid the value of his
contribution, and uses those wages to pay for the
labor of others who contributed to the product.
Each person is rewarded according to his
contribution to the product. The most important
part of production is the massive amount of work
needed to organize and regulate the production and
delivery of the products. This is the reason the
employers usually make the most money, theirs is
the largest contribution. Many times they are the
least paid of all the workers. And go out of
business. The most difficult part of running a
business is finding, hiring and retaining good
workers.
>
>
>Let's compare working for shelter in this society and in a "primitive" society.
>In this society, most likely you buy (which really means finance, for most
>people) or rent shelter that already exists. All the labor to construct it has
>been done; you just move into your home. While you may tinker with improvements
>or alterations to your shelter, you don't have to labor to actually produce it.
>But very, very few people own their shelter outright. Most of us have to make
>monthly payments, either to a landlord or a bank, in order to remain living
>where we live. Most of us do not have deep pockets that allow us to make these
>payments on demand with no labor at all; we *have* to sell something we own or
>produce--for the vast majority, what we sell is our labor--in order to afford
>just the space we live in. Most of us work at least 37 hours a week, many work
>as much as twice that much.
>
>In primitive societies, you labor a few hours to produce the home and it is
>yours. Case closed.
>
Sure dirt floor, one small room, cook out side
over a open fire, no running water, no
electricity, no toilet, throw the trash in to a
heap in the yard. Now try building a modern home,
you will learn that houses are expensive to build,
and are really a bargain.
>
>>> If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for
>>self-sufficiency or
>>> self-employment, *you* might have a point.
>>
>>They do. A measly couple of acres are all that is needed for self
>>sufficiency, and even less is required for self employment. You obviously
>>have a computer, you could be self employed tomorrow if you wanted to be.
>
>
>Don't be like that jackass whose name I can't remember who thought all my
>efforts were to mask misplaced whining about my lot. I'm relatively comfortable
>and mostly happy with my life as it is. This has been a very good year for me in
>a lot of ways. So this train of thought represented by this thread is not about
>me, and it's not about you, and it's not about that jackass whose name I forget
>(Matt something, I think). It's about the (ill)logic and (super)nature of your
>system.
>
>>> >>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
>>> >> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own*
>>them.
>>> >Thus,
>>> >> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>
And no available housing. No one would build a
house for other to simply move into. Under your
system, housing would be very scarce. Forget about
apartments, none would ever be built. I would only
have one house, not four of which three are
rented.
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <EC828E7B037090EE.F3DE1C9F...@lp.airnews.net>,
>robert parker says...
>>
>>On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:52:35 GMT, xofpi
>><nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8bgriugjlibpivbkk...@4ax.com>, Billy Beck says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>xofpi <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I think it is a pretty well accepted fact in captalist analysis that labor is at
>>>>>a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's what you "think", and...
>>>>
>>>>>People are not as free in capitalism as you claim, especially not working people.
>>>>>Last night I was reading Robert Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism,"...
>>>>
>>>> ...if you would bother to read actual capitalist economics, you
>>>>might be competent to remark on the matter, but you haven't, so don't
>>>>let your ignorance get in your doddering way.
>>>
>>>
>>>The quote you snipped was from actual capitalist economics:
>>>
>>>"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
>>>any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
>>>to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
>>>
>>>
>> Capitalist do not refer to a worker as a
>>servant. Nor do capitalist workers refer to a
>>employers as a master.
>
>
>Funny. Those are exactly the terms Adam Smith uses:
>
Adam Smith was not a capitalist. Rather he is a
darling of the socialist camp.
xofpi
Holy cow, sir. That's a new one on me. What say you, "anarcho"-capitalists, to
this heresy?
xofpi
robert parker says...
I agree with you on all points, especially the last. It doesn't change the fact
that capitalism depends on a large pool of laborers who must work for their
daily bread.
>>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians can't
>>>get
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>>>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>>>done it twice in my life so far.
>>
>>
>>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
>>economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no >resources,
>>who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not >interested in
>>forming their own business.
>>
> IOW a lazy ass deadbeat. And you would have the
>workers support them?
Did I say that? I said nothing about having the workers support them. I said
nothing about how these people should be supported at all. But it's a funny
position for a libertarian to be in to condemn a person for exercising his
freedom to *not* be "productive" as authority defines it. Are you sure you're a
libertarian?
>>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for
>>you? If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor >force?
>>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.
>>
> And it sure as hell wouldn`t work, if their were
>no business men to provide them with employment.
Unless, of course, there was a system other than capitalism at work.
>>You
>>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>>
> Now you get the idea, it takes work to provide
>food, shelter, and clothing. And each worker has
>to be paid for his labor.
Now maybe *you* might try a little harder and get *my* idea: this system puts a
strain on workers' liberty.
>>It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
>>have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
>>rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
>>struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your >eyes.
>>I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you >compensate for it.
>>
> You the one with the faulty vision. All consumer
>goods are the result of capital plus labor. In
>order to live in a civilized manner, not a hunter
>gatherer or subsistence farmer. Wages are
>essential, each worker is paid the value of his
>contribution, and uses those wages to pay for the
>labor of others who contributed to the product.
>Each person is rewarded according to his
>contribution to the product. The most important
>part of production is the massive amount of work
>needed to organize and regulate the production and
>delivery of the products.
How many products are really necessary to civilized life?
This is the reason the
>employers usually make the most money, theirs is
>the largest contribution. Many times they are the
>least paid of all the workers. And go out of
>business. The most difficult part of running a
>business is finding, hiring and retaining good
>workers.
Gee. I wonder why.
>>
>>
>>Let's compare working for shelter in this society and in a "primitive" society.
>>In this society, most likely you buy (which really means finance, for most
>>people) or rent shelter that already exists. All the labor to construct it has
>>been done; you just move into your home. While you may tinker with improvements
>>or alterations to your shelter, you don't have to labor to actually produce it.
>>But very, very few people own their shelter outright. Most of us have to make
>>monthly payments, either to a landlord or a bank, in order to remain living
>>where we live. Most of us do not have deep pockets that allow us to make these
>>payments on demand with no labor at all; we *have* to sell something we own or
>>produce--for the vast majority, what we sell is our labor--in order to afford
>>just the space we live in. Most of us work at least 37 hours a week, many work
>>as much as twice that much.
>>
>>In primitive societies, you labor a few hours to produce the home and it is
>>yours. Case closed.
>>
> Sure dirt floor, one small room, cook out side
>over a open fire, no running water, no
>electricity, no toilet, throw the trash in to a
>heap in the yard. Now try building a modern home,
>you will learn that houses are expensive to build,
>and are really a bargain.
That's not the point, is it? This is an argument about the value of labor. In
capitalist societies, labor's wages are never enough for most workers. They have
to keep working and working and working to be able to afford their shelter. The
hunter-gatherer I offered in contrast to the capitalist laborer's predicament.
He works to produce what he'll use, and then he's done. Is this an argument to
return to the forests? Not at all. It's just a statement of fact and an
interesting contrast.
>>>> If everyone had equal access to the resources necessary for
>>>self-sufficiency or
>>>> self-employment, *you* might have a point.
>>>
>>>They do. A measly couple of acres are all that is needed for self
>>>sufficiency, and even less is required for self employment. You obviously
>>>have a computer, you could be self employed tomorrow if you wanted to be.
