LibertarianSocialist

If someone uses the violence and legal privilege inherent in the system to extract surplus labour, that is extortion. This is is a corporatist economy, no vulgar libertarian picking and choosing. I've never had employees in a financial situation. I don't like the family business example much, it casts to many false allusions to a romantic Jeffersonian Yeoman, it is is a poor representation of the real state of capitalist relations. I actually am pretty relaxed about medium businesses. Most of the owners barely get by. I used to help my mother in her business running a kiosk. In her case the profits would not even cover a minimum wage, and I was basically working gratis. Such a business owner is more a worker, In that they perform a necessary role and are reimbursed a fair amount for their labour. What I oppose is the big money kings and factory owners, you know, the 1% who don't even know where their businesses are, much less how to run them. The incompetents who benefit off daddy's hard work, and of the toil of their workers, but act like they were the reason they are so successful, despite never doing a single bit of work. The banker who moves money around and somehow turns that Into tangible things. If he didn't produce anything real, from where did those real items come? From labour. Capital is dead labour to me, and has already received it's pay in full, to get any more is usury in my eyes. My own ideal for a transitional society is one where everyone is a self owner of independent means, and come together in mutual free associations as appropriate. Of course everyone is selfish and wants to make money for themselves, selfishness is the root of all motivation, even altruism. What I argue is that everyone should have equal standing to ensure no one has the strength to impose his selfishness on others, at their expense. Liberty demands equality, the only rights a man has is what he can take. I never said using seed capital for paying wages was smart. I will post again my fundamental beliefs about why capital-labour relations are unjust, address them as they are the root of our contention: "From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly." -State Socialism and Anarchism

Don't forget we are talking about a "corporatist" economy here. I am talking about all the privileges the privileged classes have gained through the various "spooks" which have been cemented into law. These privileges have distorted the free market from its real equilibrium to one which allows the privilege classes to extort wealth from the oppressed classes above what is their rightful share. My own belief is that the abolishment of all monopoly, including the capitalist monopoly, will allow equilibrium levels to fall to their real rates, that is, price will fall to cost of production (cost the limit of price) and wages will rise to embody their entire product. Okay I did some research.2 out of 120 people left, he is hiring even more, not a bad retention. He is facing a bunch of customers bailing on him for his "political actions", they think he is setting a dangerous precedent with his wage increases. Others think higher wages will make the cost of service go up. He has already got enough new customers to replace the old, but it will take a year to see a profit from them. He is using both his personal salary and company profits to pay the wages. The last point is an issue, without constant growth, capitalist businesses die. He could perhaps encourage workers to buy into the company, but he couldn't force them to. All in all, it is not so clear what will happen, we will have to wait and see.

Hey guys, just climbing out from under my bridge. But seriously, we should define trolling by the presence of illogical & erroneous arguments. Upon request, a person should be made to substantiate his claims with empirical evidence or logical proofs. If he cannot do so, he may be deemed to be trolling. The presenting of inflammatory arguments, if backed by objective fact, should under no condition be considered trolling. Any labeling of such dissent as 'trolling' amounts to little more than the suppression of antagonistic ideas.

Yeah, it's like if one were to pay soccer players according to how many goals they score, completely undermines teamwork as each jostle for the goal spot. I would go further, what role did goods friends play, that helpful librarian or the guy that told the bus to wait for you? What percentage are they responsible for your successes? Not to mention the countless deceased builders, inventors and shapers of the world we see around us.

Why is it a failure? He is sacrificing the ability to extort others (he still does, but less than usual). Of course he will be financially disadvantaged compared to others in his position. How many working class people even own a house to rent out? He is forced to live in conditions the majority of people normally experience, hardly a sob story. What is sad is the employers who don't have to rent out their house because they can afford it through wealth they have stolen from their workers. Edit: This is why I hate this forum, why the down-votes? Are you so biased you are impervious to logical statements? Nothing I have said is incorrect. Where is the failure in what he is doing? As another mentioned, he is redistributing money which would otherwise be consumed by himself, he is not taking any money from the capital needed to maintain and expand his business. If he wants to live in conditions like his employees, that is a noble choice, and hardly unsustainable. Fuck all you guys, seriously, why don't you just censor me a little more for making factual statements opposed to your ideology.

Sounds a lot like the argument in this clip:https://youtu.be/WGqkyHd1cZk Only the percentage of profits reinvested into the business acts as a seed stock. The percentage of profit which goes to supporting the capitalists exorbitant lifestyle hardly contribute to remaining viable on the market. But if a capitalist were required to reinvest all his profit back into the business, what would be his motive for taking this burden upon himself? He would have no incentive. We see then that the capitalists only motivation is the ability to make profit above what is needed to remain solvent. His desire to maximize the wellbeing of his employers is in direct opposition to his own personal gain. What that guy is doing is simply giving a larger share of profits to the employees. It is hardly impossible given the average GDP per employee (in Aus) is roughly something like 120k a year (I think). The only limit to salary is worker profit productivity minus cost of production and distribution. Of course all this is dependent on the willingness of the employees to sacrifice their own profit potential, something which not many do.

Why u no put me?! Cool graph btw, cheers.

Here is a quote from State Socialism and Anarchism summarizing what socialists really believe: "From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly." It is us who argue for the equality of law. Capitalism is institutionalized privilege. Equality is simply a result of abolishing capitalist monopoly and privilege. Sorry utopian, ProfessionalTeabagger is right. What you are referring to is nationalization. The confusion is a unfortunate result of the historical conflation of 'state socialism', better defined as 'state capitalism' (and was by Lenin of all people), with the real principles of socialism.

I agree, I would say communism is inevitable once production, the willingness of people to do productive labour x productive ability, outstrips average consumption wants by at least a reasonable large percentage of people (maybe a large majority, not sure). People think I want to cut down the tall poppies, to involuntarily steal from some to give to others, under the conditions of scarcity. Far from it, I simply want people to pursue their rational interests when such a state of affairs is possible. I genuinely believe that period is near or now for much of the first world. But it stands to be proven, and so people must come to the conclusion themselves, by their own volition. A for Anything sounds like an interesting novel (haven't read it tbh) discussing an extreme post scarcity capitalist economy, though I would imagine if such a society were real, anything but communism would have been rejected long ago.

Which naturally leads us to communism as the only means of wealth/property distribution. I am arguing the futility of a system of personal renumeration by ANY people or group of people. Who says individual remuneration says externalization. Now, I am not saying that individual remuneration ought to be forcefully abolished, such an act would set a precedent for the worst kinds of injustice, but we ought to acknowledge that externalization is inevitable, and ought to put in place a pressure release system for some of its worse consequences. In this regard the infrastructure of capitalism has proven unwilling and insufficient.

Here's a good YouTube video showing in a few minutes how broken our voting system is through easy to engage graphical illustrations.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Eve Online? It is essentially a space mmo with a largely player-driven and emergent free market economy, playing host to hundreds of thousands of players in one giant server. The reason I thought you guys might appreciate it is because I believe It does a good job of simulating a stateless capitalist society. Much of the regions are considered "nullsec" that is, have zero state laws or policing. I have added a few links explaining the game, advocating eve as a stateless free market simulator, as well as some arguing against this. http://justinandrewjohnson.com/gaming/eve-online-best-game-economists http://justinandrewjohnson.com/gaming/econ-121-principles-eve-economics http://justinandrewjohnson.com/gaming/The-EVE-Online-Monopoly-Part-1 http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/21/eve-economist-interview/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/11/eve-online-player-steals-45-000-worth-of-isk-in-massive-investm/ http://www.pcgamer.com/nowhere-is-safe-in-eve-online-as-goonswarm-suicide-bombs-galactic-trade-hub/ https://libertarianismeve.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/how-eve-is-inherently-anti-libertarianist/ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=242528 http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/25/eve-evolved-eve-onlines-not-so-free-market/ Your thoughts and opinions? Please add additional information if you wish

Who's defending the government? Of course communal access to goods (common land) is going to abused by market players where possible, it is a classic externalization, the privation of gains and the socialization of costs. While the ability to externalize costs may be greater for common land, it is in no way absent from private holdings. This is because you can't privatize everything. How might one privatize the atmosphere, for instance. (a pressing concern too due to global warming). Such a hybrid system of public/private ownership will of course promote externalization, the ability to own capital privately, and to use such capital to extract profits, incentivizes the conversion of common wealth to personal wealth. In such a system why would you not take what is others if you were able? Market competition actually dictates you must. Under anarchist socialism, such partial common ownership would not exist to the same extent, and where the ability to convert public wealth to private wealth exists, such as left wing market anarchism, occupancy and use would be the limiting factor. Communism would remove the incentive to privatize gains while socializing costs entirely, by removing the major reason to externalize costs onto others, the maximization of private profit. It should be stressed that the socialization of costs to maximize profit is not absent from the privately owned holding. Most here make the mistake of conflating personal property with private property, and of forgetting that capital is highly mobile. Say a man called Leopold II of Belgium acquires the Congo Free State. His aims are to maximize profits. To do this he externalizes all those costs he can. He destroys villages, the environment and his available workforce. He essentially owns all these things (he doesn't own the people, but as residents they are considered worth tied to the area). As he owns these, he is destroying his own wealth, why? Because that wealth is useless to him. It is wealth that can only benefit the locals. He is happy to destroy this wealth so as to convert a fraction of it into wealth of a more useful nature to him. Also, imagine that by owning the land he can generate 200 million a year in perpetuity or 4 billion for one year. If there exists other entrepreneurial avenues with greater than 5% return on investment, the latter is the logical choice. As interest is not derived from real wealth, the total sum of wealth has been reduced. It certainly has for all those people whose whole country has been destroyed, but they are of course externalities. In real life he cares little if he harvests all his wood so long as he has the ability to reinvest his capital elsewhere. If demand outstrips supply it actually encourages unsustainable harvests, the owner will only reduce supply if it is his best long term interest out of a myriad of other capital investments. Also, don't fall down the well of thinking scarcity is as prevalent as people assume. Most scarcity nowadays is a result of private property ensured artificial scarcity so as to drive up relative profit. We have many ways in which we could reduce scarcity. For instance, the state restricts access to land on behalf of the Interests of capital (and itself) so as to force everyone to buy 1 million dollar homes in Sydney when land elsewhere is 1000 times cheaper. Likewise we feed fish to other fish because if we sold the former fish at true price it would not be worthwhile bringing to market. Thus we see sardines and tuna for near the same price at the store. Not to say that your points were wrong, they weren't, but that they only apply in certain circumstances.

Even Bjorn Lamborgs solution has one major problem, it requires people to do it. Competition mandates you get others to pay while not doing so yourself, it results in forced collective shirking. People do look after what they own, but they often don't give a damn about others. This is especially true when those others' interests conflicts with their own. A society which allows some to hold disproportionate power will allow them to walk all over the best interests of others, and will likely result in examples as given in my second last post.

Actually, anarchists argue that inequality is biological and unavoidable too. What anarchists oppose is the artificial inequality inherent in the capitalist system. Capital accumulation under capitalism is not based on merit, it is based on capital, hence its name. When anarchists talk of inequality they usually mean this artificial state of affairs. It is a fundamental difference in what constitutes justified inequality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_the_limit_of_price The article was so full of fail I couldn't finish. Here's a better outline of the fundamental principles of anarchism (ignoring the unfair and misinformed slander of anarchist communism at the end). https://youtu.be/HeoJP6P5vto

It's not so much the panels/turbines are bad it's the massive battery bank (or alternate method of energy storage) that needs to be replaced every ten years. Batteries are the real resource hogs. This is why I think co-generation is a great idea. Nuclear does seem the cleanest and most flexible, but as mentioned scalability is an issue, it's just too much power to give into so few hands. Even my sustainable and decentralized energy generation of choice, wood gasification, (not that it's working yet!) is too inconvenient at anything less than 100 kW/h/day.

