ProfessionalTeabagger

No. Cleanse is a matter of opinion. What if it was you who was to be cleansed? There is no better or worse in evolution; only those populations who most successfully adapt to heir environment. The most violent and stupid often win and spread their genes. What about the draft? The smart and the stupid were forced into war together. What about the collateral damage? I assume if you think war is good as long as it;s not you who's in one, right? I don't think you've thought this through.

You never go full social justice.

You think "Who cares? they're idiots" is a valid argument but my responses are not? Prove it. Oh, you've got a list, have you?

Right so the underlying principle here is that if it pleases you it's right? Fair enough. There''ll be people like me to protect vulnerable people from snakes like you. More power to me, right? It has a definition but there's no such thing as a species. It's a classification humans give groups to who can interbreed. It's a collectivist concept like "society" or "the people". Why would I give a fuck about a collectivist concept? It's like saying "the future of the country". I care about individuals and some individuals may chose this "idiot" life. I'm not a relativist and I prefer modern civilization but insufferably smug and hubris-tic people like you sour the whole thing. What's ironic is that you fail to grasp that civilization has a moral component and part of that is the universal application of ethics; NOT ""well these people are idiots so let's fuck-em over".

I care and they're not idiots. Remember, to some jerk in a far future civilization you are a primitive. Why should I care about the advancement of a collectivist concept? There is no "the species". There are only individuals.

They can buy the land.

Who are you responding to here?

The reason it results in a foundation of morality is because you are responsible for the effects of your actions. You own the effects of your voluntary actions. If you murder someone then the punishment and restitution would legitimately fall on you. If you did not have self-ownership then it would not. I find this to be obvious and I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. If no one owns their actions (no one had any control for or responsibility for their actions) then stop attributing ownership to people. Yeah, robots could make arguments but they can't be anything other than causally responsible for the effects of those arguments. Robots, by definition, are just programmed. I specified that ownership does not just involve causal responsibility when I compared the a person killing someone to a tree, dog, etc killing someone. I didn't just "say" it was self-evident or just "say" it was logically necessary. I made arguments. So please do not imply that my position is that just saying it makes it so. That's annoying, especially after I just made a bunch of arguments, half of which you're not even attempting to rebut.

Self-ownership and existence are not distinct in this context. The reason they are the same is because the argument is in the context of human interaction (not metaphysics). In that context self-ownership is just as necessary an axiom as existence is in order for your arguments and propositions to be be logically coherent. Although existence is a metaphysical necessity and self-ownership is not, both are logically necessary for our interaction. If, as in your example, we are just biological machines without free will then you should stop attributing self-ownership (control over and responsibility for one's voluntary actions) to everyone here. It is logically impossible for you to rationally put forward the argument self-ownership does not exist when we can observe you exercising self-ownership and holding other responsible for their voluntary actions. Are you going to argue that you did not exercise control over your body to create your responses and are not responsible for them? If so then who's doing it? Deterministic forces? The wind? God? No one argued that because self-ownership is internally consistent you should accept it. So I'm not sure why you're saying that. Self-ownership is just a foundational fact of certain human interaction. Your comment you make to me in response (assuming you do) will be your comment and not anyone else's comment. You will be responsible for it and any moral implications will fall on you. Similarly when you use your time, labor etc to create value then it's your time and labor in that value and no one else's. You own it and no one else does. If someone steals it then they are taking your time and labor (retroactively enslaving you). These are objective and demonstrable things. This further demonstrates self-ownership. The person relinquishing their entire ability to control their body has to own their body in the first place in order to voluntarily offer it.