>>
>>
>>Don't be like that jackass whose name I can't remember who thought all my
>>efforts were to mask misplaced whining about my lot. I'm relatively comfortable
>>and mostly happy with my life as it is. This has been a very good year for me in
>>a lot of ways. So this train of thought represented by this thread is not about
>>me, and it's not about you, and it's not about that jackass whose name I forget
>>(Matt something, I think). It's about the (ill)logic and (super)nature of your
>>system.
>>
>
>>>> >>This means that landlords, who by and large do not use
>>>> >> their buildings, would not possess their buildings, let alone *own*
>>>them.
>>>> >Thus,
>>>> >> in real anarchism, there would be no landlords.
>>
> And no available housing. No one would build a
>house for other to simply move into. Under your
>system, housing would be very scarce. Forget about
>apartments, none would ever be built. I would only
>have one house, not four of which three are
>rented.
You don't even know what "my" system is. I'm critiquing someone else's system,
the impossible system of the "anarcho"-capitalists.
xofpi
says...
>
>>>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <sodn0sy...@shell01.TheWorld.com>, ah...@no-spam-world.std.com
> xofpi> says...
> >>
> >>>>>>> xofpi writes:
> >>
> xofpi> In article <3d2d2...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
> >>
> >> >> I don't need compensating. You claimed that people are compelled to work for
> >> >> others, I gave two very valid ways that they can avoid working for others,
> >> >> thus refuting your claim. People are not compelled to work for others unless
> >> >> you can show that they are not *allowed* to make the choices of self
> >> >> employment or self sufficiency, that they are only allowed to work for
> >> >> others. And choosing against these options is not the same as not being
> >> >> allowed to make them.
> >>
> xofpi> a disadvantage in the boss-employee relationship. People are not as free in
> >>
> >> I do not think so. It depends on supply and demand. Not so long
> >> ago, a good programmer had a huge "advantage" over employers. Now
> >> that is not so.
>
>
> xofpi> freedom, no? As a rule.
>
>In general an employer would have more money, and
>hence more freedom to do things that take money.
>
>However in the original sense of your claim, the
>relations between employee and employer depend on
>current market conditions, and the state of supply
>and demand. As it should be.
Go back to the Adam Smith quote I read in Heilbroner the other night:
"Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
Isn't this essentially true about the relationship? Even given supply and
demand, of which, I would argue, the worker is more at the mercy, because his
few periods of "advantage" over employers (taking your programmer example) last
only as long as he is in demand and the supply for such workers is low. Now the
market is saturated with programmers, as you know. Moreover while a laborer with
a unique or nearly unique skill to sell may be at an advantage temporarily in
the job market, it's usually over other laborers.
Ron Allen
> By definition, an anarchist is someone who wants no government.
Ron Allen answers:
And I believe that this is a very inadequate definition of
anarchism, because it assumes "government" must imply, or
always entails, the presence of a political state. Every
intelligent philosophical anarchist believes in self
government -- i.e., a free society/association governing
itself. Anarchists are opposed to any and every government
that incorporates the existence of a police state.
John Graeme wrote:
> From what I've read, and keep reading, it is most of the left-anarchists
> who think they know the one right way and want to exclude all other types
> of organizations.
Ron Allen answers:
Left anarchists only wish to exclude from human society
those forms of organized association, and of organized
society, which are dictatorial and authoritarian.
I suppose that anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists
both believe they know the one right way.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"Only in time of peace can the wastes of capitalism be
tolerated."
-- F. R. Scott
xofpi
says...
>
>>>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <sodvg7l...@shell01.TheWorld.com>, ah...@no-spam-world.std.com
>
>
> xofpi> "Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
> xofpi> any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
> xofpi> to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
>
> xofpi> Isn't this essentially true about the relationship? Even given supply and
>
>Not often any more. I might have been true when
>Smith was writing.
If it's not *as* true, it's only because government provides a safety net. Is
that what you mean?
> xofpi> demand, of which, I would argue, the worker is more at the mercy, because his
> xofpi> few periods of "advantage" over employers (taking your programmer example) last
> xofpi> only as long as he is in demand and the supply for such workers is low. Now the
> xofpi> market is saturated with programmers, as you know. Moreover while a laborer with
> xofpi> a unique or nearly unique skill to sell may be at an advantage temporarily in
> xofpi> the job market, it's usually over other laborers.
Bill Christensen
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3D2EFE27...@bellsouth.net...
Except that under anarcho-capitalism you would have the ability to form your
own anarcho-communist commune. The anarcho-communists would not afford the
same respect to the anarcho-capitalists.
xofpi
says...
>
>>>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> "Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
> xofpi> any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
> xofpi> to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
>
> xofpi> Isn't this essentially true about the relationship? Even given supply and
>
> >> Not often any more. I might have been true when
> >> Smith was writing.
>
> xofpi> that what you mean?
>
>That is part of the current reality, but a much bigger
>part is that in general we are all a whole lot richer
>than we were a few hundred years ago. Lot's more stuff.
And yet, if you remove the safety net from the unemployed, how many would be
able to partake of this wealth? Why do half of the world's laborers earn less
than $2 a day?
xofpi
What is your evidence for this statement?
Bill Christensen
What part of the statement?
The first sentence:
Capitalism is an economic system whereby capital is privately owned. There
is nothing to say that this private ownership cannot be by a commune.
The second sentence:
Under communism, private ownership of capital is disallowed. Capitalism is a
system whereby capital is privately owned.
xofpi
As I understand it, under real anarchism, a person would be free to consider his
"property" "private." He would not, however, be free to lord over any other
person without their consent. As there would be no capitalism and no government,
there would be no need to lord over anyone without their consent.
I just wanted to be clear that your "evidence" was based not on the writings or
careful study of real anarchism, but on your interpretation of your beliefs
about real anarchism.
Bill Christensen
I said capital, not property.
>He would not, however, be free to lord over any other
> person without their consent.
So a boss / wage worker situation is allowed?
>As there would be no capitalism and no government,
> there would be no need to lord over anyone without their consent.
You just said that there would be no capitalism under "real anarchism" (by
which I presume you mean to be the same as anarcho-communism), therefore you
have just conceded my point that under anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism
would not be allowed.
> I just wanted to be clear that your "evidence" was based not on the
writings or
> careful study of real anarchism, but on your interpretation of your
beliefs
> about real anarchism.
I can easily base it upon your posted beliefs and come to the same
conclusion. And Ron Allen (to whom I was addressing) has many times stated
that capitalism couldn't be allowed in anarcho-communism.
xofpi
says...
>
>>>>>> xofpi writes:
>
> xofpi> In article <sodznww...@shell01.TheWorld.com>, ah...@no-spam-world.std.com
> xofpi> says...
> >>
> >>>>>>> xofpi writes:
> >>
> xofpi> "Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce
> xofpi> any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary
> xofpi> to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
> >>
> xofpi> Isn't this essentially true about the relationship? Even given supply and
> >>
> >> >> Not often any more. I might have been true when
> >> >> Smith was writing.
> >>
> xofpi> If it's not *as* true, it's only because government provides a safety net. Is
> xofpi> that what you mean?
> >>
> >> That is part of the current reality, but a much bigger
> >> part is that in general we are all a whole lot richer
> >> than we were a few hundred years ago. Lot's more stuff.
>
>
> xofpi> able to partake of this wealth? Why do half of the world's laborers earn less
>
>In the United States most. The safety net does not create
>wealth, it just helps a bit in bad times.
