CEO raises wages significantly above market rates... Predictions?

[cab21]

"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

this does not make sense to me so far.

 

how did Smith come up with this principle?

 

can you give some real world examples of this?

 

now for this company, they provide a service, not a product.

what is the proper price of a service where there is no product in this theory?

at most the "product" is that clients get paid? does providing this service entitle of company to all or some of the pay that clients get for selling products or services? if so, wouldn't this subtract from those sellers getting the full product of their labor? this company would then get nothing, and labor for nothing?

 

is this calling a basic voluntary contract signed with mutual consent, which free market capitalism is, "legal privilege" and "monopoly"?

[MagnumPI]

So you deny the existence of an organizational body with a monopoly of force which manipulates the market in the favour of a chosen class? I know you don't. Or is it that government policy is dominated by the machinations of single black mothers on welfare?

Also, you might want to examine the basic principles of a free market. One of the requirements is zero barriers to entry. Capitalist monopoly is a barrier to entry. The closest example to a stateless capitalist free market I know is eve online, feel free to show me a better example.http://justinandrewjohnson.com/gaming/The-EVE-Online-Monopoly-Part-1

HOW ARE WE DEFINING EXTORTION? Fuck...

[LibertarianSocialist]

free market capitalism by definition cannot exploit or extort.

 

so if we have a government that does not practice free market capitalism, we cannot blame free market capitalism on a government that breaks the principles of free market capitalism through a mixed market.

 

what do you mean by capitalist monopoly?

in free market capitalism anyone can start a  business, as long as the person does not violate individual rights to do so.

Capitalist monopoly is the monopoly forming tendencies inherent in the capitalist system. Private property, specifically the right to absentee ownership, and the use of said absentee property to generate profits not derived from personal labour, incentivizes a system of continual growth and consolidation.

 

The history of capitalist accumulation shows the ever increasing consolidation of wealth into fewer hands. This is true of the present, the Gilded Age, and the Roman Empire, as well as many periods.

 

The link I gave about Eve Online is to demonstrate what I believe to be one of the closest approximations to a stateless free market I know, and to show the presence of capitalist accumulation and consolidation even in such a setting, with violent conflict, hierarchical domination (including state-like corporations) and market manipulations all outgrowths of the desire to consolidate private wealth and power.

 

Look at how the game works, we see the formation of highly bureaucratic corporations, in market competition if advantageous, in violent conflict where likewise. Violent conflict is just a facet of the freest of markets, the Darwinian one. We end up with the champion of the battle (goonswarm federation) utilizing it's monopoly on force to coercively manipulate the market through cartelization, violent intimidation and overt theft.

HOW ARE WE DEFINING EXTORTION? Fuck...

Extortion is the use of violence or coercion to take what is not rightfully yours. Such a state of affairs certainly exists under or current society, and would even in a theoretical ancapistan, should you reject any of the societal premises on the grounds of the Lockean proviso.

this does not make sense to me so far.

 

how did Smith come up with this principle?

 

can you give some real world examples of this?

 

now for this company, they provide a service, not a product.

what is the proper price of a service where there is no product in this theory?

at most the "product" is that clients get paid? does providing this service entitle of company to all or some of the pay that clients get for selling products or services? if so, wouldn't this subtract from those sellers getting the full product of their labor? this company would then get nothing, and labor for nothing?

 

is this calling a basic voluntary contract signed with mutual consent, which free market capitalism is, "legal privilege" and "monopoly"?

The basic premise of the ltv is that all wealth is derived from either natural inputs (the world), or labour. Of which only labour, being defined as a subjective value, is the only just form of Income.

It is a rejection of "unearned" income from capital. Take a man who homesteads an island. If later the population increases 10 fold, he is able to rent out his property for a profit. He has not done any work or only little, but soon the island is rich off the toil of the others. His paltry investment is paid back 100 fold. But if he did not create anything, from where did the profits come? From the labour of the workers. This is because only labour creates wealth. They have mixed 100 times more labour with the soil than he, but they will never own it.

What we see now is factories netting owners huge profits. They did not build it, some workers did, nor does he run it, again workers do.

So we have a system in which by no fault of their own, working class people are born into a reality they never consented to, which ensures they must sacrifice the majority of their labour to a person who never earned it. It is simply cumulative theft and unjustified legal privilege.

 

The "product" in this instance would be financial reimbursement for the cost of production (the embodied labour). In a free market the exact amount is likely up for competition, but will tend towards the full value under a truly freed market. Mutualists also stress the use of "labour notes" while under non free-market conditions. Having said that, such usury would be made unviable by the abolishment of the various capitalist monopolies (money, land, tariff, patent etc.) (see Tuckers state socialism and anarchism).

 

I disagree that capitalism is voluntary. I have addressed this in numerous other posts.

[cab21]

violent conflict is not free market, but a lack of free market.

if there is violent conflict, at least one party was wrong.

a free market allows self defense, but not offense.

it is a rejection of "unearned" income from capital. Take a man who homesteads an island. If later the population increases 10 fold, he is able to rent out his property for a profit. He has not done any work or only little, but soon the island is rich off the toil of the others. His paltry investment is paid back 100 fold. But if he did not create anything, from where did the profits come? From the labour of the workers. This is because only labour creates wealth. They have mixed 100 times more labour with the soil than he, but they will never own it.
What we see now is factories netting owners huge profits. They did not build it, some workers did, nor does he run it, again workers do.
So we have a system in which by no fault of their own, working class people are born into a reality they never consented to, which ensures they must sacrifice the majority of their labour to a person who never earned it. It is simply cumulative theft and unjustified legal privilege.

 

if the population increases 10 fold, the property increases in value because of increased demand for the property.

the man homesteaded the island, so he did something that others saw as valuable for their to be demand to live on the property. he created by homesteading.

the labour of workers is profitable to the workers, or they would not agree to do the labour. the labour is paid in full the wages they agree to.

 

any working class person can be a owner by creating something.

the labour is not sacrificed, it's bought in exchange for compensation. if people feel the compensation is not enough, don't do it.

people can start their own companies where they feel they get fair trade.

 

the owner of the factory hired the workers, so the workers have given the product of their labor to the factory owner in exchange for compensation. again, the owner hires people to run the factory, who give the product of their labor to the factory owner in exchange for compensation. the factory owner owns the result of the labor because the factory owner has paid for it.
 

 

The "product" in this instance would be financial reimbursement for the cost of production (the embodied labour). In a free market the exact amount is likely up for competition, but will tend towards the full value under a truly freed market. Mutualists also stress the use of "labour notes" while under non free-market conditions. Having said that, such usury would be made unviable by the abolishment of the various capitalist monopolies (money, land, tariff, patent etc.) (see Tuckers state socialism and anarchism).

people get financial reimbursement for their labour. a owner buys the product of labour through financial compensation. the owner has to labour to make such sales and trade, so the full cost of labour is the sum of all this labour.

 

why would a person lend financial assets if at most, the person gets a 0% return, and at worst, the person loses 100% of the financial assets? it sounds like a system that will kill people  and have no surplus for emergency.

[MagnumPI]

Extortion is the use of violence or coercion to take what is not rightfully yours. Such a state of affairs certainly exists under or current society, and would even in a theoretical ancapistan, should you reject any of the societal premises on the grounds of the Lockean proviso.

Cite sources? And why exactly does the Lockean 'proviso' apply?