Interesting points, would love for you to elaborate on them, or transition in general. Speaking of foreign policy, how does one go about freely trading with non free-market societies? Say you allow unrestricted trade with a country which practices subsidization, or the suppression of wages. Would not those providers in your country who paid the full cost of production be wiped out on the market? What is to stop employers in FDRland from employing foreign workers with artificially low wages, so as to gain competitive advantage?

Market competition is a form of duress. If I decide to stop accumulating capital I will go out of business, I will be swallowed by the market. This is why it is called competition. I have yet to see a market participant who does not external costs. Such externalities becomes a necessity of competitive advantage. Global warming due to carbon emissions is the largest example of the tragedy of the commons we have. It is directly facilitated by the necessity of externalizing costs. You will need to provide compelling evidence why private property would lead to complete internalization, a real world example would be good. My relation to wealth and poverty is that of every working class person. I am poor. I had decided to go to university to become a psychologist, I transferred to nursing to become a psychiatric nurse practitioner. I gave it up because I could not stomach the concept of a life of wage slavery. Of condoning, even supporting, a system which I found immoral. I realized after some time I could no longer support our system, and so took steps to dislocated myself as much as possible from it. I am living on $60 a week in a rural area, just trying to empower myself as much as possible through providing my own necessities as much as possible and helping others in the local community. My goal is to eventually assist others in weaning themselves from their dependency on capital and state.

Maybe public property utilized for individual gain is worse than an exclusively private system of property. I am arguing that market economies under a system of private property (ratcheting effect) cannot deal with, and are actually encouraged to externalize costs. Externalization of cost is the driving motive behind the tragedy of the commons. There exists no reasonable way in dealing with externalities under capitalism. Suppose my company produces toxic chemicals which leach into a river and then into the ocean. Perhaps the factory below me might seek damages. They could conduct a study, determine the source and damage of the toxic substance, and receive full recompense. But what of the fisherman on the coast? He would have to conduct a study tracing the chemicals back 100's of km to the source, providing extensive evidence of ocean patterns and of the dispersal of the substance, making samples as he went. He would have to ascertain the damage done to the species of animal his profits were contingent on, and provide evidence of his probable financial losses. Suppose there existed several such companies in proximity, how would our poor fisherman ascertain by whom and in what amounts he was injured amongst them. He would be asked to show conclusive evidence of whom and in what amount were responsible, which given the complexity may be unobtainable, to demonstrate via longitudinal study the effects on his property of this chemical, and to rule out entirely any confounding variables. He would have to do this on a peasants income. He cannot receive compensation in a general lawsuit because any defendant might cast doubt that the individual was really effected, and would ask for evidence nothing less than what I have discussed above. On top of this, should he fail to provide such conclusive evidence and his case found insufficient, he would be required to pay the full costs of the defendant, who by virtue of their economic standing could leverage huge sums and conduct counter studies disproving or casting doubt on the claims of the accuser. Should he actually win after all this he would likely only be paid for the costs of his case and for damages caused. This might be millions in case and research fees, but he himself might get only one years salary of a fisherman, a paltry sum for him. Law companies would never take on such cases as his chances of winning might be extremely low, and they are in the business of making profit. Should he lose he could never pay them, presuming anyone would lend him the capital to hire them anyway.

Yes, you are right. Though it should be stated that one does not need to provide those entitled with a certain "allocated" piece of land, but rather something of equivalence. Geolibertarianism says an equivalent amount of money will do. Therefore one does not need to give those entitled the base materials which he has already used if he can provide the entitled with a sufficient alternative. If 10 people live on an island and mine 5 tonnes each of iron of a total supply of 100, if another 10 come there is still sufficient for them. If there was only 50 tonne, the former would have to share. It could be said though that the second 50 tonnes is significantly harder to mine, thus of less quality, certainly of less quality if it was completely strip mined, I don't know how this would play out, really good question. I might make another post after I have thought about this. It should be said that I am actually a Libertarian Communist, and so find much of the ideas I argue for contain many absurdities to me, but I will keep an open mind to them as alternative or preferential solutions under particular contexts. For instance, I personally find the concept of an individual fruit of labour absurd given all production is social.

'Land' is that thing which exists under our feet, it is fairly evident. All those other claims are called 'capital' (though strictly speaking they are are a composite of land and labour). The right to land is the right to possess it, to utilize it and derive fruits from it. It was not made by anyone and so cannot be owned by anyone. People can only exercise their right to use it, in equal measure with others, and to own that capital which springs forth from it. The ability of one to utilize his land is of no concern to anyone else. If he cannot utilize his land that is his misfortune, but to say this makes him ineligible to what is his is unjust and authoritarian. Who decides his proficiency? If I am a better driver than you, does that give me the right to commandeer your car? "NOT owning the land without your consent ALSO deprives you of the produce of that land." If I withhold the land which I am not using, cannot yet use, surely I am depriving him? However, should I assert my rightful stake he would have to vacate, my right to equal measure is greater than his right of surplus at my expense. Your argument seems to imply it would be imposing for him to not produce for you. There is a big difference in imposing and withholding, no man has an obligation to produce for another. But you know this already. Imagine a scenario of an island. 10 people colonize the island, each asserting their right to 1/10th, though in practice they may utilize less or more if consented to. Now imagine the population doubles as the population grows to 20. For the previous 10 to retain their property they must exclude ownership by the latter 10. The latter did not, could not consent, the decision was imposed on them. And of what right do the former have to the land? They mixed their labour it is true, but should that only entitle them to the capital which springs forth, not the land itself? If an entity, call it Gaia, decides to distribute all her belongings equally among humanity present and future, and I come along before they are yet handed out and scribble my name on them all, am I entitled to them? It would be seen as unjust no matter how much I protested that my labour had been mixed with them, because I mixed my labour knowing they were destined for other people. If I however utilized the objects until the time others came to claim their portion, I have not deprived them in any way, and my usage is justified so long as I relinquish them to their rightful owner. Land is free, how can it not be? Did you create the land? Did anyone? Even homesteading acknowledges land is free, and goes about distributing it. What is not free is the capital which uses and has been built upon, land. This however is a separate entity to land, and the land is no more mine than the car I build from automobile parts I had stolen. Even if the labour I expended makes the majority mine, it is just for the owners to take it back, even if they must "steal" back my significant labour expenditure which has become inseparable from the parts.

Why can't market advocates realize that the tragedy of the commons is an example of the self destructive nature of for-profit market competition? Imagine the test paper represented a block of privately owned farmland. One can either choose to overwork the land for a 6 point yield, or sustainably manage for 2 points. Overworking of more than 10% of the land at any given time will lead to massive erosion turning the region into a dustbowl. Which option do you choose when under the duress of market survival?

If land is something which no man created, it stands that each man's right to it must be equal. As land is finite, it stands that past a certain point, all acquisitions must be had at the expense of another man's potential to own it himself. If some men are allowed to take all the land, any additional men must be necessarily deprived. If those who are deprived are those who's births came later than the time of acquisition, it stands they could not consent to the acquisition, that it must have been imposed. The deprivation of one man by another of what is rightfully his, done without the possibility of his consent, that is imposed, ought not to be permitted in any just society.

I think the idea of the land tax is involuntary compensation for an involuntary imposition. That is, the proprietor cannot decide to reject paying the compensatory tax whilst simultaneously imposing an involuntary state of affairs on others.

If I remember the concept correctly, it rests on the premise of the Lockean Proviso that ownership of private property is legitimate so long as it causes no-one to be worse off were there no private property at all. It is an interesting attempt at compensation for those who by no fault of theirs were given insufficient amounts, no, or poor quality land. As WasatchMan says, it does pose several problems. Who decides who taxes who, and in what amounts? Other problems exists such as the likely resurrection of the state via a privileged class of tax bureaucrats working in collusion with landowners. (One bureaucrat simply maintains he needs bodyguards to see that "justice" is done.) Overall it seems like it would likely need a large dedicated organizational body with supreme decision making authority backed by military force, to undertake such a complex feat of redistribution. An organizational body which would be almost identical to a state. Having said that I am hardly knowledgeable on the subject. Overall I think that the problem of the Lockean Proviso is far better addressed by a system of personal property (also known as possession rights or usufruct) employed by all strains of social anarchism.