I want to understand something about your position: are you denying that even in
full-blown capitalist America, most people have *no choice* but to sell their
labor if they want just the basic necessities?
> xofpi> than $2 a day?
>
>Most of the world is not capitalist.
What is it then?
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <D0C65FC0F1F2E158.ACC2975F...@lp.airnews.net>,
>robert parker says...
>>
>>On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 03:43:33 GMT, xofpi
>><nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3d2ce...@nopics.sjc>, Bill Christensen says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:_11X8.27816$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> This, in my view, is almost exactly analogous to the worker-boss
>>>>relationship.
>>>>> The only reason the worker is in it is that the system makes food and
>>>>living
>>>>> very expensive. You are compelled to sell your labors to someone who is
>>>>going to
>>>>> profit at your expense if you want to live. The buyer of labor is
>>>>exploiting your *compulsion* to sell your labor.
>>
And the seller of the labor is exploiting the
needs of the buyer of labor. It`s a rare bird that
would pay for unneeded labor.
>>
>>>>You are not compelled to sell your labors to someone else, you can be self
>>>>employed or self sufficient. People do it every day.
>>>
>>>
>>>But the people who do it are those who have resources to do it. Many people >do not.
>>>
>> Most of the self employed started as employees.
>>Learned the trade and went into business for
>>themselves. Many and I am one worked for a company
>>and built a separate business on the side. Few of
>>the wealthy today inherited their wealth. And even
>>of those that have, their parents or grand parents
>>earned the family fortune. Many of those with
>>inherited wealth are simply parasites, who produce
>>nothing.
>
>
>
>I agree with you on all points, especially the last. It doesn't change the >fact that capitalism depends on a large pool of laborers who must work for >their daily bread.
>
Reality check, bread is a product of labor
applied to soil, and machinery (capital) a large
pool of labor is necessary to provide the
necessities of life. As well as the wants, a
problem is defining the difference between real
needs and wants.
>
>
>
>>>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians >>>>>can't get it.
>>>
Oh, they get it. In fact they understand it very
well. Face it few would do the hard nasty work, if
they could live without working.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>>>>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>>>>done it twice in my life so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
>>>economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no >resources,
>>>who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not >interested in
>>>forming their own business.
>>>
>> IOW a lazy ass deadbeat. And you would have the
>>workers support them?
>
>
>Did I say that? I said nothing about having the workers support them. I said
>nothing about how these people should be supported at all. But it's a funny
>position for a libertarian to be in to condemn a person for exercising his
>freedom to *not* be "productive" as authority defines it. Are you sure >you're a libertarian?
>
You seem to be outraged at the fact that they
have to work for a living. In the real world it
takes labor to produce the goods people need to
live. And no I do not condemn those that chose to
be non productive. But those that make that choice
have no right to live off the labor of others.
Begging in lieu of working is O.K. as long as no
one is forced to give to the beggars
>
>>>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for you?
>>>
Yes, quite often.
>>>
>>> If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor >force?
>>>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>>>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.
>>>
>> And it sure as hell wouldn`t work, if their were
>>no business men to provide them with employment.
>
>
>Unless, of course, there was a system other than capitalism at work.
>
Regardless of the system, labor is necessary to
support life. And the distributor of the consumer
goods real require people to work.
>
>>>You
>>>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>>>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>>>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>>>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>>>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>>>
>> Now you get the idea, it takes work to provide
>>food, shelter, and clothing. And each worker has
>>to be paid for his labor.
>
>
>Now maybe *you* might try a little harder and get *my* idea:
> this system puts a strain on workers' liberty.
>
Living has a way of doing that. And many people
choose to live in luxury that requires even more
labor. I know people that are deep in debt because
they choose to drive a Cadillac, and take cruises.
I drive a old Ford, and fish in a area lake for
recreation. Many workers smoke, and drink, I
don`t. Living expenses need not be very high, lots
of choices.
>
>
>>>It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
>>>have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
>>>rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
>>>struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your >eyes.
>>>I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you >compensate for it.
>>>
>> You the one with the faulty vision. All consumer
>>goods are the result of capital plus labor. In
>>order to live in a civilized manner, not a hunter
>>gatherer or subsistence farmer. Wages are
>>essential, each worker is paid the value of his
>>contribution, and uses those wages to pay for the
>>labor of others who contributed to the product.
>>Each person is rewarded according to his
>>contribution to the product. The most important
>>part of production is the massive amount of work
>>needed to organize and regulate the production and
>>delivery of the products.
>
>
>How many products are really necessary to civilized life?
>
Actually not very many, and it`s possible to live
a very comfortable life, working 4 hours a day 4
days a week. But not in a customary life style.
There are trade offs.
>
>
>This is the reason the
>>employers usually make the most money, theirs is
>>the largest contribution. Many times they are the
>>least paid of all the workers. And go out of
>>business. The most difficult part of running a
>>business is finding, hiring and retaining good
>>workers.
>
>
>Gee. I wonder why.
>
Because so many of the workers are lazy and
stupid.
>
>>>
>>>Let's compare working for shelter in this society and in a "primitive" society.
>>>In this society, most likely you buy (which really means finance, for most
>>>people) or rent shelter that already exists. All the labor to construct it has
>>>been done; you just move into your home. While you may tinker with improvements
>>>or alterations to your shelter, you don't have to labor to actually produce it.
>>>But very, very few people own their shelter outright. Most of us have to make
>>>monthly payments, either to a landlord or a bank, in order to remain living
>>>where we live. Most of us do not have deep pockets that allow us to make these
>>>payments on demand with no labor at all; we *have* to sell something we own or
>>>produce--for the vast majority, what we sell is our labor--in order to afford
>>>just the space we live in. Most of us work at least 37 hours a week, many work
>>>as much as twice that much.
>>>
>>>In primitive societies, you labor a few hours to produce the home and it is
>>>yours. Case closed.
>>>
>> Sure dirt floor, one small room, cook out side
>>over a open fire, no running water, no
>>electricity, no toilet, throw the trash in to a
>>heap in the yard. Now try building a modern home,
>>you will learn that houses are expensive to build,
>>and are really a bargain.
>
>
>
>That's not the point, is it?
> This is an argument about the value of labor.
>
Yes, it is the point. The more you want the more
labor must be expended. You could sleep under a
bridge, use public bathrooms, buy second hand
clothing. And do some panhandling for money. Many
people do just that.
>
> In
>capitalist societies, labor's wages are never enough for most workers. They >have
>to keep working and working and working to be able to afford their shelter.
>
And they want two baths, central heat and air
paved roads, schooling for their kids. They order
Pizza delivered. You are correct most workers live
beyond their means.
>
> The
>hunter-gatherer I offered in contrast to the capitalist laborer's >predicament.
>
The hunter gatherer`s life was far from idyllic.
Often hungry, wet and cold. Many times they would
spend days searching for anything to eat. Try
gathering enough dry wood to keep a fire burning
when it`s been raining for two days. A hunter
gatherer worked harder, for far less that a
minimum wage worker on a construction job today.
>
>He works to produce what he'll use, and then he's done. Is this an argument >to
>return to the forests? Not at all. It's just a statement of fact and an
>interesting contrast.
>
And it shows a lack of knowledge, of the hard
facts of living like a animal in the wilds.
