fschmidt Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 http://www.mikraite.org/file/n230/case4wd.doc This is not the usual Leftist garbage, it is quite intelligent. I partially agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Pretty terrible, but it managed to avoid outright insanity until the fourth paragraph - where it said that children born into slavery were I'm a contractual position because they could pay off their owner - which might be a record. Of course it went down hill from their with unintelligible insanity and plenty of sophism. I'm not sure how you can say this isn't full of leftist garbage op, its full of it. Especially the early circular arguments that he assumes voluntary lifetime servitude is bad, but freedom allows it, therefore bad freedom. I'm sure I missed stuff on the single read through, but I won't be taking a second and am not worried I've missed some convincing argument. I've certainly not missed anything intelligent, where intelligent isn't synonymous with verbose and arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 One cannot argue against capitalism without making use of their capital (body, time, labor, keyboard or pen, etc) to make the argument. A performative contradiction. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 He takes a really long time to get to the point, but ultimately gets to it - wage labor is a form of slavery. The "workers" are really the one's responsible for the products, and the difference between their wages and the profit from the products is somehow stolen through the arbitrary owners of capital. This is just rehashed Marxism, and necessarily ignores all of the arguments against Marxism - specifically that the labor theory of value is invalid. It's really an effect of the Dunning-Kroger effect, people with no understanding of business and economics don't understand the great deal of skill involved in capital investment, management, and so on...so they assume the large salaries of these people are unearned. A free market system actually allows for a Democratically run Corporation, but you don't see this model because it is dysfunctional. Management and effective business decisions are real, specialized skills, and if you just have factory workers and janitors vote on these decisions, it is not likely to work out well. Also, ownership entails responsibility - ownership of debt, liability for damages, responsibility to the consumers, and so on. Many people would prefer a paycheck to these responsibilities. I have heard some Socialists argue that the Spanish Company Mondragon is an example, but I don't know a lot about it. The last thing I would say is, any "critique of capitalism" that fails to acknowledge the massive interventions in property rights and free trade that is rampant in every modern Western democracy, is fundamentally ignorant or dishonest. Govt spending in the US is nearly 40% of GDP, Debt exceeds GDP in this and many other countries, Taxation is nearly half of many peoples' incomes, Central Banks constantly interfere with the market, and every business has thousands of pages of regulations to overcome. But the real slavery, they tell you, is selling your labor for a wage, when you can renegotiate or leave at any time. Gimme a break. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Roth Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I hope the stuff you "partially agree" with is the introductory exposition only. The following conclusions are much too easy to see through. True, it's not the "usual" leftist garbage - "usual" in the sense that the leftists don't usually bother with camouflage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fschmidt Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Okay, let me clarify a few things. Capital means money. Capitalism is a system where money can buy power (in business). The right to enter into a contract is a freedom. However the enforcement of that contract by the government is a regulation. This point is essential. Under anarchy, contracts wouldn't be enforced so they would be meaningless. Capitalism requires giving up the right/freedom to violate contracts. Since I strongly believe in freedom, I believe that the government should only enforce contract that do violate the public good. Contracts like indentured servitude do not serve the public interest, and therefore should not be enforced by the government. Not enforcing such contracts increases freedom. I will pospone explaining why I partially agree with the article until these basic concepts are understood. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The good thing about anarcho-capitalism is that you don't have to be a capitalist as leftists generally describe it. In a free society you can just get together and live as socialists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Okay, let me clarify a few things. Capital means money. Capitalism is a system where money can buy power (in business). The right to enter into a contract is a freedom. However the enforcement of that contract by the government is a regulation. This point is essential. Under anarchy, contracts wouldn't be enforced so they would be meaningless. Capitalism requires giving up the right/freedom to violate contracts. Since I strongly believe in freedom, I believe that the government should only enforce contract that do violate the public good. Contracts like indentured servitude do not serve the public interest, and therefore should not be enforced by the government. Not enforcing such contracts increases freedom. I will