[LibertarianSocialist]

Cite sources? And why exactly does the Lockean 'proviso' apply?

I'm not citing sources for the current state of affairs, it is evident, your philosophy acknowledges such too.

 

The Lockean Proviso represents an important concept. If the world was made by none, it stands to belong to all equally. This includes those currently and yet to come. If by your ownership you deny another his ownership of his rightful share, you negatively impose upon him. Your only right to ownership is that of equal measure. Now, whatever society you choose to embrace is up to you, but you cannot say "this is my property, above what is my equal share, but it had been decided before that such rights were valid, you must respect my property rights, agreed beforehand and without your consent". The claim to private property has no natural justification, it is an arbitrary concept, with arbitrary components like homesteading. What of the man who rejects such an arbitrary state of affairs? He is of course labelled an "aggressor" against "property rights" and jailed or perhaps killed.

 

Saying it is not a free market if "x" is useless. What is useful is demonstrating that "x" would not exist in such a society, that such a state of affairs can actually come about, all evidence points to the contrary. That would be like me supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat and saying "I support it when it works out like in theory" if it fails it wasn't a true dotp, see?

 

Your argument completely ignores the coercive nature of our system. If a minority is allowed to monopolize the means of life, it will cause a coercive state of affairs for those in need. It creates creates a clear imbalance in bargaining power. If a man needs to eat, but he is landless, he must sell his labour to another for a wage only a fraction of what he produces by labour. If he worked for himself he could get this entire product. Therefore the only reason he works for another is due to coercive conditions, whatever they may be, and so he cannot be said to be making a completely voluntary choice. If a friend came late to a game of monopoly, it would not be just to bind him to the consequences taken before his ability to consent to them. If he comes to a board completely covered In hotels, and he has nothing, of course he would be indignant. Such a state of affairs cries out to the moral sensibilities of everyone.

 

Interest is less than 1% to cover administration. The idea is to abolish interest and rent seeking. I can't say I can give a mutualist account of mutual banking, but I can give my own anarchist synthesis viewpoint. I think the idea is to fund the mutual banks is to use Individuals' property as collateral in seeking loans. That property being granted via occupancy and use. Admittedly I need to learn more about this facet of mutualism, I am mostly familiar with communism/syndicalism.

I see no reason a system of privatized money lending is necessary, it has not been necessary historically (Free Territory, Spanish Revolution, etc.).

[Torero]

I'm not citing sources for the current state of affairs, it is evident, your philosophy acknowledges such too.

 

The Lockean Proviso represents an important concept. If the world was made by none, it stands to belong to all equally. This includes those currently and yet to come. If by your ownership you deny another his ownership of his rightful share, you negatively impose upon him. Your only right to ownership is that of equal measure. Now, whatever society you choose to embrace is up to you, but you cannot say "this is my property, above what is my equal share, but it had been decided before that such rights were valid, you must respect my property rights, agreed beforehand and without your consent". The claim to private property has no natural justification, it is an arbitrary concept, with arbitrary components like homesteading. What of the man who rejects such an arbitrary state of affairs? He is of course labelled an "aggressor" against "property rights" and jailed or perhaps killed.

Hi LibertarianSocialist, everytime I see your name I have to wonder how you came up with that oxymoron name. It sounds to me like a vegetarian carnivore or a peaceful warmongerer.

 

You say:

 

 

The claim to private property has no natural justification, it is an arbitrary concept

 

 

I am always curious to hear people defend the destruction of private property and apart from rational philosophy I am curious to see how you would explain practical situations like:

 

- what happens with handicapped people? In a world without private property, it is thus possible to take (stealing doesn't exist without private property) someones electrical wheelchair and go joy riding and that poor poor disabled person has no right to claim his/her property back? Would you agree that that is pretty horrible to say the least?

- what happens with damage? If I would take "your" car (or a car you use a lot in that non-property world) and crash it, who is going to pay for the damage? Who makes sure you can use the car again tomorrow?

- who is maintaining this system? Who in a world without private property has the right (which you could consider a property; who owns the right) to reclaim the property someone claims? So, in a concrete example: if one takes someones property (possessions, things, stuff) and claims it his'/hers, the police (or whatever agency there would be in your world) comes and takes it "back" to provide that stuff again to everyone?

-> isn't that police, or agency doing just that at that moment; claiming property, which according to your own principles wouldn't be possible in the first place?

 

I really cannot get my head around the so many contradictions that would occur in "your world", let alone the complete chaos it will bring...

 

But as I take you seriously as a fellow member here, I would like to hear your explanations for these in my opinion contradictory positions and impossible practical situations.

[LibertarianSocialist]

 

Hey Torero. Essentially the term libertarian socialist was a term used in the 1850s to get around bans in France on using the term anarchist, which is roughly synonymous.

 

Anarchists propose a system of personal property, as distinct from private property, not "no property" as is generally assumed.

Section B.3.1 of an An Anarchist FAQ discusses this.

 

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3

[Torero]

Hey Torero. Essentially the term libertarian socialist was a term used in the 1850s to get around bans in France on using the term anarchist, which is roughly synonymous.

 

Anarchists propose a system of personal property, as distinct from private property, not "no property" as is generally assumed.

Section B.3.1 of an An Anarchist FAQ discusses this.

 

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3

 

But why would you use that oxymoron term? Anarchist cannot be the same, not even roughly. Anarchism opposes statism. Libertarianism (NAP, respecting personal/private property) opposes socialism (a state-guided society, not respecting personal/private property).

 

The personal/private property difference only exists in the minds of marxists. See Wikipedia.

 

A house can be property AND a mean or production (if you have an office in your house, if you use your house as home school, etc.). There is no distinction between these two properties, only a semantic one.

 

Pity you do not want to answer my questions on the examples, especially the handicapped one. For him/her the wheelchair can be regarded as a mean of production, for the one "stealing" it, it may be just joy. A horrible situation, as the poor handicapped person has no right to claim his/her property (back)....

[cab21]

Saying it is not a free market if "x" is useless. What is useful is demonstrating that "x" would not exist in such a society, that such a state of affairs can actually come about, all evidence points to the contrary. That would be like me supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat and saying "I support it when it works out like in theory" if it fails it wasn't a true dotp, see?

 

there is no society that has no violence at all. this is the real world, not utopia.

 

 

Your argument completely ignores the coercive nature of our system. If a minority is allowed to monopolize the means of life, it will cause a coercive state of affairs for those in need. It creates creates a clear imbalance in bargaining power. If a man needs to eat, but he is landless, he must sell his labour to another for a wage only a fraction of what he produces by labour. If he worked for himself he could get this entire product. Therefore the only reason he works for another is due to coercive conditions, whatever they may be, and so he cannot be said to be making a completely voluntary choice. If a friend came late to a game of monopoly, it would not be just to bind him to the consequences taken before his ability to consent to them. If he comes to a board completely covered In hotels, and he has nothing, of course he would be indignant. Such a state of affairs cries out to the moral sensibilities of everyone.

 

if a minority produce more value than others, those minority should get more because the produced more.

if there is just public ownership, the administrators of the ownership have even more power than any capitalist could ever have. the admin sets prices and controls everything, while a capitalist competes in a market.

there is no system where everyone has eaqual bargaining power, and if there was, people would die because the incompetant would overrule the competant and resources would just be wasted rather than having enough resources for people to live on.

people work because nature means people need resources to survive, there is no system where noone needs to work or trade.

if there are too few workers, it just can't sustain life.

the wage a person gets is the full amount of what a person produces. other people also produce, so they get what they produce as well.

if someone only does a fraction of what it takes to get a product to the consumer, the person should only get a fraction of the price the consumer pays.

 

if a person works for himself, doing the whole supply chain, from inventing a product, to selling that product to a customer, he cannot accomplish anything close to what we have in the modern world. it would take a lot of time and energy to get not much reward.

 

 

Interest is less than 1% to cover administration. The idea is to abolish interest and rent seeking. I can't say I can give a mutualist account of mutual banking, but I can give my own anarchist synthesis viewpoint. I think the idea is to fund the mutual banks is to use Individuals' property as collateral in seeking loans. That property being granted via occupancy and use. Admittedly I need to learn more about this facet of mutualism, I am mostly familiar with communism/syndicalism.

I see no reason a system of privatized money lending is necessary, it has not been necessary historically (Free Territory, Spanish Revolution, etc.).

 

how does 1% pay for admin? that seems like a low amount for the work done to admin.

so if a person can't pay a loan back, the person loses individual property. if the house is individual property, what it goes to a community bank that then gives the house back to make sure everyone has a house? if someone does a bad job at using land, they just get more land, or the same land? if personal property is not something the bank can do anything with, it's not a great value.

 

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htmi did find this on the spanish revolution. it does not sound successful.

 

a private bank allows people to get rewarded for taking risks. it allows freedom to determine what services to offer and how, and for what, and do who, so it allows free association and for people to make their own determinations and judgements and use their own minds as to whether to invest or not.  a bank does a service, so workers and creators of banks should get paid for such a service and profit is the only way to do that. to pay people, more money has to come in than goes out, otherwise all the money just goes towards paying people and there is no money to lend.

[MagnumPI]

I'm not citing sources for the current state of affairs, it is evident, your philosophy acknowledges such too.

 

The Lockean Proviso represents an important concept. If the world was made by none, it stands to belong to all equally. This includes those currently and yet to come. If by your ownership you deny another his ownership of his rightful share, you negatively impose upon him. Your only right to ownership is that of equal measure. Now, whatever society you choose to embrace is up to you, but you cannot say "this is my property, above what is my equal share, but it had been decided before that such rights were valid, you must respect my property rights, agreed beforehand and without your consent". The claim to private property has no natural justification, it is an arbitrary concept, with arbitrary components like homesteading. What of the man who rejects such an arbitrary state of affairs? He is of course labelled an "aggressor" against "property rights" and jailed or perhaps killed.

Saying it is not a free market if "x" is useless. What is useful is demonstrating that "x" would not exist in such a society, that such a state of affairs can actually come about, all evidence points to the contrary. That would be like me supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat and saying "I support it when it works out like in theory" if it fails it wasn't a true dotp, see?

 

Your argument completely ignores the coercive nature of our system. If a minority is allowed to monopolize the means of life, it will cause a coercive state of affairs for those in need. It creates creates a clear imbalance in bargaining power. If a man needs to eat, but he is landless, he must sell his labour to another for a wage only a fraction of what he produces by labour. If he worked for himself he could get this entire product. Therefore the only reason he works for another is due to coercive conditions, whatever they may be, and so he cannot be said to be making a completely voluntary choice. If a friend came late to a game of monopoly, it would not be just to bind him to the consequences taken before his ability to consent to them. If he comes to a board completely covered In hotels, and he has nothing, of course he would be indignant. Such a state of affairs cries out to the moral sensibilities of everyone.

 

Interest is less than 1% to cover administration. The idea is to abolish interest and rent seeking. I can't say I can give a mutualist account of mutual banking, but I can give my own anarchist synthesis viewpoint. I think the idea is to fund the mutual banks is to use Individuals' property as collateral in seeking loans. That property being granted via occupancy and use. Admittedly I need to learn more about this facet of mutualism, I am mostly familiar with communism/syndicalism.

I see no reason a system of privatized money lending is necessary, it has not been necessary historically (Free Territory, Spanish Revolution, etc.).

 

So... The current state of affairs, according to "my" philosophy, is that I am taking what is not rightfully mine? Do you think you deserve a ride in my(or is it rightfully your) Jag? Why not a ride on my(or is it rightfully your) cock? Can't have it, though, remember. Because then there wouldn't enough for everyone else.

 

I read about all this in some dystopian book. What was it... Oh right. Brave New World. Even the author in favor of such a shit world wrote it with a miserable ending.

 

All this bullshit about anti-property is really just losers expecting a handout. If I were a lazy sod, no ambition and the world owed me a living, fuck yeahs! Equality!

 

But I'm not. So keep your greasy fingers off my shit. Sorry you don't have any marketable skills. Programming and health care are big right now. Stay away from art and literature. And fall forward. When you fuck up, do it better next time. Don't be afraid of the train ticket, pack small and don't keep a lot of furniture, and compete by not competing. Be the best help to everyone, even the assholes you're just trying to get a managerial status over. Go out and compete, come back when you have experience in owning and 'extorting' before you preach about whatever it is you claim we're all doing.(conveniently, without providing any specific examples)

[labmath2]

I think the point libertariansocialist is making is about fairness. In one of Stefs videos, someone challenged homesteading by asking stef to apply upb to it. Interestingly, stef did the two guys in a room test but he assumed both men would homestead half the room. This is the point of contention. What if one guy homesteads everywhere except the place the other guy was currently occupying. What if instead, they arrive in the room seperately abd the first guy had already honesteaded the whole room before the other guy got there. None of us would find it fair that one guy owes the other guy for merely being in the room. This is the essence of the lockean proviso.

[LibertarianSocialist]

But why would you use that oxymoron term? Anarchist cannot be the same, not even roughly. Anarchism opposes statism. Libertarianism (NAP, respecting personal/private property) opposes socialism (a state-guided society, not respecting personal/private property).

 

The personal/private property difference only exists in the minds of marxists. See Wikipedia.

 

A house can be property AND a mean or production (if you have an office in your house, if you use your house as home school, etc.). There is no distinction between these two properties, only a semantic one.

 

Pity you do not want to answer my questions on the examples, especially the handicapped one. For him/her the wheelchair can be regarded as a mean of production, for the one "stealing" it, it may be just joy. A horrible situation, as the poor handicapped person has no right to claim his/her property (back)....

Please do some more research socialism, in particular the distinction between anarchism and state "socialism". The Anarchist FAQ I linked you should answer all your q's. It is pretty long so just brush through the index?

[LibertarianSocialist]

So... The current state of affairs, according to "my" philosophy, is that I am taking what is not rightfully mine? Do you think you deserve a ride in my(or is it rightfully your) Jag? Why not a ride on my(or is it rightfully your) cock? Can't have it, though, remember. Because then there wouldn't enough for everyone else.

I read about all this in some dystopian book. What was it... Oh right. Brave New World. Even the author in favor of such a shit world wrote it with a miserable ending.

All this bullshit about anti-property is really just losers expecting a handout. If I were a lazy sod, no ambition and the world owed me a living, fuck yeahs! Equality!

But I'm not. So keep your greasy fingers off my shit. Sorry you don't have any marketable skills. Programming and health care are big right now. Stay away from art and literature. And fall forward. When you fuck up, do it better next time. Don't be afraid of the train ticket, pack small and don't keep a lot of furniture, and compete by not competing. Be the best help to everyone, even the assholes you're just trying to get a managerial status over. Go out and compete, come back when you have experience in owning and 'extorting' before you preach about whatever it is you claim we're all doing.(conveniently, without providing any specific examples)

Well the question is, was that Jaguar afforded through your own personal labour, or did you exploit a coercive situation to extract surplus labour of a precarious class? You seriously think the heirs of wallmart got what they had through fairly remunerated labour? No, they got it by exploiting the current societal conditions for their own ends. Their empire, like all empires, was built on the backs of those below them.

 

Brave New World is not anarchistic, it is perhaps the logical extreme of USSR "state capitalism" or fascism/corporatocracy. It has a clear class structure and encourages deliberate waste to encourage economic production and growth.

 

Socialism is not a bunch of cry babies asking for handouts or trying to steal your fairly acquired stuff. It is a ideology aimed at uprooting of all monopoly. Particularly class based economic, political and social monopoly. We don't ask you give us what is yours, but to ask others not to take what is ours, (our labour and all its fruits). You want an example? Look at Gina Rinehart, you think she can reach over to scratch her ass, let alone single handedly mine several billion worth of iron ore? Or was it she inherited a fortune which she uses as coercive leverage to extract further wealth from labour.

 

Two things:

 

Social mobility is not 100%. Unless you believe in a considerable level of class based genetic superiority, that is all you need to know about how "lazy" the underclass is.

 

Workers Cooperatives have shown the expandability of the capitalists/managerial class, with efficiencies increasing under such conditions in the Spanish Revolution. So in light of this, what is their justification for the supposed contribution of the "capital outlay"/greater productivity from efficient management?

[cab21]

I think the point libertariansocialist is making is about fairness. In one of Stefs videos, someone challenged homesteading by asking stef to apply upb to it. Interestingly, stef did the two guys in a room test but he assumed both men would homestead half the room. This is the point of contention. What if one guy homesteads everywhere except the place the other guy was currently occupying. What if instead, they arrive in the room seperately abd the first guy had already honesteaded the whole room before the other guy got there. None of us would find it fair that one guy owes the other guy for merely being in the room. This is the essence of the lockean proviso.

can you link the video

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/32540-property-appropriation-fails-the-two-guys-in-a-room-test/

i found this thread where stefan has some posts

 

now the world is not 100% homesteaded, so people can go out and build their own room. it is fair that if a person built a room, that person could own that room, and that other people can get permission to enter the room. there are other rooms out there, and plenty of space for people to build their own rooms.

 

if someone covets a specific room, that does not entitle the coveter to the room.

[LibertarianSocialist]

there is no society that has no violence at all. this is the real world, not utopia.

 

 

if a minority produce more value than others, those minority should get more because the produced more.

if there is just public ownership, the administrators of the ownership have even more power than any capitalist could ever have. the admin sets prices and controls everything, while a capitalist competes in a market.

there is no system where everyone has eaqual bargaining power, and if there was, people would die because the incompetant would overrule the competant and resources would just be wasted rather than having enough resources for people to live on.

people work because nature means people need resources to survive, there is no system where noone needs to work or trade.

if there are too few workers, it just can't sustain life.

the wage a person gets is the full amount of what a person produces. other people also produce, so they get what they produce as well.

if someone only does a fraction of what it takes to get a product to the consumer, the person should only get a fraction of the price the consumer pays.

 

if a person works for himself, doing the whole supply chain, from inventing a product, to selling that product to a customer, he cannot accomplish anything close to what we have in the modern world. it would take a lot of time and energy to get not much reward.

 

 

how does 1% pay for admin? that seems like a low amount for the work done to admin.

so if a person can't pay a loan back, the person loses individual property. if the house is individual property, what it goes to a community bank that then gives the house back to make sure everyone has a house? if someone does a bad job at using land, they just get more land, or the same land? if personal property is not something the bank can do anything with, it's not a great value.

 

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htmi did find this on the spanish revolution. it does not sound successful.

 

a private bank allows people to get rewarded for taking risks. it allows freedom to determine what services to offer and how, and for what, and do who, so it allows free association and for people to make their own determinations and judgements and use their own minds as to whether to invest or not. a bank does a service, so workers and creators of banks should get paid for such a service and profit is the only way to do that. to pay people, more money has to come in than goes out, otherwise all the money just goes towards paying people and there is no money to lend.

Everything above the banking part was misconstrued.

It is probably much less nowadays, this number was decided In the 1800's. Think of how much resources it takes to shift Immense digital numbers online nowadays, hardly any.

I am not educated enough yet to say how mutual banking would work, I am still dubious tbh. Just started listening to the mutual banking audio book, perhaps it will help me understand. You make some good points in regards.

 

The Spanish Revolution article is very misleading. It tells too many half truths. I could go through it at depth but I think would take along time. To summarize, all anarchists consider the revolution a success, and despite isolated issues, the revolution showed the viability of anarchist beliefs. Perhaps the biggest issue was the CNT deciding to defer the revolution to "beat fascism first" and join in the statist political arena. This was due to an informal weapons anarchists aid embargo by all other nations on the anarchists. The anarchists sided with the communists so they could get soviet arms to fight the fascists. The communists eventually outlawed anarchism and betrayed our movement, as they have done in every socialist revolution. Many anarchists fought against the decisions of the CNT, including the durrutti column, and the CNT's actions have been widely condemned since. Also the "crimes" against the clergy etc. were a result of conflicts with the traditional centers of power and authority. Much of those businessmen and clergy they left alone came right back with fascist forces to kill the "enemies of law and order".

[WasatchMan]

Well the question is, was that Jaguar afforded through your own personal labour, or did you exploit a coercive situation to extract surplus labour of a precarious class?

 

Are you talking about offering money for labor in which people can choose whether or not to make that deal freely as a exploitative coercive situation? Sounds like just word salad covered by brain puke.

 

 

You seriously think the heirs of wallmart got what they had through fairly remunerated labour? No, they got it by exploiting the current societal conditions for their own ends. Their empire, like all empires, was built on the backs of those below them.

 

 

So what?  The world isn't fair - get over it.  Should we start cutting the faces of pretty women because they didn't get their looks through fairly remunerated genes? As long as people are free to choose they are not being exploited.

 

 

Socialism is not a bunch of cry babies asking for handouts or trying to steal your fairly acquired stuff. It is a ideology aimed at uprooting of all monopoly. Particularly class based economic, political and social monopoly. We don't ask you give us what is yours, but to ask others not to take what is ours, (our labour and all its fruits). You want an example? Look at Gina Rinehart, you think she can reach over to scratch her ass, let alone single handedly mine several billion worth of iron ore? Or was it she inherited a fortune which she uses as coercive leverage to extract further wealth from labour.

 

 

Sounds like a pretty stupid goal if you ask me.  Here we are trying to make the non-initiation of force a universal moral rule of humanity, and you come at us with the goal to end monopoly?  Common man, thats just weak.  You need to try to think about essentials and not stupid platitudes like "monopoly bad, me socialist, end monopoly, jobs are exploitation, inheritance bad, you didn't build that, derpty derpty do" 

 

Seriously, the stuff you put out here just comes off as complete non-sequitur non-sense.  I have to guess at half of what you mean in each sentence - and I am guessing that is on purpose because if you had to be perfectly clear this stuff would come off as non-sense to you as well. 

 

You hide everything in neatly packed socialist pre-conclusions.  This forum has tons of arguments against these things - we are here because we are generally ancaps and do not accept socialism based on logic, reason, and ethics.  We don't accept that jobs exploit others - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong.  We don't accept that monopolies are bad as such - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong.  We don't care if people don't deserve their money we only care that they didn't initiate force to get it - if you think otherwise - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong.  Until you prove it, don't think you can just throw your pre-conclusions around here and think you are making an argument.  If nothing else - for the sake of your own time since you are not even scratching the surface with this stuff. We don't accept your premises.

[MagnumPI]

Since I'm sick of these Georgist, Land tax trolls following me around the internet from Prison Planet to Mises and beyond, I'll just put this here.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Are you talking about offering money for labor in which people can choose whether or not to make that deal freely as a exploitative coercive situation? Sounds like just word salad covered by brain puke.

 

 

 

 

So what?  The world isn't fair - get over it.  Should we start cutting the faces of pretty women because they didn't get their looks through fairly remunerated genes? As long as people are free to choose they are not being exploited.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a pretty stupid goal if you ask me.  Here we are trying to make the non-initiation of force a universal moral rule of humanity, and you come at us with the goal to end monopoly?  Common man, thats just weak.  You need to try to think about essentials and not stupid platitudes like "monopoly bad, me socialist, end monopoly, jobs are exploitation, inheritance bad, you didn't build that, derpty derpty do" 

 

Seriously, the stuff you put out here just comes off as complete non-sequitur non-sense.  I have to guess at half of what you mean in each sentence - and I am guessing that is on purpose because if you had to be perfectly clear this stuff would come off as non-sense to you as well. 

 

You hide everything in neatly packed socialist pre-conclusions.  This forum has tons of arguments against these things - we are here because we are generally ancaps and do not accept socialism based on logic, reason, and ethics.  We don't accept that jobs exploit others - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong.  We don't accept that monopolies are bad as such - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong.  We don't care if people don't deserve their money we only care that they didn't initiate force to get it - if you think otherwise - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong.  Until you prove it, don't think you can just throw your pre-conclusions around here and think you are making an argument.  If nothing else - for the sake of your own time since you are not even scratching the surface with this stuff. We don't accept your premises.

Under capitalism workers cannot freely chose to accept or reject a job offer. Think about it. Why would anyone ever accept a wage below their entire product? In a functioning free market wouldn't everyone shuffle around until they reach their optimal positions? They don't do this however due to the myriad of coercive factors, natural and artificial, which shape their decisions.

 

Cutting pretty faces is in no way analogous to my arguments against the capitalist system. People are free to choose. Did you agree to your birth? A person cannot wait around for a better offer, all those environmental conditions are thrust upon him. He is held accountable, or at least heavily effected, by the decisions of his forebears. It stands that anything past this point is non-consensual if the original circumstance was rejected.

The overwhelming majority of actions under capitalism are not random coincidence, but rather conscious efforts to engineer a specific state of affairs. They are not biological differences, but rather an artificial web of legal privileges aimed at driving a wedge between those original differences, to the point where it is so estranged from them it has no justification. It is cumulative injustice and theft.

 

What exactly constitutes force? Does structural violence count as force? If due to the pervading social system I am forced to sell my labour or die, due to the fact that all the resources I need are owned, have I not been forced? Because it seems the only obstacle is the ownership of the others.

 

All those 'stupid platitudes' are actually very important concepts.

So the fact that by inheritance you make the child responsible for the actions of the parents (it effects him all the same), seems totally fine to you?

So you don't care that people receive what they don't earn? (you didn't build that)

Tell me, why does anyone have a right to payment above (embodied labour) cost? How, unless by coercion, can prices in a free market go above this? Doesn't coercion preclude a free market? Monopoly, the same.

 

I know why you reject the concept of coercion, capitalism necessitates it. But can't you see how weak it makes your claims of consent? Your society would allow the sex trafficking of children because their parents defaulted, or they themselves needed money. It would legalize debt bondage, essentially slavery. How can such things truly be considered voluntary?

[Troubador]

Given how resources from prior generations have been used to generate innovations in technology including but not limited to advances in medicine, transportation, labour saving domestic appliances etc. It is evidence that there are distinct advantages to coming late to the party. The playing field has never been level, but there has been a net increase in human liberty across history there is greater freedom from disease, violent death and a whole host of other issues.

 

My main contention against socialism is that need drives innovation and all of those improvements I listed have been driven by humanity's ability to strive. You are right that some people start out disadvantaged, but what they need is a hand up and not a hand out.

[WorBlux]

First I don't think it will reduce overall competitiveness or profits of this company as overall wages paid are remaining stable (taking from management and his own salary), higher wages attracting the more experience and competent applicants into the future (Henry Ford radically increased his wages fairly early on for factory line workers and it let him keep the most skilled and dependable employees), and the fact CEO pay is not strongly linked with performance.

 

Now there may be negative effect on employees how fail to realize the increased wage is anomalous and not necessarily something they can count on 20 years from now. But a smart planner can keep living as if they made a lower wage and invest excess into retirement planning. That way even in a few years they must take a lower rate the extra money keeps working for them.

[WasatchMan]

First I don't think it will reduce overall competitiveness or profits of this company as overall wages paid are remaining stable (taking from management and his own salary), higher wages attracting the more experience and competent applicants into the future (Henry Ford radically increased his wages fairly early on for factory line workers and it let him keep the most skilled and dependable employees), and the fact CEO pay is not strongly linked with performance.

 

Now there may be negative effect on employees how fail to realize the increased wage is anomalous and not necessarily something they can count on 20 years from now. But a smart planner can keep living as if they made a lower wage and invest excess into retirement planning. That way even in a few years they must take a lower rate the extra money keeps working for them.

 

Good managers will not work at a place where they are paid similar to the people they manage - because their job is exponentially harder and riskier.  The employee holds little risk of overall operational performance - the manger holds most of the risk of overall operational performance.

 

Good employees will not work where their talent, skill, and dedications allows their company to pay other people more out of the fruits of their labor - they will work somewhere where they are able to collect the fruits of their labor and the incompetent aren't thrown on their back because of their need.

[WorBlux]

Good managers will not work at a place where they are paid similar to the people they manage - because their job is exponentially harder and riskier.  The employee holds little risk of overall operational performance - the manger holds most of the risk of overall operational performance.

 

Good employees will not work where their talent, skill, and dedications allows their company to pay other people more out of the fruits of their labor - they will work somewhere where they are able to collect the fruits of their labor and the incompetent aren't thrown on their back because of their need.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-correlation-between-pay-and-stock-performance-is-pretty-random

 

Notice the R square value of 0.01 which means there is practically no relation at that level. Yes you should pay your managers well but at  a certain level increasing pay you don't really get anything provable in return. Management at high levels requires a certain sort of forecasting and predicting that everybody is pretty bad at.

 

And I don't accept that management is a particularly risky position (unless it's comingled with ownership). Turnover is not extreme. If the company loses money, they don't lose money. Giving non-owner managers large upsides (tied to stock performance) without the downsides sets up short-term behaviors that create small gains but expose  owners to large losses.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/drucker/2013/03/26/pay-for-performance-is-a-sham/

 

 

Our review of the evidence found that the notion that higher pay leads to the selection of better executives is undermined by the prevalence of poor recruiting methods. Moreover, higher pay fails to promote better performance. Instead, it undermines the intrinsic motivation of executives, inhibits their learning, leads them to ignore other stakeholders, and discourages them from considering the long-term effects of their decisions on stakeholders.

Relating incentive payments to executives’ actions in an effective manner is not possible. Incentives also encourage unethical behaviour. Organizations would benefit from using validated methods to hire top executives, reducing compensation, eliminating incentive plans, and strengthening stockholder governance related to the hiring and compensation of executives

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=807021021065097088087079108024122107041027049084057009028001126104121023113008107011001021016037024036049108080075065069067031039060090021004107074085114012064068124067069018089126120007005007006024028115102103096091076098107121079099095013072084086017&EXT=pdf

[WorBlux]

placeholder

[cab21]

Everything above the banking part was misconstrued.

It is probably much less nowadays, this number was decided In the 1800's. Think of how much resources it takes to shift Immense digital numbers online nowadays, hardly any.

I am not educated enough yet to say how mutual banking would work, I am still dubious tbh. Just started listening to the mutual banking audio book, perhaps it will help me understand. You make some good points in regards.

 

it takes a person's labour to shift digital numbers, does that person get paid or does the person work for free?

 

if someone borrows money to increase production by 15%, hasent that 15% increase happened because of both the labour of the person who lent the money, and the labour of the  person who borrowed the money. the person in capitalism asks for a fraction of that amount, say 3%. so the 15% increase in productivity has netted the lender a 3% gain, and the borrower a 12% gain. both win in this situation. if the borrower gets the full 15%, the lender has made nothing from the labour of lending. isn't the borrower then exploiting the the lender by giving no return for the labour of the lender, but keeping 100% of the benefits of the trade?

 

the idea behind a 3% interest loan would be that the borrower is going to make over 3% because of the loan , so the fruits of the labour of both are borrower and lender are divided between the two. both had to labour to make the deal, track the deal, give support for the deal.

 

capital does not get lent by magic, it requires people trade and labour to make such trades.

 

one quote from a mutualist that i did find was this

Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law: "I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."

[jughead]

This is what I love about this board. Where else can you find these kind of high level discussions about such arcane topics. For my part, I've never understood Marxist ideas, they always seem like gobbledygook to me. I think the fundamental issue is property. Marxist and socialists seem to make a distinction between personal property and things like land, resources etc. I've always felt this distinction to be arbitrary or ad hoc so that Marxists can avoid the absurdity of having to share clothing and toothbrushes with their comrades. Whereas ancaps derive all of our principles including property from the NAP.

[LibertarianSocialist]

it takes a person's labour to shift digital numbers, does that person get paid or does the person work for free?

 

if someone borrows money to increase production by 15%, hasent that 15% increase happened because of both the labour of the person who lent the money, and the labour of the  person who borrowed the money. the person in capitalism asks for a fraction of that amount, say 3%. so the 15% increase in productivity has netted the lender a 3% gain, and the borrower a 12% gain. both win in this situation. if the borrower gets the full 15%, the lender has made nothing from the labour of lending. isn't the borrower then exploiting the the lender by giving no return for the labour of the lender, but keeping 100% of the benefits of the trade?

 

the idea behind a 3% interest loan would be that the borrower is going to make over 3% because of the loan , so the fruits of the labour of both are borrower and lender are divided between the two. both had to labour to make the deal, track the deal, give support for the deal.

 

capital does not get lent by magic, it requires people trade and labour to make such trades.

 

one quote from a mutualist that i did find was this

Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law: "I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."

Proudhon simply saw no need to restrict such acts. Like Tucker, Proudhon felt the simply presence of mutual banking schemes would be sufficient to undermine the capitalist money monopoly (alongside a rejection of absentee property rights). Tucker likewise held this belief, later recanting it after he deemed capitalist consolidation had reached a critical level which nothing short of revolution could reverse. (Amendment to state socialism and anarchism). It is their belief that the ready availability of essentially interest free credit would drive all capital incomes down to below this level of interest. I am personally critical of the non-revolutionary approach. We already have mutual credit societies, and the major difference would be the universal availability of collateral, ensured via the abolition of absentee property rights, which is certainly a very revolutionary act.

 

The administration costs cover payment for labour done. This is not a speculative job, their are no returns on speculation.

 

Providing the capital outlay may be a service, but it is so interwoven with usury. Market anarchists believe the limit of price is labour cost. For example, look at exchange. A fair exchange is one in which two people exchange objects at a ratio which represents their embodied labour (there exists the posibility of higher prices for unavoidable scarce objects or unforeseeable anomolies, but this is hardly a just freed market exchange). A chair which took one unit of effort to make for a fish of one unit, say. It is an exchange of one commodity for another commodity, in which each's aim is to maximize his use value. The chair maker has enough chairs and values a fish more. A chair maker would not trade a chair for another identical chair by another chair maker. Thus the lender of money requires pay above what his product is worth. He needs in essence one chair now for 1.1 chairs later. Such a term can only come about through coercion. It may not seem too bad on Robinson Crusoes island, but taken to its logical extreme such coercive usury becomes entirely detached from any just payment.

 

When it comes down to it, production is generally done for three ends: direct consumption or personal capital, trade for an equivalent item of higher personal utility/subjective value, or for the extraction of value above the embodied cost of the product via coercion.

 

Regarding the lender: My belief is that a general acceptance that cost is the limit of price, and that the only just trade is the one done without coercion, in which only equivalent values are exchanged, would remove the incentive of the lender. The lender is entitled to pay for the full cost of his labour as embodied in his products and services, paid once and in full. I hold these beliefs on the grounds that coercion is immoral and no one ought to profit off it. I am not sure what makes this a valid claim, it is just what I believe.

Would the receiver benefit? Perhaps he would. Maybe such a loan would be entirely valid if the financial capital was justly earned by the lender. The problem lies with figuring out what is justly earned, and what is a product of coercion and privilege. The heir of a fortune can hardly be said to be deserving of his income, he himself made none of it, yet he derives profit from it. Such a calculation of "fair interest" is nearly impossible, and the permitting of income not derived from direct labour leads to absurdity as returns become cumulatively removed from any just remuneration. It is a pragmatic solution, perhaps not an ideal one.

 

I don't know what makes my beliefs any more valid than any others. My only grounds are that such a state of affairs would maximize the aggregate happiness and liberty of mankind, and so is the rational choice for humanity present and future. If I was provided with empirical evidence otherwise, I would readily drop my beliefs.

[cab21]

how does this socialist system define "absentee ownership"?

How is this interest free credit made available?

how is a "unit of effort" measured?

why is time not considered as part of value, and why would it be coercive to trade on speculation or based on how people value time?

 how is the value of the cost of labor measured?

how is use value calculated? is use value not speculation?

what happens to all this money that gets taken away from people that "did not earn it", and through what process is it confiscated?

how do we measure "aggregate happiness" and "liberty" of mankind?

 

i would say happiness is subjective while liberty is objective ( at least if defined in a objective way). one person coveting what another person earned subtracts from "happiness", yet does not subtract from liberty.  a person that covets and steals subtracts from both happiness and liberty. people choosing to not covet would might increase or be neutral to happiness, and would not subtract from liberty,

offering someone veggies can decrease happiness, but it's not going to decrease liberty. someone being forced to offer veggies, might increase happiness , but decrease liberty.

 

i think my problem with aggregate happiness and liberty does not take into account individual happiness and liberty. individual liberty can be objective, individual happiness can be subjective, and people can work to increase their individual happiness, but there is not program that can demand people choose to be happy.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Absentee ownership is land you are not personally using. It will be decided by social norms. People don't want to wake up to their stuff gone so norms will reflect this. The demarcation is really quite clear.

 

Interest free credit is made through the monetization of personal possessions, collateral for loans. Will the currency be subject to inflation? Not sure, it is one of many workable anarchic solutions, though I think unlikely.

 

Time is effort, effort is subjective. The market based labour theory of value simply states that prices in a freed market will come to rest at this level.

 

Use value is also subjective, that is why the market handles it. People can and should try to maximize their use values, this is not the same as a moneylender deriving profit through loans. For your point about (time preference?) just extrapolate my last post.

 

The money they did not earn never reaches their hands. This is not retrospective taxation, it is removing the conditions that facilitate unearned incomes.

 

I think all the philosophers have done is obscure happiness from the obvious common sense position. Really all anyone wants is to be comfortable, to have those things he needs, and enough of what he wants. To be free to make his own choices and pursue those things which he thinks will bring him joy. He wants these things for everyone he cares about. In short he wants freedom, prosperity and opportunity. Each man is the same.

[cab21]

Absentee ownership is land you are not personally using. It will be decided by social norms. People don't want to wake up to their stuff gone so norms will reflect this. The demarcation is really quite clear.

 

so how is personal usage to be decided?

current social norms allow people to buy property as investments, and rent them, flip them, speculate on them, hire managers for them. are the social norms of this new system going to just completely change all the current social norms of acceptable ownership and commercial activity? usage in capitalism allows more types of usage than it looks like usage in socialism allows for, how are these social norms just supposed to flip?

 

 

Interest free credit is made through the monetization of personal possessions, collateral for loans. Will the currency be subject to inflation? Not sure, it is one of many workable anarchic solutions, though I think unlikely.

 

with competing currencies, i don't know if interest free credit currency would gain more value than a currency that allows people to charge interest. a currency that charges interest would only be beat by force.

i did read about  Proudhon wanting to paying for a interest free credit system through imposing huge taxes on other people, hardly people volunteering to get together and make a system of interest free credit work.

 

Time is effort, effort is subjective. The market based labour theory of value simply states that prices in a freed market will come to rest at this level.

 

perhaps a example here would help.

 

just thinking about the chair and the fish has me confused, it might have taken a lot more time and effort  to create the chair and prepare it for trade, or it might have taken a lot more time and effort to obtain the fish and prepare it for trade.

 

sometimes doing something faster is more valuable in a marketplace, and sometimes doing it slower is more valuable. if someone is under anesthetics, it's not proper to keep the person under for a longer time just to say it took longer and thus the price should be higher, that puts the persons life at danger. there are other cases where doing something too fast creates danger and is not desired.

 

a marketplace is not going to normally just say "hey we both spend 2 hours on our products, lets exchange them", because that does not account for how much each person values the products

 

Use value is also subjective, that is why the market handles it. People can and should try to maximize their use values, this is not the same as a moneylender deriving profit through loans. For your point about (time preference?) just extrapolate my last post.

 

how is it not the same as a moneylender deriving profit through loans?

the market handles the amount of profit that can be derived through loans

money is a symbol, used to represent use value, so profiting off of loaning money is no different from profiting off of trading one material for another material.

money is not like trading 1 chair for 1.1 identical chairs later, even if i see nothing wrong with that, but money is more like trading one unit of use value now for a greater use value in the future. the person being lent money is also subjectivly thinking they will trade a lesser value in the future for a greater value now.

 

The money they did not earn never reaches their hands. This is not retrospective taxation, it is removing the conditions that facilitate unearned incomes.

 

how are those conditions removed?

is a person not allowed to say "i loved it when my son smiled at me, that smile is the labor i wanted to receive in exchange for me giving 1 million dollars of my own labor"?

who decides if money is earned? if a person legitimately earned incomes, does the person not have the right to decide how to trade or who deserves the fruit of that labor?

 

I think all the philosophers have done is obscure happiness from the obvious common sense position. Really all anyone wants is to be comfortable, to have those things he needs, and enough of what he wants. To be free to make his own choices and pursue those things which he thinks will bring him joy. He wants these things for everyone he cares about. In short he wants freedom, prosperity and opportunity. Each man is the same.

 

free market capitalism provides such happiness and freedom.

a person under free market capitalism is free to make his own choices, pursue those things he thinks will bring him join. freedom and opportunity for a person to achieve prosperity are all there in free market capitalism.

 

no system is going to guarantee everyone prosperity, but free market capitalism guarantees the freedom to pursue prosperity.

 

i'm still unclear on the math of all these socialist regulations and restrictions on freedoms, but it sounds like socialism restricts opportunity for prosperity where free market capitalism does not.

 

free market capitalism even allows people to create their own socialistic societies with whatever cultural norms and regulations within those societies. such as if a person wants to create a socialist real estate development, they can do so within that develupment, if a person wants to create a worker owned and democratically ran company, the person can do so

[LibertarianSocialist]

The free availability of credit would drive interest and rents below this point. No man would rent a house above the interest rate of buying it. It is the anarchist belief that private property titles require policing to maintain. Absent of such a state or private service, will you travel between your properties with a shotgun making sure people pay you for it? The workers will take back the factories they made and run, the renter will lay claim to the house they have paid by now in full. A system of surplus labour extraction is near impossible when capitalist monopoly is abolished, see: the enclosures. Violence has been a historical necessity of primitive accumulation and the creation of absentee private property.

 

In the least, personal property rights stem from the universal preference for ownership, as extended to all people. What good is the 'sanctity of private property' when you or I will never own the large majority of that we have.

 

Regarding my chair fish statement:

Use value maximization is different from a loan as stated before. the borrower does not exchange an equal amount of goods in equal exchange for the money. He has nothing to exchange. That is why he must borrow at interest. The fact that he owns nothing gives him an inferior bargaining position, which the lender takes advantage of to extract value above what he would agree were he of sufficient means. One trade is just, the other, exploitative.

The money does not increase in use value, it increases in amount. An amount which must necessarily be created by the borrower. Maybe the loan is good because the moneyless man has greater use value for it. But an equal trade without interest does this too, and without the usury. Interest based loans are inferior in every situation where the buyer is of sufficient means. Interest can only come about through coercion, the finding of penniless unfortunates and exploiting them.

 

The conditions conducive to unearned income are removed through the abolition of all monopoly, including the capitalistic monopolies of money, land, patent etc.

Okay, your sons smile example is odd. I will change it to the more plausible scenario of the man who pays a million dollars to sleep with a celebrity.

Such examples are tricky. The celebrity obviously has a monopoly on what he wants, there is no free market competition among competitors here. This monopoly allows her to derive exorbitant profits on what is certainly a very one sided exchange. If she were to be forced to only ask for the labour (either a vulgar time function, or a subjective effort one) expended, she would perhaps not agree. At the same time, no competition exists to drive prices down to a reasonable level. Well, fuck. Good question. I would say the exchange was either illegitimate due to monopolistic coercion, or else legitimate only if society were secure enough to not have liberty threatened by such monopoly forming accumulations. I will certainly give more thought to this.

As stated before, exchanges are handled on the free market. The best way to envisage individualist anarchism is anarcho-capitalism without the capitalist monopolies (tuckers big four).

 

hmm, I have done the whole capitalism means opportunity and is voluntary thing to death. If you want to see my arguments look at some of my other posts.

[shirgall]

Be aware that this guy is in the Seattle housing market, which is freaking insane right now. It could be that he's calling the bubble and bailing now rather than being forced out of his house.

 

I wish the bubble would pop, I'm renting right now.

[cab21]

The free availability of credit would drive interest and rents below this point. No man would rent a house above the interest rate of buying it. It is the anarchist belief that private property titles require policing to maintain. Absent of such a state or private service, will you travel between your properties with a shotgun making sure people pay you for it? The workers will take back the factories they made and run, the renter will lay claim to the house they have paid by now in full. A system of surplus labour extraction is near impossible when capitalist monopoly is abolished, see: the enclosures. Violence has been a historical necessity of primitive accumulation and the creation of absentee private property.

 theft does require theft prevention.

 

theft prevention is  retaliation , theft is the initiation of violence.

 

any system of property requires theft prevention.

 

 

In the least, personal property rights stem from the universal preference for ownership, as extended to all people. What good is the 'sanctity of private property' when you or I will never own the large majority of that we have.

 

 There is opportunity to own what you have. Capitalism gives such an opportunity. Even at 0% interest, people are choosing to go after property already built rather than develop their own property that would be cheaper to develop.

 

 

egarding my chair fish statement:

Use value maximization is different from a loan as stated before. the borrower does not exchange an equal amount of goods in equal exchange for the money. He has nothing to exchange. That is why he must borrow at interest. The fact that he owns nothing gives him an inferior bargaining position, which the lender takes advantage of to extract value above what he would agree were he of sufficient means. One trade is just, the other, exploitative.

The money does not increase in use value, it increases in amount. An amount which must necessarily be created by the borrower. Maybe the loan is good because the moneyless man has greater use value for it. But an equal trade without interest does this too, and without the usury. Interest based loans are inferior in every situation where the buyer is of sufficient means. Interest can only come about through coercion, the finding of penniless unfortunates and exploiting them.

 

so the person with no money gets to exploit the person with money because the person without money does not have anything to give a fair trade to the person with money?

the person who borrows should give something in return to the person who lends, if not interest, what? is the person who lends the slave of the person who wants to borrow?

 

people with money borrow money all the time, one example would be someone making a 400k downpayment on a 500k house and borrowing 100k at 5% interest.

 

so a fair trade would be what, 500k for 500k, so the person that gives 400k and wants to borrow 100k, must then make up that 100k in other trades, why not just allow interest that saves the persons time, rather than require something like 100k of time?

 

most people that get loans aren't coming without money, those people are refused loans if they can't give collateral,

for high interest loans, that covers the risk of the lender not being paid back at all , let alone interest.

 

 

The conditions conducive to unearned income are removed through the abolition of all monopoly, including the capitalistic monopolies of money, land, patent etc.

Okay, your sons smile example is odd. I will change it to the more plausible scenario of the man who pays a million dollars to sleep with a celebrity.

Such examples are tricky. The celebrity obviously has a monopoly on what he wants, there is no free market competition among competitors here. This monopoly allows her to derive exorbitant profits on what is certainly a very one sided exchange. If she were to be forced to only ask for the labour (either a vulgar time function, or a subjective effort one) expended, she would perhaps not agree. At the same time, no competition exists to drive prices down to a reasonable level. Well, fuck. Good question. I would say the exchange was either illegitimate due to monopolistic coercion, or else legitimate only if society were secure enough to not have liberty threatened by such monopoly forming accumulations. I will certainly give more thought to this.

As stated before, exchanges are handled on the free market. The best way to envisage individualist anarchism is anarcho-capitalism without the capitalist monopolies (tuckers big four).

 

there is competition for who people sleep with, this is a choice to pursue 1 specific person to want to have sex with.

the seller of 1 million dollor sex is not forcing there to be buyers of 1 million dollor sex.

 

the buyer always has the option of going out and finding a willing partner to have sex with, it's self imposed if the buyer thinks about only having sex with 1 particular person.

 

hmm, I have done the whole capitalism means opportunity and is voluntary thing to death. If you want to see my arguments look at some of my other posts.

 

you said above that anarcho capitalism was exchanges handled on the free market.

[MagnumPI]

The free availability of credit would drive interest and rents below this point. No man would rent a house above the interest rate of buying it. It is the anarchist belief that private property titles require policing to maintain. Absent of such a state or private service, will you travel between your properties with a shotgun making sure people pay you for it? The workers will take back the factories they made and run, the renter will lay claim to the house they have paid by now in full. A system of surplus labour extraction is near impossible when capitalist monopoly is abolished, see: the enclosures. Violence has been a historical necessity of primitive accumulation and the creation of absentee private property.

 

In the least, personal property rights stem from the universal preference for ownership, as extended to all people. What good is the 'sanctity of private property' when you or I will never own the large majority of that we have.

 

Regarding my chair fish statement:

Use value maximization is different from a loan as stated before. the borrower does not exchange an equal amount of goods in equal exchange for the money. He has nothing to exchange. That is why he must borrow at interest. The fact that he owns nothing gives him an inferior bargaining position, which the lender takes advantage of to extract value above what he would agree were he of sufficient means. One trade is just, the other, exploitative.

The money does not increase in use value, it increases in amount. An amount which must necessarily be created by the borrower. Maybe the loan is good because the moneyless man has greater use value for it. But an equal trade without interest does this too, and without the usury. Interest based loans are inferior in every situation where the buyer is of sufficient means. Interest can only come about through coercion, the finding of penniless unfortunates and exploiting them.

 

The conditions conducive to unearned income are removed through the abolition of all monopoly, including the capitalistic monopolies of money, land, patent etc.

Okay, your sons smile example is odd. I will change it to the more plausible scenario of the man who pays a million dollars to sleep with a celebrity.

Such examples are tricky. The celebrity obviously has a monopoly on what he wants, there is no free market competition among competitors here. This monopoly allows her to derive exorbitant profits on what is certainly a very one sided exchange. If she were to be forced to only ask for the labour (either a vulgar time function, or a subjective effort one) expended, she would perhaps not agree. At the same time, no competition exists to drive prices down to a reasonable level. Well, fuck. Good question. I would say the exchange was either illegitimate due to monopolistic coercion, or else legitimate only if society were secure enough to not have liberty threatened by such monopoly forming accumulations. I will certainly give more thought to this.

As stated before, exchanges are handled on the free market. The best way to envisage individualist anarchism is anarcho-capitalism without the capitalist monopolies (tuckers big four).

 

hmm, I have done the whole capitalism means opportunity and is voluntary thing to death. If you want to see my arguments look at some of my other posts.

LOL!!! What did I say? Brave New World. Socialize the pussy. Maybe Lucy Liu-bots and cloning sex slaves would solve the 'conundrum' of voluntary fuckin exchange, perhaps an agreeable 1% tax on snatch across the board. Since apparently voluntary exchange doesn't mean voluntary exchange.

[LibertarianSocialist]

 

I got half way through a reply, then I gave up.

 

It is obvious that both of us hold differing opinions on what constitutes just income. Unless we address this, any back and forth will just be us talking past each other.