There is no such animal as a
"anarcho-capitalist" Capitalism requires some
government with reasonable rules, and a law
enforcement system. Ours has gone way to far, I
want a government. A honest fair and just
government.
>
xofpi
How did people eat bread before capitalism?
>>>>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians >>>>>can't get it.
>>>>
> Oh, they get it. In fact they understand it very
>well. Face it few would do the hard nasty work, if
>they could live without working.
What hard, nasty work is necessary?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for someone else? Start your
>>>>>own business if you don't want to work for someone else. It's easy. I've
>>>>>done it twice in my life so far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person with a degree of
>>>>economic resources. This is not an alternative for someone who has no >resources,
>>>>who is in debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not >interested in
>>>>forming their own business.
>>>>
>>> IOW a lazy ass deadbeat. And you would have the
>>>workers support them?
>>
>>
>>Did I say that? I said nothing about having the workers support them. I said
>>nothing about how these people should be supported at all. But it's a funny
>>position for a libertarian to be in to condemn a person for exercising his
>>freedom to *not* be "productive" as authority defines it. Are you sure >you're a libertarian?
>>
> You seem to be outraged at the fact that they
>have to work for a living.
I am not outraged. I am stating fact.
In the real world it
>takes labor to produce the goods people need to
>live. And no I do not condemn those that chose to
>be non productive. But those that make that choice
>have no right to live off the labor of others.
>Begging in lieu of working is O.K. as long as no
>one is forced to give to the beggars
The bottom line (so to speak), however, is that capitalism is not necessary.
People lived for thousands, if not millions, of years without it.
>>>>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for you?
>>>>
> Yes, quite often.
>>>>
>>>> If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor >force?
>>>>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>>>>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.
>>>>
>>> And it sure as hell wouldn`t work, if their were
>>>no business men to provide them with employment.
>>
>>
>>Unless, of course, there was a system other than capitalism at work.
>>
> Regardless of the system, labor is necessary to
>support life. And the distributor of the consumer
>goods real require people to work.
But only in capitalism are people virtually required to consume what they don't
absolutely need.
>>
>>>>You
>>>>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>>>>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>>>>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>>>>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>>>>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>>>>
>>> Now you get the idea, it takes work to provide
>>>food, shelter, and clothing. And each worker has
>>>to be paid for his labor.
>>
>>
>>Now maybe *you* might try a little harder and get *my* idea:
>> this system puts a strain on workers' liberty.
>>
> Living has a way of doing that. And many people
>choose to live in luxury that requires even more
>labor. I know people that are deep in debt because
>they choose to drive a Cadillac, and take cruises.
>I drive a old Ford, and fish in a area lake for
>recreation. Many workers smoke, and drink, I
>don`t. Living expenses need not be very high, lots
>of choices.
But one choice you don't have: you *have* to work at least 37 hours a week to
afford your life.
>>>>It's amazing how proprietarians gloss over this fact! It's as though you all
>>>>have a gigantic blindspot that makes you unable to see anything but your own
>>>>rosy view of capitalism, unable to see what is fact for millions of people
>>>>struggling through the real capitalism in the real world in front of your >eyes.
>>>>I consider this a programming defect and I don't know how to help you >compensate for it.
>>>>
>>> You the one with the faulty vision. All consumer
>>>goods are the result of capital plus labor. In
>>>order to live in a civilized manner, not a hunter
>>>gatherer or subsistence farmer. Wages are
>>>essential, each worker is paid the value of his
>>>contribution, and uses those wages to pay for the
>>>labor of others who contributed to the product.
>>>Each person is rewarded according to his
>>>contribution to the product. The most important
>>>part of production is the massive amount of work
>>>needed to organize and regulate the production and
>>>delivery of the products.
>>
>>
>>How many products are really necessary to civilized life?
>>
> Actually not very many, and it`s possible to live
>a very comfortable life, working 4 hours a day 4
>days a week. But not in a customary life style.
>There are trade offs.
Now you're getting it.
>>This is the reason the
>>>employers usually make the most money, theirs is
>>>the largest contribution. Many times they are the
>>>least paid of all the workers. And go out of
>>>business. The most difficult part of running a
>>>business is finding, hiring and retaining good
>>>workers.
>>
>>
>>Gee. I wonder why.
>>
> Because so many of the workers are lazy and
>stupid.
Do you have data to back that up?
In capitalist societies, you're right. But as I say, capitalism is not
necessary.
>> In
>>capitalist societies, labor's wages are never enough for most workers. They >have
>>to keep working and working and working to be able to afford their shelter.
>>
> And they want two baths, central heat and air
>paved roads, schooling for their kids. They order
>Pizza delivered. You are correct most workers live
>beyond their means.
Why shouldn't they live as they want? Isn't that what liberty is all about?
>
>> The
>>hunter-gatherer I offered in contrast to the capitalist laborer's >predicament.
>>
> The hunter gatherer`s life was far from idyllic.
>Often hungry, wet and cold. Many times they would
>spend days searching for anything to eat. Try
>gathering enough dry wood to keep a fire burning
>when it`s been raining for two days. A hunter
>gatherer worked harder, for far less that a
>minimum wage worker on a construction job today.
Then why did hunter-gathering last so long as a system, if it was made for such
misery? Why are there still hunter-gatherers today?
>>He works to produce what he'll use, and then he's done. Is this an argument >to
>>return to the forests? Not at all. It's just a statement of fact and an
>>interesting contrast.
>>
> And it shows a lack of knowledge, of the hard
>facts of living like a animal in the wilds.
Where did you acquire your knowledge of pre-capitalist societies?
Thank you, sir. I agree with you whole-heartedly.
xofpi
Do you think there would be capital without capitalism?
>>He would not, however, be free to lord over any other
>> person without their consent.
>
>So a boss / wage worker situation is allowed?
There would be no monetary system like the one there is now. There would be no
wages. If you desperately wanted to boss someone around, you might be able to
find someone who wanted to be bossed around. You just wouldn't be able to profit
from it more than, say, having yardwork or carpentry done.
>>As there would be no capitalism and no government,
>> there would be no need to lord over anyone without their consent.
>
>You just said that there would be no capitalism under "real anarchism" (by
>which I presume you mean to be the same as anarcho-communism), therefore you
>have just conceded my point that under anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism
>would not be allowed.
Why would you need it? What purpose would it serve?
>> I just wanted to be clear that your "evidence" was based not on the
>writings or
>> careful study of real anarchism, but on your interpretation of your
>beliefs
>> about real anarchism.
>
>I can easily base it upon your posted beliefs and come to the same
>conclusion. And Ron Allen (to whom I was addressing) has many times stated
>that capitalism couldn't be allowed in anarcho-communism.
It wouldn't be needed. But you could play at it if you were so inclined.
robert parker
In any place in the world most people have to
sell their labor if they want just the basics.
Difference, in capitalist America they don`t have
to work as hard or long to earn the basic
necessities.
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
They raised their own grain, ground their own
meal, and baked their own bread. A labor intensive
time consuming chore. Pre capitalist peoples spent
better than half their working hours just on
feeding themselves. And a simple crude diet at
that. Takes me 2 hours a week to earn grocery
money for my wife and my self and we eat very well
thank you.
>
>
>>>>>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why proprietarians >>>>>can't get it.
>>>>>
>> Oh, they get it. In fact they understand it very
>>well. Face it few would do the hard nasty work, if
>>they could live without working.
>
>
>
>What hard, nasty work is necessary?
>
Harvesting, processing,transporting food.
Washing dishes, doing laundry, repairing sewer
lines, hauling trash, mining etc.
And take a look at the miserable way they had to
live.
>
>
>>>>>Now you say you started your own business....did you hire people to work for you?
>>>>>
>> Yes, quite often.
>>>>>
>>>>> If every one started their own business, who would be in the labor >force?
>>>>>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has to take into
>>>>>consideration that the system doesn't work if there are no workers to hire.
>>>>>
>>>> And it sure as hell wouldn`t work, if their were
>>>>no business men to provide them with employment.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless, of course, there was a system other than capitalism at work.
>>>
>> Regardless of the system, labor is necessary to
>>support life. And the distributor of the consumer
>>goods real require people to work.
>
>
>But only in capitalism are people virtually required to consume what they >don't absolutely need.
>
Care to give a few examples?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>You
>>>>>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact
>>>>>that many, many workers--if not most--are not working because they were just
>>>>>dying to be doing what they are doing. They are working because if you don't
>>>>>work in this system, you can't eat, your family can't eat, you can't clothe
>>>>>yourself or your family, you can't shelter your family.
>>>>>
>>>> Now you get the idea, it takes work to provide
>>>>food, shelter, and clothing. And each worker has
>>>>to be paid for his labor.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now maybe *you* might try a little harder and get *my* idea:
>>> this system puts a strain on workers' liberty.
>>>
>> Living has a way of doing that. And many people
>>choose to live in luxury that requires even more
>>labor. I know people that are deep in debt because
>>they choose to drive a Cadillac, and take cruises.
>>I drive a old Ford, and fish in a area lake for
>>recreation. Many workers smoke, and drink, I
>>don`t. Living expenses need not be very high, lots
>>of choices.
>
>
>
>
>But one choice you don't have: you *have* to work at least 37 hours a week >to afford your life.
>
Not if you live a very simple life, or if you are
highly skilled. The last ten year of my working
life, I invested over half of my after tax income.
And today I spend less than half of my income. If
all the hours I have worked, were divided by the
weeks I have lived, I dare say that it would be
less than 37 hours, and decreasing every day. I am
in good health expect to live another 20 years
without working.
How about over forty years of being a worker,
and observing the real world.
I have no problem with the way people live, it`s
the complaints. Bottom line, for most people there
is no such thing as enough money. The idiots are
going to spend every cent they can beg borrow or
steal and still complain about low wages.
>
>
>>
>>> The
>>>hunter-gatherer I offered in contrast to the capitalist laborer's >predicament.
>>>
>> The hunter gatherer`s life was far from idyllic.
>>Often hungry, wet and cold. Many times they would
>>spend days searching for anything to eat. Try
>>gathering enough dry wood to keep a fire burning
>>when it`s been raining for two days. A hunter
>>gatherer worked harder, for far less that a
>>minimum wage worker on a construction job today.
>
>
>
>Then why did hunter-gathering last so long as a system, if it was made for such
>misery? Why are there still hunter-gatherers today?
>
It took a long time to discover capitalism, and
some people still don`t get it. Some probably
never will.
>
>
>>>He works to produce what he'll use, and then he's done. Is this an argument >to
>>>return to the forests? Not at all. It's just a statement of fact and an
>>>interesting contrast.
>>>
>> And it shows a lack of knowledge, of the hard
>>facts of living like a animal in the wilds.
>
>
>Where did you acquire your knowledge of pre-capitalist societies?
>
Pre history archeology is a interest of mine, as
well as being a devout hiker camper in my youth. I
have built crude shelters, I have gathered wild
foods and hunted for most of my life.
xofpi
robert parker says...
1. Which nation has the most vacation days of any in the world?
A) The United States
B) Greece
C) Germany
D) Spain
(Note that by "Vacation days" we mean mandated holidays for working people.)
2. Which nation's workforce works the longest hours on average?
A) The United States
B) Japan
C) Germany
D) Canada
Based on what you wrote above, the answers are not what you think.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:R4JX8.28696$15....@www.newsranger.com:
> In article
> <A4C8BA911AFAAE65.7350B43C...@lp.airne
They mostly raised their own grain, ground it between two
stones, and baked their own bread. They still had capital in
the form of the ground where they grew their bread and the
tools that they used to till the soil, grind the grain, and
bake the bread.
Capital is not merely stocks and bonds. Those are classified
as financial capital. Actually, all they amount to is legal
claims on economic capital. Economic capital consists of the
buildings, tools, machinery, and other things needed to
produce goods and services. All societies have some form of
economic capital. The difference involves ownership of that
capital. Capitalist societies have private ownership of
capital while socialist societies have government ownership of
capital. Communist (true communism which the USSR never
acheived) societies have common, but not government, ownership
of capital. Learn some economics.
>
>
>>>>>>> This is such an obvious point, I'm always puzzled why
>>>>>>> proprietarians >>>>>can't get it.
>>>>>
>> Oh, they get it. In fact they understand it very
>>well. Face it few would do the hard nasty work, if
>>they could live without working.
>
>
>
> What hard, nasty work is necessary?
>
Wait until your toilet stops up because tree roots have
invaded your sewer line and damaged it so that it has to be
replaced. If that isn't hard, nasty work, I don't know what
is. Or do you plan to crap in the floor? Another example: In
high school, I raised chickens on my dad's farm. Guess what?
Every little while I had to remove the chicken manure from the
hen house. That is hard, nasty work--as is much of the work
involved in farming, or do you think that food just lays on
the ground, pre-wrapped for you to pick up?
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because it is false. Who is compelled to work for
>>>>>>someone else? Start your own business if you don't want
>>>>>>to work for someone else. It's easy. I've done it twice
>>>>>>in my life so far.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is an acceptable alternative for a bourgeois person
>>>>>with a degree of economic resources. This is not an
>>>>>alternative for someone who has no >resources, who is in
>>>>>debt, who is a bad credit risk, or who is just plain not
>>>>>>interested in forming their own business.
>>>>>
>>>> IOW a lazy ass deadbeat. And you would have the
>>>>workers support them?
>>>
>>>
>>>Did I say that? I said nothing about having the workers
>>>support them. I said nothing about how these people should
>>>be supported at all. But it's a funny position for a
>>>libertarian to be in to condemn a person for exercising
>>>his freedom to *not* be "productive" as authority defines
>>>it. Are you sure >you're a libertarian?
>>>
>> You seem to be outraged at the fact that they
>>have to work for a living.
>
>
> I am not outraged. I am stating fact.
>
So, what in the hell is wrong with somebody having to work for
a living? You sound like a lazy-assed whiner.
>
>
>
> In the real world it
>>takes labor to produce the goods people need to
>>live. And no I do not condemn those that chose to
>>be non productive. But those that make that choice
>>have no right to live off the labor of others.
>>Begging in lieu of working is O.K. as long as no
>>one is forced to give to the beggars
>
>
> The bottom line (so to speak), however, is that capitalism
> is not necessary. People lived for thousands, if not
> millions, of years without it.
>
People in hunter-gatherer societies often had to work much
harder to avoid starvation than anybody in the U.S. has to.
One tribe in Texas was forced onto land so poor that they had
to pick through their feces for undigested seeds just to
survive. Capitalism has brought people in the capitalist
countries to much higher standards of living than that.
>
>>>>>Now you say you started your own business....did you
>>>>>hire people to work for you?
>>>>>
>> Yes, quite often.
>>>>>
>>>>> If every one started their own business, who would be
>>>>> in the labor >force?
>>>>>Obviously, any reasonable assessment of capitalism has
>>>>>to take into consideration that the system doesn't work
>>>>>if there are no workers to hire.
>>>>>
>>>> And it sure as hell wouldn`t work, if their were
>>>>no business men to provide them with employment.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless, of course, there was a system other than
>>>capitalism at work.
>>>
>> Regardless of the system, labor is necessary to
>>support life. And the distributor of the consumer
>>goods real require people to work.
>
>
> But only in capitalism are people virtually required to
> consume what they don't absolutely need.
Just how am I forced to consume anything? Do you think that I
am so stupid or suggestable that I will automatically buy
anything that I see advertised? I buy what I want. Granted,
I wouldn't die if I lost my stereo and cd's, but they do make
life more enjoyable. Or do you have a problem with my
enjoyment of classical music? Do you think that I should be
forbidden to listen to Beethoven because I enjoy it?
>
>>>
>>>>>You
>>>>>can paint the relationship as rosy as you'd like, but it
>>>>>doesn't change the fact that many, many workers--if not
>>>>>most--are not working because they were just dying to be
>>>>>doing what they are doing. They are working because if
>>>>>you don't work in this system, you can't eat, your
>>>>>family can't eat, you can't clothe yourself or your
>>>>>family, you can't shelter your family.
>>>>>
>>>> Now you get the idea, it takes work to provide
>>>>food, shelter, and clothing. And each worker has
>>>>to be paid for his labor.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now maybe *you* might try a little harder and get *my*
>>>idea:
>>> this system puts a strain on workers' liberty.
>>>
>> Living has a way of doing that. And many people
>>choose to live in luxury that requires even more
>>labor. I know people that are deep in debt because
>>they choose to drive a Cadillac, and take cruises.
>>I drive a old Ford, and fish in a area lake for
>>recreation. Many workers smoke, and drink, I
>>don`t. Living expenses need not be very high, lots
>>of choices.
>
>
>
>
> But one choice you don't have: you *have* to work at least
> 37 hours a week to afford your life.
>
If somebody didn't work, nobody would have anything. Stuff
doesn't grow on trees. Maybe you would like to wear bearskin
loincloths and try to be a hunter-gatherer, but I don't want
to go that route. It is harder work than most of us have to
do, and life tended to be nasty, brutish, and quite short.
But, you still aren't. Capitalism is more productive than
socialism. Therefore, there are fewer trade-offs that have to
be made. In past centuries, people had to work from dawn to
dark just to subsist. Most of us are doing much better than
that now. The poverty in other countries is often due to
various forms of economic intervention by their own
governments.
>
>>>This is the reason the
>>>>employers usually make the most money, theirs is
>>>>the largest contribution. Many times they are the
>>>>least paid of all the workers. And go out of
>>>>business. The most difficult part of running a
>>>>business is finding, hiring and retaining good
>>>>workers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Gee. I wonder why.
>>>
>> Because so many of the workers are lazy and
>>stupid.
>
>
>
> Do you have data to back that up?
>
>
You haven't worked with some of the people that I have worked
with. Come to think of it, you probably haven't done a day's
work in your life. Confess. You have only leeched off of
others all your life, right?
Name a better system. Anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron.
Socialist societies must, by necessity, be despotic and
totalitarian.
If you deny that, then just name one attempt to establish a
fully socialist society that hasn't been accompanied by mass
murder. By the way, European countries like France and
Holland are not fully socialist. They have mixed economies
and therefore, do not qualify.
>
>
>>> In
>>>capitalist societies, labor's wages are never enough for
>>>most workers. They >have to keep working and working and
>>>working to be able to afford their shelter.
>>>
>> And they want two baths, central heat and air
>>paved roads, schooling for their kids. They order
>>Pizza delivered. You are correct most workers live
>>beyond their means.
>
>
> Why shouldn't they live as they want? Isn't that what
> liberty is all about?
>
So, liberty means that they can leech off of my labor? Why is
that not just as exploitive as the owner-worker relationship.
In fact, it seems worse, since both the owner and worker
derive some benefit from the arrangement. But, lazy louts who
produce nothing and then expect me to make their livings
indefinitely, so that they can "live as they want" give me no
benefit except their existence. To hell with them. If
anybody who is able to work refuses to do so, then let them
starve. When they get hungry enough, they will decide to
work.
>
>>
>>> The
>>>hunter-gatherer I offered in contrast to the capitalist
>>>laborer's >predicament.
>>>
>> The hunter gatherer`s life was far from idyllic.
>>Often hungry, wet and cold. Many times they would
>>spend days searching for anything to eat. Try
>>gathering enough dry wood to keep a fire burning
>>when it`s been raining for two days. A hunter
>>gatherer worked harder, for far less that a
>>minimum wage worker on a construction job today.
>
>
>
> Then why did hunter-gathering last so long as a system, if
> it was made for such misery? Why are there still
> hunter-gatherers today?
>
Because, they had to expend so much of their lives to obtain
bare necessities that they had no way to accumulate the
capital (productive capacity) to improve their lot. Why don't
you go to the Amazon and try living as a hunter-gatherer for a
while? That might give you a whole new perspective. We don't
really see any improvement in living standards in history or
pre-history until the development of farming.
>
>>>He works to produce what he'll use, and then he's done. Is
>>>this an argument >to return to the forests? Not at all.
>>>It's just a statement of fact and an interesting contrast.
>>>
>> And it shows a lack of knowledge, of the hard
>>facts of living like a animal in the wilds.
>
>
> Where did you acquire your knowledge of pre-capitalist
> societies?
>
I can't speak for him, but mine is from extensive reading and
study of history, including economic history.
Then come into the real world and see how things really work.
Get a job.
Woodard
stella
> In article <A4C8BA911AFAAE65.7350B43C...@lp.airnews.net>,
> robert parker says...
> >
> >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:01:06 GMT, xofpi
> ><nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >
> The bottom line (so to speak), however, is that capitalism is not necessary.
> People lived for thousands, if not millions, of years without it.
I assume that you are talking about the system that is at work in
America today. You are correct, that people survived thousands of
years without it. We are surviving today with it. I would like to
know what changes you would make to the system, as it stands today.
Please feel free to start another thread.
> But only in capitalism are people virtually required to consume what they don't
> absolutely need.
Come now, what is it you are talking about? You are not required to
consume anything in this system in place in America.
> But one choice you don't have: you *have* to work at least 37 hours a week to
> afford your life.
Is this a specific 'you'? I don't have to work 37 hours a week to
afford my life, and I know many others who don't either. Perhaps you
should reevaluate your lifestyle to accomodate your desire to work
less. I know I did, and it worked out wonderfully.
> > Yes, it is the point. The more you want the more
> >labor must be expended. You could sleep under a
> >bridge, use public bathrooms, buy second hand
> >clothing. And do some panhandling for money. Many
> >people do just that.
>
>
> In capitalist societies, you're right. But as I say, capitalism is not
> necessary.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that in
some other society, a person could continue to gain *things* without
continuing to labour?
Stella
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
I thought it was France. Wealth is the result of
labor and capital applied to raw material. So the
U.S. probably has the least number. However a
worker can take extra days, or choose to work
holidays for extra pay.
>
>(Note that by "Vacation days" we mean mandated holidays for working people.)
>
>
>
>
>2. Which nation's workforce works the longest hours on average?
>
>
>A) The United States
>
>B) Japan
>
>C) Germany
>
>D) Canada
>
>
>Based on what you wrote above, the answers are not what you think.
>
I am sure that american workers, on average work
the most hours. All hours are the same length.
Most americans are hard working, competent people.
But we do have a rather large segment of lazy
whiners.
But americans are still the most productive, and
richest people on earth. Note there is a direct
connection between work and wealth. Mandated paid
holidays appeal to the indolent and lazy. Not to
ambitious workers.
stella
>
>
> A) The United States
>
> B) Greece
>
> C) Germany
>
> D) Spain
I am going to guess Spain, then Greece
> 2. Which nation's workforce works the longest hours on average?
>
>
> A) The United States
>
> B) Japan
>
> C) Germany
>
> D) Canada
Definitely the US
> Based on what you wrote above, the answers are not what you think.
Don't hold us in suspense, what are the answers?
xofpi
The answer is C) Germany.
>>(Note that by "Vacation days" we mean mandated holidays for working people.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>2. Which nation's workforce works the longest hours on average?
>>
>>
>>A) The United States
>>
>>B) Japan
>>
>>C) Germany
>>
>>D) Canada
>>
>>
>>Based on what you wrote above, the answers are not what you think.
>>
> I am sure that american workers, on average work
>the most hours. All hours are the same length.
>Most americans are hard working, competent people.
>But we do have a rather large segment of lazy
>whiners.
> But americans are still the most productive, and
>richest people on earth. Note there is a direct
>connection between work and wealth. Mandated paid
>holidays appeal to the indolent and lazy. Not to
>ambitious workers.
The answer is A) The United States.
You seem to have changed your mind pretty radically about whether we're the
hardest working or the most relaxed population on earth.
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote...
>>Bill Christensen wrote:
[...]
>>>But why do you believe that there wouldn't be a
>>>commonly recognized system of property and moral principles?
>>Because right now, there are many disagreements about systems
>>of property and moral principles; and even with the current
>>supposed consensus, people are willing to fight and kill over
>>these disagreements.
> Where are there disagreements about systems of property and moral
> principles? I think that if you took two people and plunked them down in an
> uninhabited place, they would recognize property virtually the same as we
> do, and would have virtually the same morals, at least as they relate to
> inalienable rights.
If one person says "Finders keepers", and the other person says
"Share and share alike", I think you'll find a disagreement
about systems of property.
If (in a society) one person says that it's perfectly fair
that the rich and poor alike are equally forbidden from
sleeping under bridges, and another person disagrees, I
think you'll find a disagreement about systems of property.
If one person says "Taxation is theft", and another says
"Taxation is a necessary overhead to pay for a legal system
that facilitates trust and so overall reduces transactional
costs", I think you'll find a disagreement about systems
of property. Same goes for "Conscription is slavery" and
a host of other issues which have been sloganized.
[...]
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
xofpi
> > 1. Which nation has the most vacation days of any in the world?
> >
> >
> > A) The United States
> >
> > B) Greece
> >
> > C) Germany
> >
> > D) Spain
>
> I am going to guess Spain, then Greece
C) Germany
> > 2. Which nation's workforce works the longest hours on average?
> >
> >
> > A) The United States
> >
> > B) Japan
> >
> > C) Germany
> >
> > D) Canada
>
> Definitely the US
>
> > Based on what you wrote above, the answers are not what you think.
>
> Don't hold us in suspense, what are the answers?
You're right.
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Billy Beck wrote:
>>>>How do you reconcile disagreements about who owns what without a
>>>>commonly recognized system of property and/or moral principles?
>>> Unless you have a direct interest in the case at hand, that's
>>>none of your business.
>>On the one hand, suppose I think I have a direct interest, but
>>others disagree (consider the old situation of a wife who wanted
>>her husband to spend some of his wages on food for her and her
>>children, as opposed to blowing it all on drink and gambling).
>>On the other hand, you're effectively dismissing the case for
>>third party intervention, e.g. stopping an act of aggression
>>that happens to be going on as you walk down the street.
> Try to understand the essence of my position here, Chris: I
> reserve the right to make up *my own mind* about any given case of
> dispute.
I understand that, but I'm asking what that reservation entails,
and how conflicting views can be reconciled.
> Now, you might not find that completely satisfying, it might
> not light you up with a nice glowy feeling of social solidarity, but
> it's a natural fact of human existence: values (the things for whcih
> they act) are individually personal things, and some people think for
> themselves in order to judge values. That's just the way it is. It's
> a fact of reality.
Sure; but that's why people argue a lot. :-) You are free
to make up your own mind, and other people are free to make
up their own minds. However, if we're going to deal with
systems of property, and what constitutes third party
intervention, just saying that you have the right to
your own views doesn't do anything towards finding a
mechanism for finding (unpleasant) compromises.
It can happen that two people in isolation are willing
to fight for their beliefs, such that a severe conflict
in beliefs leads to physical conflict, and so might
becomes right. If there is a compromise mechanism that
has moral legitimacy in the eyes of both parties, that
can be used to resolve the conflict. If there is not,
then outsiders, who feel that conflict directly impinges
on *their* interests, may feel a moral justification for
interposing and *enforcing* a third party judgement.
You may not feel that this has any moral grounding; but
now you have another conflict in beliefs, and the same
'rules' apply. And that, I'm afraid, is another fact
of reality.
> It has lots of implications, and they generally
> run out from the context of any given situation. You've posed two
> situations, above. Fine: have at 'em, if you want to, and knock
> yourself out. You are not competent, however, to go around enforcing
> *other* peoples' participation in the project, nor is anyone at work
> in resolving their dispute obliged to explain it to *you*.
In your view I do not. If I think there is a moral case
to be made for delegating authority to an agency that can
enforce such participation, what mechanism do *you* propose
for resolving this conflict of belief? Remember, I don't
think your "just leave me alone" defense is moral, just
as you don't think the case for intervention is moral;
and others are just as willing to fight for their beliefs
as you are.
> The issue here is about the right of reservation. "I don't want
> to get involved." That's what freedom is all about: the right to
> decide for oneself. And you might think someone else's decision is
> unwise in any given circumstance, but that's about all you can say
> about it.
In your eyes. But you're still not doing anything to explain
how your views can be reconciled with conflicting views; your
argument is merely along the lines of "I'm right, and you're
wrong", which I don't find convincing in general. Note that
in some ways and in some circumstances I'm sympathetic to
your view; but I disagree that it's universalizable, and
you've got to face the fact that other people's moral judgements
may conflict with yours to such an extent that they think you're
immoral, and are prepared to act on that basis.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt
David Jay Covington
>
ummm, u equivocate on the word freedom.
equivocate can be found in any online dictionary.
Even if all u say is true.... Just because a worker is at a
disadvantage toan employer does not make the situation "unjust", just
"unequal"
e.g., I paint the best portraits in town, and u really want your
daughter's wedding portrait to be the VERY best. So, you come to me:
our standing will be "unequal", but not "unfair"
your paradigm is wrong. stop equivocating [it is a very scurrilous
brand of argumentation].
weak.
xofpi
Covington says...
Look up above and reread what I wrote. I think you'll find that you imagined I
was arguing about justice rather than freedom. So you wound up talking to
yourself.
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
Actually we have some of each, we have the
ambitious, and we have the indolent. And we also
have the lazy stupid whiners, that I gripe about.
Those that spend more than they make and then
blame a cruel world for their failures. And folks
like you, that encourage those losers.
Any one in the U.S. CAN amass a small fortune if
they strive toward that goal. Last week I was pall
bearer for a gentle man who was the father of a
friend. He was born in 1916, on a small farm in
Texas. His father had no use for schooling and
needed him in the fields, he never learned to read
or write. During the depression, he got a job in a
factory was paid $0.20 per hour. When the war
broke out his job was defense related and he was
exempted from the draft. He bought war bonds, then
U.S. savings bonds. Bought a acre of land at the
edge of Dallas, built his home, raised his family.
His son told me that dad left a estate worth
$4,000,000 to him and his sister. He took care of
his earnings and saved regularly. And that is the
not so secret, secret of amassing wealth. Take
care of your earnings, and save,
>
xofpi
robert parker says...
>>
>>You seem to have changed your mind pretty radically about whether we're the
>>hardest working or the most relaxed population on earth.
>>
> Actually we have some of each, we have the
>ambitious, and we have the indolent. And we also
>have the lazy stupid whiners, that I gripe about.
>Those that spend more than they make and then
>blame a cruel world for their failures. And folks
>like you, that encourage those losers.
You sound awfully small-minded to me. Is that all one can be, a winner or a
loser?
> Any one in the U.S. CAN amass a small fortune if
>they strive toward that goal. Last week I was pall
>bearer for a gentle man who was the father of a
>friend. He was born in 1916, on a small farm in
>Texas. His father had no use for schooling and
>needed him in the fields, he never learned to read
>or write. During the depression, he got a job in a
>factory was paid $0.20 per hour. When the war
>broke out his job was defense related and he was
>exempted from the draft. He bought war bonds, then
>U.S. savings bonds. Bought a acre of land at the
>edge of Dallas, built his home, raised his family.
> His son told me that dad left a estate worth
>$4,000,000 to him and his sister. He took care of
>his earnings and saved regularly. And that is the
>not so secret, secret of amassing wealth. Take
>care of your earnings, and save,
Bully for him. But wealth isn't everything. Nor can everybody be wealthy.
xofpi
>
>In article <3D337784...@webmaster.com>, David Schwartz says...
>>
>>
>>> And no matter how many times you are told that that is not what anarchism is...I
>>> know, you're sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting "Yankee Doodle."
>>
>> What the hell does it matter what anarchism is? We're talking about
>>anarcho-capitalism, not anarchism.
>>
>> DS
>
>
>Which is not anarcho, if anarcho means anything.
While critiquing the anarchist credentials of "anarcho"-capitalism, it has
occurred to me more than once that the libertarian credentials of right
"libertarianism" are also questionable. Can a system that refuses to address the
inequitable distribution of liberty justifiably call itself "libertarian"? If
liberty is desirable for one person, isn't it desirable for all? Can one who
takes the position that freedom is not desirable or even possible for all
meaningfully be called a "libertarian?" Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to
right "libertarianism" as "proprietarian" or "privatist?"
robert parker
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>In article <5DBE3F0019B70B48.BF146BF8...@lp.airnews.net>,
>robert parker says...
>>
>>On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:59:04 GMT, xofpi
>><nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>You seem to have changed your mind pretty radically about whether we're the
>>>hardest working or the most relaxed population on earth.
>>>
>> Actually we have some of each, we have the
>>ambitious, and we have the indolent. And we also
>>have the lazy stupid whiners, that I gripe about.
>>Those that spend more than they make and then
>>blame a cruel world for their failures. And folks
>>like you, that encourage those losers.
>
>
>You sound awfully small-minded to me.
> Is that all one can be, a winner or a
>loser?
>
Yep, winners do the best they can, with what
they have, and are happy with their lives. Losers
whine and blame others for their failure. Note
that the amount of wealth they have is not
important. What is important is how a person
handles his own life. Lazy stupid whiners are
losers.
stella
> While critiquing the anarchist credentials of "anarcho"-capitalism, it has
> occurred to me more than once that the libertarian credentials of right
> "libertarianism" are also questionable. Can a system that refuses to address the
> inequitable distribution of liberty justifiably call itself "libertarian"? If
> liberty is desirable for one person, isn't it desirable for all? Can one who
> takes the position that freedom is not desirable or even possible for all
> meaningfully be called a "libertarian?" Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to
> right "libertarianism" as "proprietarian" or "privatist?"
It certainly seems that way, that *if* liberty is desirable for one
individual, then it is desirable for all. Of course, I suspect that
one really has to define what is meant by 'liberty', as it is a pretty
broad term. Sometimes when people say liberty, they mean freedom from
some outside, compelling force. Other times, they mean partaking in
the particular social, economic and political rights granted by many
modern governments. So, exactly what is 'the inequitable distribution
of liberty' that you wish to address? Also, what freedoms are you
discussing when talking about those who think that 'freedom is not
desirable for all'? I have no problem defining new terms to discuss
phenomena, I just need to know exactly what these terms define.
David Jay Covington
> Look up above and reread what I wrote. I think you'll find that you imagined I
> was arguing about justice rather than freedom. So you wound up talking to
> yourself.
Reread yourself: you are making a COMPARATIVE statement, i.e., that
the 'freedom' worker's enjoy doesn't COMPARE with the 'freedom'
employers have.
The 'freedom' argued by those in the pro-rights / libertarian camps
are not the type of COMPARATIVE values you posit.
Thus, you are equivocating.
Thus, you don't understand what freedom means.
Thus, you ineptly try to point out a hypocrisy in the pro-rights
/libertarian camp that is not at all there.
You have a problem, whether because of intentional deception or lack
of insight, with EQUIVOCATION.
xofpi
>> was arguing about justice rather than freedom. So you wound up talking to
>> yourself.
>
>
>Reread yourself: you are making a COMPARATIVE statement, i.e., that
>the 'freedom' worker's enjoy doesn't COMPARE with the 'freedom'
>employers have.
Talk about equivocation! I'm arguing that workers' freedoms COMPARE with
employers' freedoms unfavorably.
>The 'freedom' argued by those in the pro-rights / libertarian camps
>are not the type of COMPARATIVE values you posit.
Pro-rights? Pro *whose* rights?
xofpi
You've defined liberty very well, as Isaiah Berlin might have defined them:
Freedom from harm (negative) and freedom to avail oneself of
opportunity(positive). Right "libertarians," in focusing exclusively on property
rights, focus on the negative liberties and exclude the propertyless (though
they claim everyone has property of some kind, even if some have more in more
varieties than others). David Friedman, one of the original
"anarcho"-capitalists, is one of the few of them to deal head on with the
problems property rights present to other kinds of liberty. For example, private
property tends to inhibit a person's ability to walk freely on the planet by
excluding him from certain closed-up portions. The solutions to such problems
are not simple, but ignoring them does harm to the integrity of one's
principles.
Ron Allen
> Do you think there would be capital without capitalism?
Ron Allen answers:
There can be capital without capitalism, but there can be
no capital without labor.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"God's finger never leaves the same fingerprint."
-- Stanislaw Lec