pospone explaining why I partially agree with the article until these basic concepts are understood. Untile these basic concepts are understood...by whom??? Because this post indicates some great confusion about these basic concepts on your part. Let's examine them... Capitalism is the result of general respect for property rights and free trade in the culture. I don't know what you mean "money can buy power", if you mean political power, then NO, because political power is explicitly defined as the power to intervene in property rights and free trade. Enforcement of a contract by government is a regulation??? No, contracts are explicit voluntary agreements, regulations are arbitrary unilateral contracts imposed by force. Also, governments generally don't enforce contracts effectively at all - unless there is a LOT of money, and you have massive legal resources at your disposal, it is not in your interest to take a violation of contract to court. Under anarchy, contracts wouldn't be enforced? Can you point to a single An-Cap philosopher who makes this claim? Because pretty much all of them that I've heard, argue that contracts are what would essentially replace the government. Are you familiar with these arguments? Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Stef, and others have all offered excellent explanations how this would work. Also, have you ever heard of eBay? "Capitalism requires giving up the right/freedom to violate contracts" - again, I don't know what this means. Of course, you can renegotiate a contract, or you can even break it. A person's actions are not bound by words on paper (like the Constitution or the Bible), but there are consequences for violating socially accepted ethics. "Since I strongly believe in freedom, I believe that the government should only enforce contract that do violate the public good." What you believe has nothing to do with philosophy, and is not binding on all of society. What is the public good? How can you objectively determine or calculate the public good? Again, are you familiar with some basic arguments against these ideas? Sorry, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the article you posted, which is an argument for corporations to be run democratically, i.e. Syndicalism. Now you are arguing that we need a government to selectively enforce contracts which are "good" but not those which are "bad". You'll have to examine your claims and definitions, and reclarify if we're to discuss this any further. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Roth Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 What does "the public good" and "the public interest" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 What does "the public good" and "the public interest" mean? Mob rule. Gang rape is an example of public good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 breaking a contract is initiation of aggression against others. i don't think anarchy advocates that we initiate aggression against others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 breaking a contract is initiation of aggression against others. i don't think anarchy advocates that we initiate aggression against others. People should not be making agreements so binding that the stakes are debilitating when conditions change and the agreement must be terminated or altered. There are always changing conditions, or mistaken assumptions, or disagreements over material items to agreements, and good agreements are crafted to make resolving such things simple. Even common law contracts are such that you cannot agree to break a law or force consent at a later date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 One cannot argue against capitalism without making use of his capital (body, time, labor, keyboard or pen, etc) to make the argument. A performative contradiction. Owners Aren't Earners Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people. In order for the OP argument to be a contradiction, the working author would have to be sneaking it on his company-owned PC at work during the time owned by his boss. Even if you could find a case like you want us to think this is, a democrat economy has to evolve from whatever is left of a plutocratic parasite economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Owners Aren't Earners Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people. If I hire a maid to wash my clothes, does she own the washing machine now that she's using it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Owners Aren't Earners Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people. In order for the OP argument to be a contradiction, the working author would have to be sneaking it on his company-owned PC at work during the time owned by his boss. Even if you could find a case like you want us to think this is, a democrat economy has to evolve from whatever is left of a plutocratic parasite economy. More often than not under capitalism those who produce things borrowed money (capital!) from other people by convincing them they would earn enough from their idea to pay them back with a little profit besides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Owners Aren't Earners Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people. In order for the OP argument to be a contradiction, the working author would have to be sneaking it on his company-owned PC at work during the time owned by his boss. Even if you could find a case like you want us to think this is, a democrat economy has to evolve from whatever is left of a plutocratic parasite economy. You have yet to explain what a "democrat economy" is, and to convince me why it is something to strive for, and what makes a democratic company different from a parasitic one. "Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people" Again, you're just repeating Marx's ideas with no reference to the arguments against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people. I reject your claim that somebody else owns the body that you used to put forth this claim. But let's assume that somebody else owns the computer you used to put forth this claim. If they gave you permission to use it, this does not disprove property rights. If you're using it without their consent, this is evidence that you've violated property rights, not that property rights are not valid. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Mob rule. Gang rape is an example of public good. When the Fat Cats Go "Me! Me! Me!", the Rest of Us Go, "Ow! Ow! Ow!" And the spoiled conceited enemies of our democracy want to impose Snob Rule instead. Sex-on-demand with their employees is an example of their economic elitism. More often than not under capitalism those who produce things borrowed money (capital!) from other people by convincing them they would earn enough from their idea to pay them back with a little profit besides. Investment Is Static, Work Is Dynamic Now you're confusing the owner with the producer. The investment has no value without the worker; all the investor really owns is an empty factory. So the investor cannot claim control over the distribution of the revenue unless he is the only employee. All a baseball clubowner owns is a park and the profit he would make from people who wanted to watch the grass grow. Capitalists take advantage of the fact that they are necessary. Slavish minds are not allowed to develop the concept of "necessary but not valuable." For example, an ignition key is absolutely necessary but only worth about $5 for a car worth over $25,000. . "Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people" Again, you're just repeating Marx's ideas with no reference to the arguments against them. Karl Marx Was the Trophy Husband of a Patty Hearst Type Duchess Marxism is nothing but monopoly Capitalism, run by an absentee political elite whose character is no different from the Born to Rule attitude of the Capitalist elite. I reject your claim that somebody else owns the body that you used to put forth this claim. But let's assume that somebody else owns the computer you used to put forth this claim. If they gave you permission to use it, this does not disprove property rights. If you're using it without their consent, this is evidence that you've violated property rights, not that property rights are not valid. The "Rule of Law" Is Only the Law of the Rulers What if I paid for it with the profits I produced for the owner? You're assuming that because he claims that the profit was all his and his class has bought the laws that enforce that contract, I can't claim part ownership. The only reason I have to submit to his will and his definition of what belongs to him is that we live under a Man Against Millionaire situation. In other words, coercion under duress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Now you're confusing the owner with the producer. The investment has no value without the worker; all the investor really owns is an empty factory. So the investor cannot claim control over the distribution of the revenue unless he is the only employee. All a baseball clubowner owns is a park and the profit he would make from people who wanted to watch the grass grow. You can claim that investment has no value until I choose to not invest in your product. The investor owns the promise to pay, not the factory. The factory might get sold to satisfy the promise to pay, but the real test of value of the worker is whether he or she can convince an investor to risk their capital with them. You are inventing claims that were not part of my scenario, by the way, I made it as simple as possible for a reason. What I said was those who produce things borrow money (capital!) from other people by convincing them they would earn enough from their idea to pay them back with a little profit besides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 What if I paid for it with the profits I produced for the owner? You're assuming that because he claims that the profit was all his and his class has bought the laws that enforce that contract, I can't claim part ownership. The only reason I have to submit to his will and his definition of what belongs to him is that we live under a Man Against Millionaire situation. In other words, coercion under duress. I made no assumptions and reject any objective claim that doesn't accurately describe the real world. Opening a reply with deceit and/or manipulation is not the mark of a meritous argument about to be made. I'm familiar with the claim that because people need to eat to survive, all employment is involuntary. It fails to infinite regression since the business owner under that logic would be slave to the customer, making every person both slave and master simultaneously. It also fails to having a choice. A person can grow their own food, make their own clothes, and so on. Division of labor means it is more efficient to specialize in a particular set of goods/services, provide those for others who do not specialize in them, while you make use of specialists of your needs/wants that you choose not to accomplish for yourself. Like maybe you're good at auto repair but don't feel like growing your own coffee beans. Finally, "Man against Millionaire" is fictitious. Millionaires are a subset of Man and are not naturally occurring. If somebody initiates the use of force, it is their aggression that is problematic, not how much value they've provided to others. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 You can claim that investment has no value until I choose to not invest in your product. The investor owns the promise to pay, not the factory. The factory might get sold to satisfy the promise to pay, but the real test of value of the worker is whether he or she can convince an investor to risk their capital with them. You are inventing claims that were not part of my scenario, by the way, I made it as simple as possible for a reason. What I said was those who produce things borrow money (capital!) from other people by convincing them they would earn enough from their idea to pay them back with a little profit besides. The investor pays the workers with the money produced by the workers; he is not paying them with his capital. True, the system doesn't get started without that capital, but the fallacy is that the supremacy of capital theory ignores the fact that it isn't worth anything until the workers give value to it. So you're saying that 1 + 10 = 11, but the 11 wouldn't exist without the 1 and the 10 is secondary. I made no assumptions and reject any objective claim that doesn't accurately describe the real world. Opening a reply with deceit and/or manipulation is not the mark of a meritous argument about to be made. I'm familiar with the claim that because people need to eat to survive, all employment is involuntary. It fails to infinite regression since the business owner under that logic would be slave to the customer, making every person both slave and master simultaneously. It also fails to having a choice. A person can grow their own food, make their own clothes, and so on. Division of labor means it is more efficient to specialize in a particular set of goods/services, provide those for others who do not specialize in them, while you make use of specialists of your needs/wants that you choose not to accomplish for yourself. Like maybe you're good at auto repair but don't feel like growing your own coffee beans. Finally, "Man against Millionaire" is fictitious. Millionaires are a subset of Man and are not naturally occurring. If somebody initiates the use of force, it is his aggression that is problematic, not how much value he's provided to others. Saying That the Rich Create Jobs Is Like Saying That Vampires Create Blood The people with economic power have the power to make their self-serving dogma seem like the truth that has to be refuted, rather than the brainwashing illusion it is. They also have the power to restrict the debate to their own methods of proof. So their pre-owned status quo is not some kind of objective fact that has the benefit of the doubt; it is manufactured. For example, the propaganda that the primacy of the status quo is not coercive and that coercive only means revolutionary violence but not the coercion of the law that the ruling class establishes for itself only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlsv2f Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The Analogy you gave doesn't match up with reality. The individual worker and owner do not require one or the other to exist in order to exist themself. If the owner and worker can't agree on a price for the exchange of the labor/skill for money, then no trade off of occurs. How many people do poor people employ directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The people with economic power have the power to make their self-serving dogma seem like the truth that has to be refuted Everybody has "economic power" and anybody can claim that which is false is true. Neither of which is a violation of property rights. So not only are you not addressing a problem, you're not even addressing a symptom. their pre-owned status quo I tried to refute this line of thinking when I pointed out that Millionaire is a subset of Man (which you didn't address, curiously enough). My car was pre-owned in that somebody owned it before I did. It is not pre-owned in that it belonged to me before I acquired it. How did I acquire it? You are implying that because I have a car, I have power over somebody who does not have a car. As if my owning of the car is somehow unjust even though the previous owner voluntarily traded it to me based on the terms of our agreement. Same as all property that cannot be described as the spoils of aggression. Then, where property IS the spoils of aggression, as I pointed out already, it is the aggression that is the problem. Feel free to disagree or show me where I have erred. Repeating yourself as if no challenge was made only shows you are closed to any honest exploration of the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The investor pays the workers with the money produced by the workers; he is not paying them with his capital. True, the system doesn't get started without that capital, but the fallacy is that the supremacy of capital theory ignores the fact that it isn't worth anything until the workers give value to it. So you're saying that 1 + 10 = 11, but the 11 wouldn't exist without the 1 and the 10 is secondary. Not at all. The investor chooses what to do with the money he or she has. Could be buying an ice cream cone. Could be helping the guy on the corner open a store. Could be buying stock in a