It's not false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor". It's Marxist superstition. You are just relabeling the profit the employer makes as "surplus labor". Assuming you're going by Marx's theory of the socially necessary labor contained in a commodity then where's your argument that the employers profit (and not also the customer and the employees profit) are surplus labor? Let's take an example. An employer hires one employee. They make playhouses for children. The employee earns $8 an hour and the employer's profit is $12 per hour. So you would say the employer (capitalist class) is stealing the surplus labor value from the employee (working class). But the employers profit can change radically based on various factors. The employer could simply decide to sell it at no profit. The value is not objective. But when socialist claims the capitalist is stealing the surplus value they're saying it's an objective value. Again, that's why when you say the capitalist is stealing surplus value you're just saying "I don't think the price for my labor is fair". If you want to argue that the price the "worker" gets is unfair using the businesses profits as part of the argument that's all good. But don't claim they are stealing just because they make a profit. You say capitalist class and non-owning class are such obvious traits of out society but provide no examples or argument. Where is this "non-owning class"? It's a complete delusion. Do you not own anything? There is no capitalist class. Just because someone is richer than you doesn't mean they have taken from some pie and thereby have denied you your share. Capitalism increases the pie for everyone. The fact that free trade is often called capitalism is largely down to Marxists. They have been going on about "capitalism" for so long it's just become the norm to refer to it as capitalism. I'm not sure capital is the defining trait. I think it's private property rights and non-aggression. It's not like people who want commerce go on about how they going "to do some capitalism today" or when I want to start a business I say "I want to engage in capitalism". Maybe people like Ayn Rand embraced the term but generally is was the leftist who popularized it. It's not like socialists could say they're agianst "voluntary trade". So they use the term "capitalism" and eventually they came to believe the propaganda. The word doesn't really matter. It's what happens in reality that matters. In reality what you call it capitalism and misrepresent it as exploitation of the worker but it can be observed to just be voluntary trade. I don't know what "perfect market conditions dictated by the aggregate subjective evaluation of the labour (in all its dimensions) cost involved in its production" means. What are perfect market conditions? Why would a subjective evaluation dictate these perfect conditions? When I try to make sense of Marxist gobbledygook I just apply it to other realms of human interaction like the friendship market or the romance market or the sexual market or the market of ideas. When you do that it becomes clear that concepts like the ones you're using (a subjective evaluation of labor costs to determine a perfect market) are nonsense. Maybe I just don't get it and you can give me an example. You can't violate a proviso unless you've agreed to it first. It's just a proviso, not a moral principle. Capitalists take land/ resources and generally make them much more valuable. If anything capitalism is the most consistent with that proviso as the value land owners create more then compensates for the supposedly communal resources/space that they use. Not only are you usually left with an alternative "as much and as good" but much, much better. Again there seems to be this belief or feeling among socialists that capitalists are taking part of a finite pie. But they generally taking a uneatable pie and turning into an eatable one.

Self-ownership is a self-evident fact like existence. You are in control of and responsible for your voluntary actions. That's self ownership. If you make a comment here then it's logical to attribute that comment to you. You're responsible for it. Let's say that comment was a malicious lie that caused someone to get fired then you own the effects of those actions. Any restitution legitimately falls on you. If you commit a murder then you own that murder. Not only are you causally responsible but you are morally responsible. You own the effects of your actions because you have self-ownership. That's why a vicious dog or a lightning strike can not be a murderer; because although they may be causally responsible they cannot be morally responsible for the effects of their actions. Let's say you build a house using your own labor, time, etc. That house will be made using your labor, time, etc and not someone else's, right? So you house has a relationship to you that it does not have with others. You own the house. Everyone else does not own the house. See? The reason it's like Greek to many people is that you were not raised to understand property from first principles. Much property in society (all government property) is founded on violations of property and self ownership. The government declares ownership through the initiation of force and then teaches others that property can only exist if there's a government. Self-ownership can never be taught in schools and parents know little or nothing about it. It's a language you were never exposed to but it's incredibly simple an obvious.

This is not the generally held definition of the term, it's a Marxist definition and it's false. The labor theory of value is also false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor" or a "capitalist class". Capitalism IS voluntary free trade. That's what it is in reality so arguing over the lineage of the term is what's "useless". There's no such thing as 1 or 2 hours wages. There's only what people will pay. Profit goes both ways. Both parties (or more) exchange values and expect to come out of transaction better off. They expect to have increased their personal wealth. Saying that one party has taken "surplus labor" is just another way of saying "I don't think that was a fair price". What is "perfect competition"? There are two choices; humans can interact economically with or with the initiation of force. Capitalism is without the initiation of force. So if capitalism is not your cup of tea and you have some other way of interacting successfully that doesn't involve coercion then you are free to go do that. You don't have to be a capitalist.

I have noticed you are unable to argue agianst capitalism without framing it in terms of state capitalism. But even if everything you assert about state capitalism were true it's still better than state socialism. Socialism demonstrably kills hundreds of millions of people, destroys wealth and produces dilapidation and hunger. So even if the capitalism you are arguing against were 5 times worse it would still be a thousand times better than socialism.