existing company. It's worth something *before* it is invested, and it's worth it to the worker to offer some future return to attract that financial support of the worker's future work. You are saying that no investment has value without "the worker" as some larger-than-life figure out there. That's not how it works. There are many workers, all of whom are trying to attract investment in their particular form of producing value, and the way they attract it is the return from the investment, be it an ice cream cone, a small cash flow as dividends from a successful story, or a stable inflation-resistance stock price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 The Analogy you gave doesn't match up with reality. The individual worker and owner do not require one or the other to exist in order to exist themselves. If the owner and worker can't agree on a price for the exchange of the labor/skill for money, then no trade off of occurs. How many people do poor people employ directly? YOUR MYTHS ARE INTENDED TO MYSTIFY Since your economic religion commands that employer and employee have equal and interchangeable power, then poor people must employ their bosses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Has anyone actually defined economic power yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Everybody has "economic power" and anybody can claim that which is false is true. Neither of which is a violation of property rights. So not only are you not addressing a problem, you're not even addressing a symptom. I tried to refute this line of thinking when I pointed out that Millionaire is a subset of Man (which you didn't address, curiously enough). My car was pre-owned in that somebody owned it before I did. It is not pre-owned in that it belonged to me before I acquired it. How did I acquire it? You are implying that because I have a car, I have power over somebody who does not have a car. As if my owning of the car is somehow unjust even though the previous owner voluntarily traded it to me based on the terms of our agreement. Same as all property that cannot be described as the spoils of aggression. Then, where property IS the spoils of aggression, as I pointed out already, it is the aggression that is the problem. Feel free to disagree or show me where I have erred. Repeating yourself as if no challenge was made only shows you are closed to any honest exploration of the truth. BUZZWORDS ARE FOR INSECTS I don't follow the analogy. Someone can buy a car, but no individual can buy the status quo. If his clique changes the status quo, it is a well-hidden truth that they were part of it anyway. For example the 60s hippies were Preppies--pre-ordained leaders of the next generation. Again it can't be a car, because their possession of the status quo meant that the humiliated White classes were excluded from it, which wouldn't happen just because someone owned a car. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlsv2f Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 YOUR MYTHS ARE INTENDED TO MYSTIFY Since your economic religion commands that employer and employee have equal and interchangeable power, then poor people must employ their bosses. You didn't address anything I put. I acknowledge that a person with lets say, capital, years of business experience and a law/accounting degree has more options than a person who can barely read. But to say he has "power" as in, he can force the person who can read to do things, is false. The socialists like you, want to give the illiterate power over society through the state, whereas we just want people to make their own decisions, based on their own wants/needs. (With of course the non-aggression principle being followed) I think you're just trolling at this point, perhaps you should go to reddit and r/Feel the Burn. Nice talking to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 no individual can buy the status quo This doesn't address any of the challenges I've offered. Also, what is the use of saying "an individual cannot buy that which is a description of the aggregate of individual choices"? It's like saying that a man sitting on the trunk of a car cannot steer that same car or that a man in his car cannot control the sum of all cars on the expressway. Whether by outside vs inside or singular vs sum of those singulars, all these claims all self-evident. Expressing them adds nothing. Speaking of adding nothing, can you ditch the role-playing? I can't speak for others, but it seems pretentious to me as well as an indication of somebody not trying to have a conversation with human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 dsayers, don't feed the trolls. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertarianSocialist Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Capitalists take advantage of the fact that they are necessary. Slavish minds are not allowed to develop the concept of "necessary but not valuable." For example, an ignition key is absolutely necessary but only worth about $5 for a car worth over $25,000. Great example, will quote in future. This is one of the major points I have been trying to get across. PROFIT IS A SCARCITY RENT. The maker of profit can only do so because of monopolistic control over the means of production and distribution. Following the abolition of monopoly, competition would drive prices down to near labour cost. The keys are an analogy to a monopolistic bottleneck, without which the car in its entirety is rendered useless. The capitalist charges what the market will bear, regardless of