It's a matter of logic. If G initiated force then by definition any proportionate force in response is defensive.

The worthless lump of clay would not have a market price reflecting the embodied labor. There is no value embodied in any commodities. This is a Marxist superstition. Value is 100 percent subjective. The value of anything can change on a whim and vary from person to person. There is nothing embodied in the commodity itself.

You misspelled "successful" in your title. What does philosophical master race mean?

Capitalists in a free society aren't plutocrats. Plutocrats wield power through government. There is no "private sector" in an anarchy. There's just private. "Better" is a subjective term but by any reasonable definition I've ever heard it's obviously vastly better if people do not have coercive power over you. Capitalism bring way more choices than other system. It's things like socialism that create "my way or the highway" scenarios as the collective claims to own everything.

Investment and work are both dynamic. The investors are workers too. That false distinction is socialist propaganda. By your same standard the "worker" has no value without the investor either. The investor/ capitalist significantly increases the "workers" value. If all a baseball club owner has is a park then why don't you and your buddies go buy a park and you can have your own baseball league that millions will follow and pay for? Maybe it's because it's more than just owning a park and maybe you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone takes advantage of the fact that they are necessary. Customer, employer and employee. That's how a profitable exchange works. Are you saying the entire society except for you has a slavish mind who just think capitalists are way more valuable than they are? That's clearly not true as capitalists are largely frowned upon and often despised usually because of of socialist propagandists. Just take your claim that capitalists contribution is analogous to a $5 dollar ignition key in a $25000 car; if that's true then why don't capitalists just outbid each other? One capitalist in a given field could just cut their prices in half and steal everyone else's business. What you're asserting is incredibly implausible. It would have to involve a generations long conspiracy among capitalists to artificially maintain their value. Under capitalism businesses have no coercive monopoly so it's just a socialist crackpot theory. What's worse is that you presume to know what the objective value of the capitalist should be but that's nonsense too as all value is subjective. Your issue with "man agianst millionaire" and paying for laws, etc is with government. Anarcho-capitalism has no government so go argue with statists on that point. If you believe all this nonsense then fine. Don't be a capitalist then Why are you on an anarcho-capitalist site debating this? Under an-cap you can just go be a socialist. As long as you're not initiating force we don't give a shit.

You talked about probabilities and possibilities. If you're talking about determinism then you can talk about if you like. I talk about it all the time.

Then the possibility of none of that happening must also happen; which would be a contradiction. If you accept contradiction then any rational debate with you is not possible so you should leave. There plenty of crackpot forums that debate this stoner babble. Please leave this forum

Dismissive? I made an argument and I continue to make it and you continue to ignore it and instead come back at me with waffling questions you think are somehow mind blowing or even remotely interesting. Then you call me "dismissive"? Then after having claimed you know of a planet were the laws of nature break down you accuse me of claiming I'm omniscient? What a jackass. What has the fact that human perception is limited (a boring fact) got to do with "problems with ethics from principles" or anything? You are depending upon the consistency of matter and energy to make your arguments and holding others to that standard. Either accept this or get off this forum. Your presence is an insult. No, by your own standard all your arguments are invalid because the laws of logic could change in 5 seconds so you can't say anything is valid or true. You're not omniscient.

Groan. A paradox? I guess I'm supposed to be blown away or something? How boring. Stop trying to undermine the foundations of reason while using those foundations to make your arguments or GTFO this forum. There is no planet like that and this doesn't happen. If it did happen then the arguments you make that it happens could not be valid. So if it does happen you're wrong and if it doesn't happen you're wrong. I don't know why you're allowed to remain on this forum but people who try to piss down our legs with radical skepticism should be booted out.

Sorry to hear that. I would suggest calling in to the show tomorrow. I'm sure Mike would move you up the cue if you ask.

Ownership is a descriptive claim too. You own your comment. That's true before we even get to any oughts. I do not understand the argument you're making with the rest of this. Could you put it into some logical form? Are you still spouting this nonsense? For the billionth time, this must also apply to your argument. If you keep trying to instill your insecurity about the foundations of reason and science using arguments that rely on those foundations then you are a blatant troll and should be removed from this forum.

The good thing about anarcho-capitalism is that you don't have to be a capitalist as leftists generally describe it. In a free society you can just get together and live as socialists.