the legal distortions, that is, monopoly, ensured by a system of private property ensured artificial scarcity, which serves to ensure a healthy margin of profit well above that of the cost of production. It seems evident that the price of the keys (capitalist monopoly) should be that of the cost of production, and not based on any artificial conditions of scarcity. (Natural scarcity, not a concern of reproducible goods, an aside.) The argument could be made that a lowly nut (representing a doorman say), holding the entire car apart performs a likewise crucial role. Of course you would object to this, he should be paid what he would in free competition with others you would maintain. But if he should be the benefactor of legal privilege, as is capital today, which restricts the number of suppliers to a select class of men, he would be able to command a wage much higher than his real contribution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertarianSocialist Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 dsayers, don't feed the trolls. The Sage of Main Street, don't listen to them. It may look like trolling to them when your arguments have so clearly gone over their heads. You may well be wasting your time here. Most will remain impervious to all your arguments. I have tried in vain to get them to understand basic concepts like classes and the idea that ALL imposed hierarchies (including their beloved bosses) are antagonistic to freedom. I couldn't even get them to accept the idea that capitalism IS NOT SIMPLY BLOODY VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE, but rather a specific mode of production and social relation featuring private property rights in which the owners of capital generate (take) profits from renting it out to those without. If I couldn't get them to even understand this, what hopes do we have? They are so deeply rooted in American propaganda, any change is unlikely. Still, there may be lurkers who are still on the fence. And if we can sow the seeds of doubt, at least have them look into the philosophy behind our arguments, there may be a chance for them yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 how would socialism not have a "ruling class" of people with more power than other people? Is there some collective vote on engineering of bridges where expert engineers are to be outvoted by the common population so that engineers don't become the ruling class of bridge safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertarianSocialist Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 how would socialism not have a "ruling class" of people with more power than other people? Is there some collective vote on engineering of bridges where expert engineers are to be outvoted by the common population so that engineers don't become the ruling class of bridge safety? Being AN authority is not the same as being IN authority. I go to my doctor because he is a respected authority regarding Healthcare. He is not IN authority like the statesman, and has no means to compel me to embrace his authority. Make the preconditions necessary to becoming a qualified engineer available to all, and you remove the grounds on which the "engineering class" secures it's power, the monopoly of service and the threat of its withholding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The maker of profit can only do so because of monopolistic control over the means of production and distribution. You need to define your terms. You said a lot of things that could be classified as rhetoric since this is little or seemingly ambiguous or contradictory frames of reference. Profit is getting more out of something than you put into it and it is underlying in our every thought, decision, and behavior. For example, you created this post because you expected to get more out of it than you put into it. Does this mean you have monopolistic control over the means of production and distribution of thought and ideas? Monopolistic control over the means of production and distribution describes socialism. Here you speak ill of it, yet one can't help but notice it is a label you've self-applied (self-contradictory in its entirety aside). he should be paid what he would in free competition First of all, what somebody "should" be paid cannot be identified. That said, you described capitalism here while sounding as if you thought you were talking about the opposite of capitalism. Perhaps you've mistaken coercion for a free market? Mistaken State privilege for capitalism? It may look like trolling to them when your arguments have so clearly gone over their heads. So dumb it down for us. Explain it to us like we're 5 years old. If you can't, then perhaps the idea is clouded with narrative or you yourself don't understand it. ALL imposed hierarchies (including their beloved bosses) are antagonistic to freedom. No rational individual would conclude that something IMPOSED is the opposite of consent. You just made this claim up. Also, the employee/employer relationship is voluntary. Such hierarchy is for efficiency's sake, and is voluntary (since voluntary is more efficient). In closing, you need to stop using the word argument until you've made one. It's clear to me that you're speaking from unprocessed trauma in the past. Going just by your posts right here, all I see is emotionally-driven assertions. It sounds as if your issue is with aggression and rightly so. However, this is not in opposition of self-ownership, property rights, and therefore capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts