An argument against capitalism

[Mister Mister]

The question is not whether capital deserves pay, it is a question of how much. That amount is the full amount of its contribution.

Again, I think you are confused by the debunked labor-theory of value.  A "contribution" doesn't have inherent monetary worth.  The only quantifiable value anything has in this world is its opportunity cost.  So what is the opportunity cost of owners of capital, or of management?

 

Going back to your idea of  "It really is as easy as own capital: profit. Empirical evidence proves it."  No it doesn't.  Economics/Critical Thinking is all about seeing the unseen.  You SEE the successful owners of capital, but you don't see all the failures, which are essential to the market.  Think of all the advertising campaigns, like Coke Zero, which were failures.  Or all the movies like Waterworld which were flops and cost the studios millions.

 

Also, you never addressed my comment.  Are you willing to use force against what you see as hierarchical management schemes?  If not, then we have a simple difference of agreement, not over moral/economic philosophy, but business organization.  In which case we have no real quarrel

[LibertarianSocialist]

Conductors do not play an instrument and so are plundering the rightful fruits of the orchestra musicians!

 

They do not produce a single note yet their ill gotten gain is greater any noble musician in woodwind, brass, percussion and string!

 

Comrades! We must band together and create a new system free from the exploitation of these neo-bourgeoisie-capitalist music Nazis!

 

etc... etc...

 

In all seriousness, LibertarianSocialist, are you Peter Joseph?

Peter Joseph, the zeitgeist guy? Is it because I used the term competitive advantage like he does in the Molyneux video? I like that video, if you look close, you can see the secondary explosions at the base of Molyneux's brain.

 

I would say that the best thing to do would allow the musicians free competition to choose their conductor, if any. But if the conductor should possess a monopoly over the musical instruments, granted to him through inheritance, chance and incremental coercion and theft, a monopoly which he uses to extract surplus music from the real producers of music, the musicians, then it is rightful that those musicians rally together in the defence of what is rightfully theirs..

 

Now, if the conductor performs a valuable role in the creation of music, he deserves as much as his contribution. But what that contribution truly is can only be ascertained through free competition. Monopoly is antithetical to competition, he therefore can hold no monopoly, not of musical instruments, nor of currency for them, nor of the land on which to build concert halls.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I really didn't want to make the whole capitalism does not necessarily entail free trade argument EVERY post. Maybe qualify your support of capitalism with the prefix free market? Maybe I straw-manned you, sorry.

 

Saying that the corporatist benefactors are simply unwilling pawns in the states evil game is overly simplistic and incongruous with historical fact. It has always been the tendency for any consolidation of power to add to itself at the expense of others via force and coercion, whether that organization be called a state or a corporation or a commune.

 

Hmm. Love how you used the term profit. I have no problem with its use in the colloquial sense, but it makes sense to use it correctly in a discussion about economics.

 

Peter Joseph, the zeitgeist guy? Is it because I used the term competitive advantage like he does in the Molyneux video? I like that video, if you look close, you can see the secondary explosions at the base of Molyneux's brain.

 

I would say that the best thing to do would allow the musicians free competition to choose their conductor, if any. But if the conductor should possess a monopoly over the musical instruments, granted to him through inheritance, chance and incremental coercion and theft, a monopoly which he uses to extract surplus music from the real producers of music, the musicians, then it is rightful that those musicians rally together in the defence of what is rightfully theirs..

 

Now, if the conductor performs a valuable role in the creation of music, he deserves as much as his contribution. But what that contribution truly is can only be ascertained through free competition. Monopoly is antithetical to competition, he therefore can hold no monopoly, not of musical instruments, nor of currency for them, nor of the land on which to build concert halls.

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

[LibertarianSocialist]

It is a claim, not an argument. I don't want to point out that your body, time, and effort is your capital every post. Maybe you could address the performative contradiction of rejecting something that the very act of rejection demonstrates that you accept? We're just talking past each other because I accept reality as the method by which to resolve conflict while you accept your bigotry as the method by which to resolve conflict. We might as well be speaking German and French when the other doesn't understand it.

 

 

I never said unwilling pawns. I pointed out that there is a chain of causality that you are intentionally dispensing with in order to make your bigotry fit. You're pointing State-aggression backed, State-created-fiction corporations and saying that it's representative of a free market. In other words, you're starving and beating a pitbull, then pointing at it and saying "look, dogs are naturally feral!"

 

Maybe YOU could qualify your support of violence by referring to it as crony Capitalism or any of the other words that indicates that it's not capitalism, but masquerades as such. I've already identified that you're being intentionally deceptive and why.

 

 

It "makes sense" to define your terms instead of dancing around the challenge time and time again. You won't because the moment you reference violence, you reveal that violence is the issue, not what profit actually is. This would usurp violence as a valid means of achieving goals and then you wouldn't be able to use that violence to force everybody else to provide value for you without having to earn it.

When I speak of capital I refer to a specific mode of production and social relation. It is not simply the act of using capital to create more capital through labour. That feature is common to all modes of production.

Capitalism is defined as a system wherein a capitalistic class uses its ownership of capital to generate profits via the extraction of surplus labour from the producers. As a social relation it requires economic stratification. Other economic systems may have the preconditions of capitalism, (absentee property rights etc.) but unless access to the means of production are restricted, the specific system of capitalism can not be expressed, these may be pre-capitalist systems.

 

This is the traditional and generally held definition of the term. Only in the Libertarian movement is it attempted to be defined as "voluntary free trade" an ahistorical and useless term. -Use the free market qualifier and I have no qualms, it is more explicit.

 

Profit as I have explained is distinct from wealth creation through production. I make a chair in one hour, I sell it for one hours wages. I buy an equal product for the same amount. I have made zero profit, I have created wealth.

 

I make a chair in one hour, I sell it for two hours wages. I buy an equal product for the same amount, and pocket the remaining hours wage. I have made 100% profit. I buy a second chair. The value of the chair must come from his labour, he has created twice the wealth yet I receive his second share.

 

The second scenario can only come about through coercive control. In at least one regard the requirement of PERFECT COMPETITION has been violated. Ask yourself if capitalism meets the assumptions of perfect competition? Can any system?

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

 

Please tell me why my conductor analogy does not apply to anarcho-capitalism? Is it because competition would not allow for monopoly?

Have you any logical or empirical basis for this argument? Absentee property rights and capitalistic profitmaking incentivize consolidation. If individuals can accumulate wealth, they will.

Does then capitalism allow free competition? Does it satisfy the requirements of perfect competition, at least to a sufficient degree? If not, what is to stop individuals using inherited consolidations of wealth to drive deeper wedges into these market imperfections?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

When I speak of capital I refer to a specific mode of production and social relation. It is not simply the act of using capital to create more capital through labour. That feature is common to all modes of production.

Capitalism is defined as a system wherein a capitalistic class uses its ownership of capital to generate profits via the extraction of surplus labour from the producers. 

This is not the generally held definition of the term, it's a Marxist definition and it's false. The labor theory of value is also false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor" or a "capitalist class". 

 

Capitalism IS voluntary free trade. That's what it is in reality so arguing over the lineage of the term is what's "useless". 

 

There's no such thing as 1 or 2 hours wages. There's only what people will pay. Profit goes both ways. Both parties (or more) exchange values and expect to come out of transaction better off. They expect to have increased their personal wealth. Saying that one party has taken "surplus labor" is just another way of saying "I don't think that was a fair price". 

 

What is "perfect competition"? There are two choices; humans can interact economically with or with the initiation of force. Capitalism is without the initiation of force. So if capitalism is not your cup of tea and you have some other way of interacting successfully that doesn't involve coercion then you are free to go do that. You don't have to be a capitalist. 

[LibertarianSocialist]

Again, I think you are confused by the debunked labor-theory of value.  A "contribution" doesn't have inherent monetary worth.  The only quantifiable value anything has in this world is its opportunity cost.  So what is the opportunity cost of owners of capital, or of management?

Going back to your idea of  "It really is as easy as own capital: profit. Empirical evidence proves it."  No it doesn't.  Economics/Critical Thinking is all about seeing the unseen.  You SEE the successful owners of capital, but you don't see all the failures, which are essential to the market.  Think of all the advertising campaigns, like Coke Zero, which were failures.  Or all the movies like Waterworld which were flops and cost the studios millions.

Also, you never addressed my comment.  Are you willing to use force against what you see as hierarchical management schemes?  If not, then we have a simple difference of agreement, not over moral/economic philosophy, but business organization.  In which case we have no real quarrel

Just how has the Ltv been debunked?

Labour doesn't have to have monetary worth.

It is entirely compatible with opportunity cost, they are different factors of price formation.

The opportunity cost of capital depends on its current context. It is a relative measure of value, it makes no attempt to define what that level would be under specific theoretical conditions.

 

If it is not at all profitable, why do we have imperfect economic mobility? Unless poor people are all dullards, the rich Randian Ubermensche, how do you account for the fact that there exists a correlation between ownership of preexisting wealth and future gain? That is an empirical proof, please explain that.

 

I would use force on all IMPOSED hierarchy. In short any hierarchy that uses coercive differences in power between people to insert and maintain itself.

[dsayers]

Capitalism is defined as a system wherein a capitalistic class uses its ownership of capital

You cannot use a term to define itself You're pointing to the middle of a story as if it's the beginning while rejecting what I'm pointing out as the beginning of the story even though it's the exact same thing! Whether you own a hammer, a lawnmower, a truck, or a factory, you could not own any of it if you didn't own yourself first. Because it was plying your capital to profit (get more capital out than you put in) that allowed you to go from just having your body to also having a hammer, to also having a lawnmower, to also having a truck, to also having a factory.

 

You're speaking as if crapitalists grow on trees and own a factory as a feature of nature. A factory is a HUGE investment. Of course the people who did the investing own it. Somebody else owning something doesn't mean you are owed equal access to it any more than they are entitled to equal access to your body or anything else you own.

 

This is the traditional and generally held definition of the term.

Already covered this: "We don't have to agree on that, but unless you tell me what you mean by it, you know this is how it will be received."

 

I make a chair in one hour, I sell it for one hours wages. I buy an equal product for the same amount. I have made zero profit,

By my count, you are up

 

1) the "equal product" that you didn't have before

2) rapport with the person you sold the chair to

3) rapport with whomever you bought the "equal product" from

4) expertise in fashioning a chair

5) fame as somebody who can make a chair

6) reputation as a trustworthy trade partner

7) reputation as somebody who doesn't engage in violence to achieve their goals

8) empirical evidence that voluntary trade is a viable means for achieving your goals

9) first hand knowledge of how "equal product" works

 

The list could go on in light of brain chemistry alone. The point is that if you weren't going to profit from this course of action, you would not have engaged in it. Or, you would have engaged in it, not knowing that it would not be profitable, and you would've profited by way of learning that this course of action was not profitable, there are more efficient ways of doing the same thing... You know what? I covered this already also.

 

I make a chair in one hour, I sell it for two hours wages.

False. You sell it for whatever you can get for the chair factoring in how many people you choose to bargain with and how long you're willing to hold onto it rather than get whatever it is you'd rather have. You speak as if "hour's wage" is defined. As it is not a constant, it's not even define-able. People provide different levels of value based on motivation and experience (just to name two), and so what their labor is worth differs. In order for this claim to be false, everybody would have to be identical down to the amount of plaque coating their arteries. I hope I don't need to point out that this is not the case.

[LibertarianSocialist]

This is not the generally held definition of the term, it's a Marxist definition and it's false. The labor theory of value is also false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor" or a "capitalist class". 

 

Capitalism IS voluntary free trade. That's what it is in reality so arguing over the lineage of the term is what's "useless". 

 

There's no such thing as 1 or 2 hours wages. There's only what people will pay. Profit goes both ways. Both parties (or more) exchange values and expect to come out of transaction better off. They expect to have increased their personal wealth. Saying that one party has taken "surplus labor" is just another way of saying "I don't think that was a fair price". 

 

What is "perfect competition"? There are two choices; humans can interact economically with or with the initiation of force. Capitalism is without the initiation of force. So if capitalism is not your cup of tea and you have some other way of interacting successfully that doesn't involve coercion then you are free to go do that. You don't have to be a capitalist.

 

False? Please demonstrate. No surplus labour? No business owner has ever made a profit by paying his workers less than the revenue from the sale of their products? No capitalist class? No one who makes a profit through the ownership of capital, and conversely no non-owning class who makes their money by selling their labour? How can one deny such obvious and defining traits of our society?

 

Why is it called capitalism then if it's defining feature is voluntary free trade? Why not some other name? Why should capital be the defining feature of such an economy?

 

I did slip into a more vulgar labour theory interpretation there in my chair maker example. What I mean instead of one hour is one aggregated subjective labour unit. That is, the exchange price of the commodity under perfect market conditions dictated by the aggregate subjective evaluation of the labour (in all its dimensions) cost involved in its production.

 

Please don't play the whole capitalism is without the initiation of force. Please explain potential violations of the Lockean proviso for instance. If I have not been left with an alternative of "as much and as good" have I not been forced by the act of my deprivation by another?

[LibertarianSocialist]

You cannot use a term to define itself You're pointing to the middle of a story as if it's the beginning while rejecting what I'm pointing out as the beginning of the story even though it's the exact same thing! Whether you own a hammer, a lawnmower, a truck, or a factory, you could not own any of it if you didn't own yourself first. Because it was plying your capital to profit (get more capital out than you put in) that allowed you to go from just having your body to also having a hammer, to also having a lawnmower, to also having a truck, to also having a factory.

 

You're speaking as if crapitalists grow on trees and own a factory as a feature of nature. A factory is a HUGE investment. Of course the people who did the investing own it. Somebody else owning something doesn't mean you are owed equal access to it any more than they are entitled to equal access to your body or anything else you own.

 

 

Already covered this: "We don't have to agree on that, but unless you tell me what you mean by it, you know this is how it will be received."

 

 

By my count, you are up

 

1) the "equal product" that you didn't have before

2) rapport with the person you sold the chair to

3) rapport with whomever you bought the "equal product" from

4) expertise in fashioning a chair

5) fame as somebody who can make a chair

6) reputation as a trustworthy trade partner

7) reputation as somebody who doesn't engage in violence to achieve their goals

8) empirical evidence that voluntary trade is a viable means for achieving your goals

9) first hand knowledge of how "equal product" works

 

The list could go on in light of brain chemistry alone. The point is that if you weren't going to profit from this course of action, you would not have engaged in it. Or, you would have engaged in it, not knowing that it would not be profitable, and you would've profited by way of learning that this course of action was not profitable, there are more efficient ways of doing the same thing... You know what? I covered this already also.

 

 

False. You sell it for whatever you can get for the chair factoring in how many people you choose to bargain with and how long you're willing to hold onto it rather than get whatever it is you'd rather have. You speak as if "hour's wage" is defined. As it is not a constant, it's not even define-able. People provide different levels of value based on motivation and experience (just to name two), and so what their labor is worth differs. In order for this claim to be false, everybody would have to be identical down to the amount of plaque coating their arteries. I hope I don't need to point out that this is not the case.

People do not create wealth through profit as you say by "getting out more than you put in". Such a thing is impossible. Continual labour inputs are needed. What does happen is that you labour to produce a useful product then use that product to increase the efficiency of the next round of labour. Capital is simply dead labour, the utilization of capital as a productivity multiplier is simply the efficient ordering of labour, much like a set of tasks done in a sensible order increases labour efficiency.

 

When I am talking of profit I do mean profit regarding exchange value. For instance example 1 you give is a clear profit regarding use value. I should have been more concise, sorry.

All the other examples could easily be explained as resultant from labour, from the acts of production and distribution. If I also achieve these things as a result of my labour chair-making, it only means my productivity was higher than if I did not so benefit.

 

PROFIT IS NOT NECESSARY.

If I go fishing for food, I do so because the marginal utility of a fish when I am hungry is higher than the next best option. I am happy to convert my labour power into caught fish. I have put as much labour in as I have received fish. If I receive more or less fish for the same amount of exertion it simply means that factors have influenced my labour efficiency. IN NO WAY HAVE I PUT IN LESS THAN I RECEIVE. I have simply converted one thing to another. The maximization of use value is the only reward.

 

I really shouldn't have used a vulgar time based labour theory example. The Labour theory is simply a theoretical assumption about the tendency of prices under perfect competition. It simply states that unrestricted competition will drive prices down to the aggregate cost of production (that is, embodied labour) of all market participants, with embodied labour being defined subjectively and calculated through market competition.

[Snafui]

Just how has the Ltv been debunked?

Labour doesn't have to have monetary worth.

It is entirely compatible with opportunity cost, they are different factors of price formation.

The opportunity cost of capital depends on its current context. It is a relative measure of value, it makes no attempt to define what that level would be under specific theoretical conditions.

 

If it is not at all profitable, why do we have imperfect economic mobility? Unless poor people are all dullards, the rich Randian Ubermensche, how do you account for the fact that there exists a correlation between ownership of preexisting wealth and future gain? That is an empirical proof, please explain that.

 

I would use force on all IMPOSED hierarchy. In short any hierarchy that uses coercive differences in power between people to insert and maintain itself.

Maybe it has something to do with what those "ubermensche" did when they were not being paid to do it. Men differ from what they do in their free time.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

False? Please demonstrate. No surplus labour? No business owner has ever made a profit by paying his workers less than the revenue from the sale of their products? No capitalist class? No one who makes a profit through the ownership of capital, and conversely no non-owning class who makes their money by selling their labour? How can one deny such obvious and defining traits of our society?

 

Why is it called capitalism then if it's defining feature is voluntary free trade? Why not some other name? Why should capital be the defining feature of such an economy?

 

I did slip into a more vulgar labour theory interpretation there in my chair maker example. What I mean instead of one hour is one aggregated subjective labour unit. That is, the exchange price of the commodity under perfect market conditions dictated by the aggregate subjective evaluation of the labour (in all its dimensions) cost involved in its production.

 

Please don't play the whole capitalism is without the initiation of force. Please explain potential violations of the Lockean proviso for instance. If I have not been left with an alternative of "as much and as good" have I not been forced by the act of my deprivation by another?

It's not false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor". It's Marxist superstition. You are just relabeling the profit the employer makes as "surplus labor". Assuming you're going by Marx's theory of the socially necessary labor contained in a commodity then where's your argument that the employers profit (and not also the customer and the employees profit) are surplus labor?

 

Let's take an example. An employer hires one employee. They make playhouses for children. The employee earns $8 an hour and the employer's profit is $12 per hour. So you would say the employer (capitalist class) is stealing the surplus labor value from the employee (working class). But the employers profit can change radically based on various factors. The employer could simply decide to sell it at no profit. The value is not objective. But when socialist claims the capitalist is stealing the surplus value they're saying it's an objective value. Again, that's why when you say the capitalist is stealing surplus value you're just saying "I don't think the price for my labor is fair". 

If you want to argue that the price the "worker" gets is unfair using the businesses profits as part of the argument that's all good. But don't claim they are stealing just because they make a profit. 

 

You say capitalist class and non-owning class are such obvious traits of out society but provide no examples or argument. Where is this "non-owning class"? It's a complete delusion. Do you not own anything? There is no capitalist class. Just because someone is richer than you doesn't mean they have taken from some pie and thereby have denied you your share. Capitalism increases the pie for everyone. 

 

The fact that free trade is often called capitalism is largely down to Marxists. They have been going on about "capitalism" for so long it's just become the norm to refer to it as capitalism. I'm not sure capital is the defining trait. I think it's private property rights and non-aggression. It's not like people who want commerce go on about how they going "to do some capitalism today" or when I want to start a business I say "I want to engage in capitalism". Maybe people like Ayn Rand embraced the term but generally is was the leftist who popularized it. It's not like socialists could say they're agianst "voluntary trade". So they use the term "capitalism" and eventually they came to believe the propaganda.

The word doesn't really matter. It's what happens in reality that matters. In reality what you call it capitalism and misrepresent it as exploitation of the worker but it can be observed to just be voluntary trade. 

 

I don't know what "perfect market conditions dictated by the aggregate subjective evaluation of the labour (in all its dimensions) cost involved in its production" means. What are perfect market conditions? Why would a subjective evaluation dictate these perfect conditions? When I try to make sense of Marxist gobbledygook I just apply it to other realms of human interaction like the friendship market or the romance market or the sexual market or the market of ideas. When you do that it becomes clear that concepts like the ones you're using (a subjective evaluation of labor costs to determine a perfect market) are nonsense. 

Maybe I just don't get it and you can give me an example.

 

You can't violate a proviso unless you've agreed to it first. It's just a proviso, not a moral principle.  Capitalists take land/ resources and generally make them much more valuable. If anything capitalism is the most consistent with that proviso as the value land owners create more then compensates for the supposedly communal resources/space that they use. Not only are you usually left with an alternative "as much and as good" but much, much better.

Again there seems to be this belief or feeling among socialists that capitalists are taking part of a finite pie. But they generally taking a uneatable pie and turning into an eatable one. 

[Mister Mister]

Just how has the Ltv been debunked?

Labour doesn't have to have monetary worth.

It is entirely compatible with opportunity cost, they are different factors of price formation.

The opportunity cost of capital depends on its current context. It is a relative measure of value, it makes no attempt to define what that level would be under specific theoretical conditions.

 

If it is not at all profitable, why do we have imperfect economic mobility? Unless poor people are all dullards, the rich Randian Ubermensche, how do you account for the fact that there exists a correlation between ownership of preexisting wealth and future gain? That is an empirical proof, please explain that.

 

I would use force on all IMPOSED hierarchy. In short any hierarchy that uses coercive differences in power between people to insert and maintain itself.

 

The LTV is demonstrably false because value is subjective.  A good is valued by an individual based on their belief in its ability to satisfy a particular want, and where that want ranks in their hierarchy of wants at the moment.  The amount of hours of labor put into producing that good is irrelevant, its not as if you magically imbue your labor into matter.  Can you measure the difference between two identical items, one of which took 10 hours to produce, and the other which took 1 hour?  Will's example of the "vase" is very illustrative.  If no one is wiling to give anything up for the vase, even if I spent 70 hours piling clay together, then it has no value.

 

Any sane artist knows this - the amount of time you put into your work does not mean people are willing to give something up for it.

 

And by imposed hierarchy, you mean an established business?  Many members of this board have higher up positions in business, are you openly saying you would use force against them?  This is what I don't understand, you've also said that "worker"-run businesses are more effective, but you aren't willing to compete fairly with them?  You have to use violence?  Well I'm sorry, but this makes you my enemy.  I've really tried to give you respect and consideration, but if I understand you rightly, you've shown your hand and I can't take you seriously anymore.

[dsayers]

People do not create wealth through profit as you say by "getting out more than you put in". Such a thing is impossible.

If you and I trade, we each value the thing we don't have greater than the thing we do. Obviously it would be impossible for us to both be objectively right simultaneously. But value is subjective, so it's entirely possible.

 

I have put as much labour in as I have received fish. If I receive more or less fish for the same amount of exertion it simply means that factors have influenced my labour efficiency.

If going by your last quote that such a claim is objectively impossible, then the law of the conservation of energy says you are wrong. While casting your rod, you lost energy to atmospheric resistance. When reeling it in, you lost energy to water resistance. In other words, not all of your labor translated into the received fish. Not to mention that the received fish will require more labor to convert it into a usable form. When all is said and done, you will likely find you've expended labor more inefficiently than somebody who specializes in catching fish.

 

Why then do people fish recreationally? It's because they profit from it. They expect to get more out of it than they put into. See my list above and keep in mind that things like pleasure and other intangibles are valuable to people.

[Agalloch]

@LibertarianSocialist:

Imagine you are in the middle of a seemingly inescapable desert. You come across water and fill your bottle from it. You continue on your journey, losing track of the water and come across me. I have 10 pounds of gold on me. Would you trade the water in your bottle to me for the Gold?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Steve Wozniak built the first Apple, but that's the wrong question to ask.

 

Where did the parts come from? Where did the tools come from? How was he fed, clothed, and sheltered? Did he grow his own food, make his own clothes, and build his own house? How were all of those things massed produced and delivered to various locations within his reach?

 

'Capital' is not the result of greed and avarice, nor the result of deprivation or expropriation; it's the result of production and savings. . Capital, known as 'capital goods' or 'higher order goods,' makes possible the mass production of consumer goods, or lower order goods.

So you believe in "throwing money at a problem"?  Because that's all capital investment is.  Worthless in itself, it blows away in the wind without the workers and creative personnel to give value to it.  In state capitalism, the Communists also brag about being all that is needed for production to automatically follow.

[dsayers]

So you believe in "throwing money at a problem"?

I didn't get that from what he wrote. I think it would be a waste of time to discuss beliefs at all.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's not false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor". It's Marxist superstition. You are just relabeling the profit the employer makes as "surplus labor". Assuming you're going by Marx's theory of the socially necessary labor contained in a commodity then where's your argument that the employers profit (and not also the customer and the employees profit) are surplus labor?

 

Let's take an example. An employer hires one employee. They make playhouses for children. The employee earns $8 an hour and the employer's profit is $12 per hour. So you would say the employer (capitalist class) is stealing the surplus labor value from the employee (working class). But the employers profit can change radically based on various factors. The employer could simply decide to sell it at no profit. The value is not objective. But when socialist claims the capitalist is stealing the surplus value they're saying it's an objective value. Again, that's why when you say the capitalist is stealing surplus value you're just saying "I don't think the price for my labor is fair". 

If you want to argue that the price the "worker" gets is unfair using the businesses profits as part of the argument that's all good. But don't claim they are stealing just because they make a profit. 

 

You say capitalist class and non-owning class are such obvious traits of out society but provide no examples or argument. Where is this "non-owning class"? It's a complete delusion. Do you not own anything? There is no capitalist class. Just because someone is richer than you doesn't mean they have taken from some pie and thereby have denied you your share. Capitalism increases the pie for everyone. 

 

The fact that free trade is often called capitalism is largely down to Marxists. They have been going on about "capitalism" for so long it's just become the norm to refer to it as capitalism. I'm not sure capital is the defining trait. I think it's private property rights and non-aggression. It's not like people who want commerce go on about how they going "to do some capitalism today" or when I want to start a business I say "I want to engage in capitalism". Maybe people like Ayn Rand embraced the term but generally is was the leftist who popularized it. It's not like socialists could say they're agianst "voluntary trade". So they use the term "capitalism" and eventually they came to believe the propaganda.

The word doesn't really matter. It's what happens in reality that matters. In reality what you call it capitalism and misrepresent it as exploitation of the worker but it can be observed to just be voluntary trade. 

 

I don't know what "perfect market conditions dictated by the aggregate subjective evaluation of the labour (in all its dimensions) cost involved in its production" means. What are perfect market conditions? Why would a subjective evaluation dictate these perfect conditions? When I try to make sense of Marxist gobbledygook I just apply it to other realms of human interaction like the friendship market or the romance market or the sexual market or the market of ideas. When you do that it becomes clear that concepts like the ones you're using (a subjective evaluation of labor costs to determine a perfect market) are nonsense. 

Maybe I just don't get it and you can give me an example.

 

You can't violate a proviso unless you've agreed to it first. It's just a proviso, not a moral principle.  Capitalists take land/ resources and generally make them much more valuable. If anything capitalism is the most consistent with that proviso as the value land owners create more then compensates for the supposedly communal resources/space that they use. Not only are you usually left with an alternative "as much and as good" but much, much better.

Again there seems to be this belief or feeling among socialists that capitalists are taking part of a finite pie. But they generally taking a uneatable pie and turning into an eatable one. 

Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked Tongue

 

 

Both Socialism and Capitalism are enemies of democracy.  Those two theories were spawned or propagated by the hereditary ruling class and demonstrate its Born to Rule attitude.  But what if the excluded and humiliated classes (also hereditary) ruled, which wouldn't be hard because they far outnumber the elitist snobs?  All the future workers would get together in company-sized groups, save and borrow money, pay their most productive members the most, invest what is needed to keep going or expand as much or as little as they want, and keep all the profits.  

 

As for Sanders's "democratic socialism."  Why does he support things that are against the will of the working-class majority, such as the Gayist agenda, and even against jobs and higher pay, such as the agenda of the Eco-Eunuchs?  So he's just a same-old same-old egomaniac Commie dictator, except that in his case, he's a pathetic fanboy of the Born to Rule class's fantasy economics, just like a trailer-park Republican.

[Alan C.]

So you believe in "throwing money at a problem"?  Because that's all capital investment is.  Worthless in itself, it blows away in the wind without the workers and creative personnel to give value to it.  In state capitalism, the Communists also brag about being all that is needed for production to automatically follow.

 

I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

A person spends hours chopping down trees for lumber. He can either burn it for heat, or use it to build a home to shelter himself from the elements. If he burns it for heat then he has to chop down trees again the next day, and repeat the process in perpetuity. If he builds a home, he will free up time because he doesn't need as much lumber to keep warm, and can work on other ways to improve his standard of living (like building a cistern to store water). The home represents a capital good, or higher order good.

 

If you want to talk about throwing money a problem, that's what the welfare-state does.

[LibertarianSocialist]

It's not false. There's no such thing as "surplus labor". It's Marxist superstition. You are just relabeling the profit the employer makes as "surplus labor". Assuming you're going by Marx's theory of the socially necessary labor contained in a commodity then where's your argument that the employers profit (and not also the customer and the employees profit) are surplus labor?

 

Let's take an example. An employer hires one employee. They make playhouses for children. The employee earns $8 an hour and the employer's profit is $12 per hour. So you would say the employer (capitalist class) is stealing the surplus labor value from the employee (working class). But the employers profit can change radically based on various factors. The employer could simply decide to sell it at no profit. The value is not objective. But when socialist claims the capitalist is stealing the surplus value they're saying it's an objective value. Again, that's why when you say the capitalist is stealing surplus value you're just saying "I don't think the price for my labor is fair".

If you want to argue that the price the "worker" gets is unfair using the businesses profits as part of the argument that's all good. But don't claim they are stealing just because they make a profit.

 

You say capitalist class and non-owning class are such obvious traits of out society but provide no examples or argument. Where is this "non-owning class"? It's a complete delusion. Do you not own anything? There is no capitalist class. Just because someone is richer than you doesn't mean they have taken from some pie and thereby have denied you your share. Capitalism increases the pie for everyone.

 

The fact that free trade is often called capitalism is largely down to Marxists. They have been going on about "capitalism" for so long it's just become the norm to refer to it as capitalism. I'm not sure capital is the defining trait. I think it's private property rights and non-aggression. It's not like people who want commerce go on about how they going "to do some capitalism today" or when I want to start a business I say "I want to engage in capitalism". Maybe people like Ayn Rand embraced the term but generally is was the leftist who popularized it. It's not like socialists could say they're agianst "voluntary trade". So they use the term "capitalism" and eventually they came to believe the propaganda.

The word doesn't really matter. It's what happens in reality that matters. In reality what you call it capitalism and misrepresent it as exploitation of the worker but it can be observed to just be voluntary trade.

 

I don't know what "perfect market conditions dictated by the aggregate subjective evaluation of the labour (in all its dimensions) cost involved in its production" means. What are perfect market conditions? Why would a subjective evaluation dictate these perfect conditions? When I try to make sense of Marxist gobbledygook I just apply it to other realms of human interaction like the friendship market or the romance market or the sexual market or the market of ideas. When you do that it becomes clear that concepts like the ones you're using (a subjective evaluation of labor costs to determine a perfect market) are nonsense.

Maybe I just don't get it and you can give me an example.

 

You can't violate a proviso unless you've agreed to it first. It's just a proviso, not a moral principle. Capitalists take land/ resources and generally make them much more valuable. If anything capitalism is the most consistent with that proviso as the value land owners create more then compensates for the supposedly communal resources/space that they use. Not only are you usually left with an alternative "as much and as good" but much, much better.

Again there seems to be this belief or feeling among socialists that capitalists are taking part of a finite pie. But they generally taking a uneatable pie and turning into an eatable one.

 

If there exists no such thing as surplus labour, why do factories grind to a halt during strikes? If you are so sure that the boss really performs a valuable and productive role, why not open up his position to free competition?

I guess surplus labour could be entailed in all them. The laborer is the rightful owner of his surplus, the consumer may get a slice if prices are undervalued. I also object to the latter as theft.

 

If the worker produces a workhouse in one hour, he is entitled to his entire labour's portion. The capitalist is entitled for pay for the capital to the amount of the embodied labour involved in producing that capital. Everyone to their labour share. This is not how it works today. Today the capitalist extracts surplus labour because his and his employees bargaining power are not the same. The employee must coercively surrender a portion of his product based on the degree of coercive pressure. This is why the American frontier had relatively higher incomes and opportunity for the lower classes than for the European peasantry.

 

By subjective labour costs I mean the aggregate perception of the difficulty of the labour. One man might like digging holes, another hate it. In a theoretical perfect market, the average perception of labour difficulty, or intensity, will even out with the averages of other forms of labour.

 

The proviso rests on a strong philosophical argument. What gives you the right to deprive me just from being first? You say you have to agree to it? In what world is it fair that because you didn't agree to not do so you can take what is just as rightfully others' as much as yours? When did the future generations agree to your beliefs? Why should they be required to respect your claims?

To the living should go the right to decide what is just in their time, always and forever. The dead should never rule over the living.

 

Really, capitalists not taking a finite pie? Have you looked outside? Every inch of land is owned by someone. Yes the state owns a lot, but they are a specific type of capitalist owner. Please learn about the enclosures act. I know you will object, that's corporatism! but please understand capitalism as a social relation is only made possible by such artificial scarcity, maybe the Ancapistan in your head isn't actually a capitalist society?

The LTV is demonstrably false because value is subjective.  A good is valued by an individual based on their belief in its ability to satisfy a particular want, and where that want ranks in their hierarchy of wants at the moment.  The amount of hours of labor put into producing that good is irrelevant, its not as if you magically imbue your labor into matter.  Can you measure the difference between two identical items, one of which took 10 hours to produce, and the other which took 1 hour?  Will's example of the "vase" is very illustrative.  If no one is wiling to give anything up for the vase, even if I spent 70 hours piling clay together, then it has no value.

 

Any sane artist knows this - the amount of time you put into your work does not mean people are willing to give something up for it.

 

And by imposed hierarchy, you mean an established business?  Many members of this board have higher up positions in business, are you openly saying you would use force against them?  This is what I don't understand, you've also said that "worker"-run businesses are more effective, but you aren't willing to compete fairly with them?  You have to use violence?  Well I'm sorry, but this makes you my enemy.  I've really tried to give you respect and consideration, but if I understand you rightly, you've shown your hand and I can't take you seriously anymore.

I'm not explaining the LTV again. You show me a painter who keeps supplying for a market who doesn't want to buy his goods at a price point that makes his labour worthwhile? Unless you admit cost of production is a thing, you are essentially saying the painter would happily lower his paintings to $1 if that were the market clearing level. I know you would not argue such a thing.

I AM SAYING COST OF PRODUCTION IS THE LIMIT OF PRICE UNDER FREE COMPETITION, not that people are FORCED to buy at this price point.

If you and I trade, we each value the thing we don't have greater than the thing we do. Obviously it would be impossible for us to both be objectively right simultaneously. But value is subjective, so it's entirely possible.

 

 

If going by your last quote that such a claim is objectively impossible, then the law of the conservation of energy says you are wrong. While casting your rod, you lost energy to atmospheric resistance. When reeling it in, you lost energy to water resistance. In other words, not all of your labor translated into the received fish. Not to mention that the received fish will require more labor to convert it into a usable form. When all is said and done, you will likely find you've expended labor more inefficiently than somebody who specializes in catching fish.

 

Why then do people fish recreationally? It's because they profit from it. They expect to get more out of it than they put into. See my list above and keep in mind that things like pleasure and other intangibles are valuable to people.

Let's say for the sake of argument labour is defined in Kilojoules.

 

I use 1000kj of energy to get 1kg fish. My efficiency is 1000:1. It is RELATIVE TO ALL OTHER EFFICIENCIES.

I did not mean to imply that efficiency was such that energy use is proportionate to the energy in the end product.

 

Everyone "profits" if you want to use the term in its colloquial sense. But "profit" from labour and profit via non labour factors, are two very different things. A tree takes its energy from the sun, exogenous input, and converts it to useful sugar. It does not rent out the space to saplings and make them give it some of their sugar. One is the efficient use of labour to convert an available resource to something of higher use value, the other is a scarcity imposed rent in which no additional wealth is created, but simply redistributed.

@LibertarianSocialist:

Imagine you are in the middle of a seemingly inescapable desert. You come across water and fill your bottle from it. You continue on your journey, losing track of the water and come across me. I have 10 pounds of gold on me. Would you trade the water in your bottle to me for the Gold?

Of course, but you will resent the situation.

 

It should be quite clear that this situation does not represent a free market. I have an absolute monopoly over the water.

 

The LTV does not say prices MUST fall to cost, should there be any distorting factors, violence, scarcity, monopoly etc.

what the LTV says is that prices for reproducible goods UNDER PERFECT MARKET CONDITIONS WILL FALL TO COST OF PRODUCTION.

 

This is the driving force of socialism, that some are able to get more than they contribute via market manipulation. Capitalism is the system of getting something for nothing via scarcity imposed rents.

[dsayers]

the other is a scarcity imposed rent in which no additional wealth is created, but simply redistributed.

I think you fail the 5 year old test. I don't know what scarcity imposed rent means. I do know that you said something that was possible was impossible and when corrected, you resort to obfuscations instead acknowledging your error or even the correction offered.

 

If you are involved in a trade, you have the ability to negotiate and decline the exchange. If you are not party to a trade, it is none of your business what, how, or why they trade so long as they both are free to decline. In a free market, all exchanges are voluntary and I've debunked the "people gotta eat, so all labor is slavery" myth so many times that I can't be bothered to again here when you don't have the integrity to just say that's what you mean, stay in the conversation, or acknowledge other people and their corrections instead of repeating the same tripe, over and over, as confusingly as possible.

[Very Ape]

Jeff Berwick has already discussed this issue - it is not outside the realm of anarchism.

 

Most of what Libertarian Socialist refers to as "Scarcity Rent" is actually due to patents. If patents were eliminated that would mean that...

 

1. Being first to market or most efficient at delivery would be the key to product differentiation all things being equal. So supply chain management etc. comes into play. These things can't be done properly unless people work efficiently and communicate well. Effectively a company's profit then becomes a reward for doing those things well or better than everyone else.

 

2. The market cycles would be much faster with companies out duelling each other and then failing a few years down the line as other companies figure out how to so things more efficiently. But this has the effect of making everyone wealthier, driving prices down while rewarding those who are actually good at what they do vs. "scarcity rent".

 

The profits made in such a system would be shorter lived but more equitable and would trickle through the system faster as profit would be quickly spent or reinvested in search of other efficient businesses thus increasing money velocity. It would be inefficient to hold on to profits for very long as stiff competition would preclude sitting on cash vs reinvesting.

[Mister Mister]

Jeff Berwick has already discussed this issue - it is not outside the realm of anarchism.

 

Most of what Libertarian Socialist refers to as "Scarcity Rent" is actually due to patents. If patents were eliminated that would mean that...

 

1. Being first to market or most efficient at delivery would be the key to product differentiation all things being equal. So supply chain management etc. comes into play. These things can't be done properly unless people work efficiently and communicate well. Effectively a company's profit then becomes a reward for doing those things well or better than everyone else.

 

2. The market cycles would be much faster with companies out duelling each other and then failing a few years down the line as other companies figure out how to so things more efficiently. But this has the effect of making everyone wealthier, driving prices down while rewarding those who are actually good at what they do vs. "scarcity rent".

 

The profits made in such a system would be shorter lived but more equitable and would trickle through the system faster as profit would be quickly spent or reinvested in search of other efficient businesses thus increasing money velocity. It would be inefficient to hold on to profits for very long as stiff competition would preclude sitting on cash vs reinvesting.

I hear what you're saying, and of course I agree patents are bad.  But I kinda get a consequentialist tone from what you are saying, that we need to justify private property and free trade by arguing that the results would be more "equitable", satisfying the socialists' objectives.  Even if this is true, freedom isn't dependent on others' idea of a perfect world, but on the acceptance of rational ethics which can be understood and practiced by most everyone.

[Agalloch]

Of course, but you will resent the situation.

 

It should be quite clear that this situation does not represent a free market. I have an absolute monopoly over the water.

 

The LTV does not say prices MUST fall to cost, should there be any distorting factors, violence, scarcity, monopoly etc.

what the LTV says is that prices for reproducible goods UNDER PERFECT MARKET CONDITIONS WILL FALL TO COST OF PRODUCTION.

 

This is the driving force of socialism, that some are able to get more than they contribute via market manipulation. Capitalism is the system of getting something for nothing via scarcity imposed rents.

I didn't say it was a free market, I asked if you thought higher labour-intensive goods were worth less than low labour-intensive goods. You do, so you don't believe the theory you're pushing.

 

The rest of your post was sort of nonsensical to me sorry. You started talking about the results of your theory in a mathematical model that doesn't reflect reality when the question reveals the the basis of the theory is flawed regardless of the results of application.

 

Also, a free market can have monopolies and REQUIRES scarciry. There's no violence in the situation so it definitely us a free interaction and proves you don't believe the labour theory of value is valid, only that you want it to have utility because you're jealous of and don't understand entrepreneurs.

[powder]

OK, I've read the whole thread and waded thru a lot of fancy jiber jaber.  Lets see if I understand what LibertarianSocialist is trying to say.  You are not doing a good job of communicating it for my 5 year old brain, so please let me know if I have missed something important. 

 

-bad elitists have stuff (capital) that they should not be allowed to keep and they are using it to force people to do stuff that they don't want to do - though I am not clear about how that really works.

 

-their is some way of determining the value of the labor of these workers, which I do not understand, and it is more than the amount they are being compensated, so it is not fair.  It is stealing somehow, and that is aggression/force.  

 

-LibertarianSocialist thinks its OK to use force to re-structure society by taking stuff from these bad people to make things better.  

My only question is, what would that look like, and who is going to help you accomplish this task of using force to make these changes?  

[Mister Mister]

I'm not explaining the LTV again. You show me a painter who keeps supplying for a market who doesn't want to buy his goods at a price point that makes his labour worthwhile? Unless you admit cost of production is a thing, you are essentially saying the painter would happily lower his paintings to $1 if that were the market clearing level. I know you would not argue such a thing.

I AM SAYING COST OF PRODUCTION IS THE LIMIT OF PRICE UNDER FREE COMPETITION, not that people are FORCED to buy at this price point.

 

Ok, I don't know why you're yelling at me.  Do you mean that businesses won't consistently set prices below their cost of production?  Yes that seems pretty logical to me, again I don't know what we're arguing about.  I can't say what a hypothetical painter would or wouldn't do, but there are many artists who don't make a profit, it's called a hobby.  Not all human decisions are about monetary profit as I'm sure you know.

 

Also I don't know how you can say the State is a specific type of capitalist land owner.  Do you not understand the differences?  Because they are very significant.

[Torero]

Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked Tongue

 

Anyone means every individual, not one excluded.

Always means all the time, not one nanosecond missed.

 

People born with silver spoons are probably wealthy people? Or what?

Speaking with a forked tongue is lying, manipulating, snake-like behaviour?

 

So if 1 individual "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" for 1 second doesn't "speak with a forked tongue", you lose your bold claim.

[AncapFTW]

Jeff Berwick has already discussed this issue - it is not outside the realm of anarchism.

 

Most of what Libertarian Socialist refers to as "Scarcity Rent" is actually due to patents. If patents were eliminated that would mean that...

 

1. Being first to market or most efficient at delivery would be the key to product differentiation all things being equal. So supply chain management etc. comes into play. These things can't be done properly unless people work efficiently and communicate well. Effectively a company's profit then becomes a reward for doing those things well or better than everyone else.

 

2. The market cycles would be much faster with companies out duelling each other and then failing a few years down the line as other companies figure out how to so things more efficiently. But this has the effect of making everyone wealthier, driving prices down while rewarding those who are actually good at what they do vs. "scarcity rent".

 

The profits made in such a system would be shorter lived but more equitable and would trickle through the system faster as profit would be quickly spent or reinvested in search of other efficient businesses thus increasing money velocity. It would be inefficient to hold on to profits for very long as stiff competition would preclude sitting on cash vs reinvesting.

Patents are just a way to denote ownership of a specific piece of Intellectual property, the way a deed denotes ownership of physical property.   Intellectual property is owned by the person that created it from their labor and resources in the same way that physical property is owned by the one that created it with their labor and property.

 

Getting rid of patents would be just as bad as getting rid of deeds.  Technically, an anarchist society could exist without them in the same way it could survive without land deeds, but it would simply create additional litigation as claims conflicted with each other.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Anyone means every individual, not one excluded.

Always means all the time, not one nanosecond missed.

 

People born with silver spoons are probably wealthy people? Or what?

Speaking with a forked tongue is lying, manipulating, snake-like behaviour?

 

So if 1 individual "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" for 1 second doesn't "speak with a forked tongue", you lose your bold claim.

A pathetic attempt at picking me apart by being picky.  Pure sophism, which led to the decline of Greece.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

A person spends hours chopping down trees for lumber. He can either burn it for heat, or use it to build a home to shelter himself from the elements. If he burns it for heat then he has to chop down trees again the next day, and repeat the process in perpetuity. If he builds a home, he will free up time because he doesn't need as much lumber to keep warm, and can work on other ways to improve his standard of living (like building a cistern to store water). The home represents a capital good, or higher order good.

 

 

If You Own a Man's Work, You Own That Man

 

 

What does your example have to do with hiring people with capital and freeloading off the value they give it?  It's fits better with the idea that no one has the right to own a business unless he is the only employee.  It also indicates solipsism in that you would apply this hermit's activity (the Unabomber?) to society in general.  This woodsman is alienated from people and thinks them as inanimate objects; that's the only way he can fantasize that he is a Capitalist.  However, real Capitalists do have that attitude about society, as if they were some isolated king in a castle, ruling from afar but still tyrannically.

[Alan C.]

What does your example have to do with hiring people with capital and freeloading off the value they give it?  It's fits better with the idea that no one has the right to own a business unless he is the only employee.  It also indicates solipsism in that you would apply this hermit's activity (the Unabomber?) to society in general.  This woodsman is alienated from people and thinks them as inanimate objects; that's the only way he can fantasize that he is a Capitalist.  However, real Capitalists do have that attitude about society, as if they were some isolated king in a castle, ruling from afar but still tyrannically.

 

My example has nothing to do with 'hiring people with capital and freeloading off the value they give it,' whatever that means.

 

You stated that 'capital investment is throwing money at a problem' and that it's 'worthless without the workers.' That's what I was responding to.

 

Building a home with lumber is an example of a capital investment. Burning lumber for heat is an act of consumption which satisfies immediate needs, but then returns a person to exactly the same situation he was previously in once the lumber is consumed.

 

Capital is required to lift people out of poverty. It frees up scarce time to do other things. The procurement of capital requires deferred gratification and low time preference (signs of high intelligence). It means that people have to produce something and then retain the surplus for the future.

 

High time preference (preferring present consumption over future consumption), short-sightedness, imprudence, impulsivity, and recklessness are characteristics of low intelligence. It means that the dumber people are, the more likely they'll be impoverished.

[Very Ape]

I hear what you're saying, and of course I agree patents are bad.  But I kinda get a consequentialist tone from what you are saying, that we need to justify private property and free trade by arguing that the results would be more "equitable", satisfying the socialists' objectives.  Even if this is true, freedom isn't dependent on others' idea of a perfect world, but on the acceptance of rational ethics which can be understood and practiced by most everyone.

 

I don't object to the intentions of socialism - I object to the methods. Lefties always have great "intentions" but terrible delivery as they have severed their neurological connection to the logic and reason portion of their brains and are often deriving their "ideas" solely from the emotional centers.

 

But are you saying you are unhappy if everyone benefits and wins in a patent free world?

 

Remember there are different "flavors" of Anarchy out there. I am not among the Ayn Rand crowd and although I respect her work, she was no friend to the anarchist movement which she very much patronized.

 

Keep in mind, to counter your point, I don't believe the purpose of human beings and human development is simply to make profits, to become purely rational automaton consumers and producers in a purely "econ" world. Nor do I believe we should differentiate ourselves from everyone else strictly through our IQ and and "productive capacity" (that seems rather "Randian" to me). I think those things are incredibly important, don't get me wrong, but they aren't the whole reason why we are here. I have as much respect for hermits and monks who can live in pure solitude off the land on minimal subsistence, practicing meditation and being close to nature as any brilliant entrepreneur. I don't believe there are human beings who should be treated as "demigods" simply due to their intelligence in much the same way I don't believe they should be treated as "demi-gods" simply because of their perceived technocratic power within the current collectivist paradigm's hierarchy (i.e. government). Rand seemed to always feel there were "superhumans" who were above and beyond everyone else and should essentially break away and form their own colony - but why? What purpose does that serve? And who would do their cleaning other than someone of less intelligence?

 

At the same time I am perfectly aware that there will always be rich people and poor people within any rational, free trade economic paradigm - that doesn't bother me. I don't think it would be healthy at all to have total economic equality among everyone - that is both Marxist and destructive to the individual. However I also think when there are such extreme differences in income as you see today in the US, it is a symptom of something wrong, something broken within our economic paradigm. Currently, I blame the Fed and its Keynesian form of centralized planning for much of what is wrong with that paradigm (i.e. socialism for the rich, competition for bread crumbs for everyone else) in the US as I've discussed before. I do believe that as these systems are corrected and unwound from centralized planning and hegemony that you will see a greater abundance of wealth and a larger number of people being lifted out of poverty as people learn how to become productive again.

 

Would that not be a good thing?

Patents are just a way to denote ownership of a specific piece of Intellectual property, the way a deed denotes ownership of physical property.   Intellectual property is owned by the person that created it from their labor and resources in the same way that physical property is owned by the one that created it with their labor and property.

 

Getting rid of patents would be just as bad as getting rid of deeds.  Technically, an anarchist society could exist without them in the same way it could survive without land deeds, but it would simply create additional litigation as claims conflicted with each other.

 

The only way to fully defend oneself from "idea" theft is with the threat of violence from government who will define what a novel idea is and can claim to defend it through censorship. Therefore, you can not have anarchy and patents. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

 

Private property can be defended by the individual through physical self-defense (yes guns even).

 

In reality, intellectual property is best defended through secrecy, encryption, etc. That is up to the individual to ensure when they start a new business - the government has no jurisdiction around protection of ideas in the same way that I should not be prosecuted for playing Mozart, covering a Pink Floyd song or telling a joke by George Carlin..

 

That is the slipperiest of slippery slopes and leads to the circumstances we face to day with corporations basically running the world because they have the "ring of power" (government) backing them up.

[Mister Mister]

A pathetic attempt at picking me apart by being picky.  Pure sophism, which led to the decline of Greece.

 

An honest person would say "you're right, I was exaggerating.  to be more clear, I should say..." and either recant or reclarify their statement.  This is what I meant when I said you don't know how to talk to people.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Patents are just a way to denote ownership of a specific piece of Intellectual property, the way a deed denotes ownership of physical property.   Intellectual property is owned by the person that created it from their labor and resources in the same way that physical property is owned by the one that created it with their labor and property.

 

Getting rid of patents would be just as bad as getting rid of deeds.  Technically, an anarchist society could exist without them in the same way it could survive without land deeds, but it would simply create additional litigation as claims conflicted with each other.

Prometheus Bound

 

Corporate patents are the biggest grand larceny perpetrated by Investor Supremacy ("Capitalism").  Low-talent dumb jock bully stockholders and CEOs get practically all the value created by intimidated geek pushovers.  A revealing example was Nobel-Prize winner Kary Mullis.  All he got for his invention (polymerase chain reaction) was a $30,000 bonus.  The plutocratic parasites sold his patent for $300,000,000!  So a superhuman intelligence got one penny for every $100 the King Apes got.  If nerds weren't brought up by the controlled educational system to be escapist wimps, they would use their brains solely to confiscate all the wealth stolen by their predecessors.

[The Sage of Main Street]

An honest person would say "you're right, I was exaggerating.  to be more clear, I should say..." and either recant or reclarify their statement.  This is what I meant when I said you don't know how to talk to people.

"Let the Peasants Eat Snark," Smirked Marie Antoinette.  Then She Laughed Her Head Off.

 

If you say so.  I say that authoritarian people don't like being talked back to.  Being picky is just an evasion to protect the bootlickers' precious Preppies.  It's as bad as pointing out that no one has every been born with a dining utensil in his mouth, so I must not be referring to any real-life group. 

 

 Heirheads wind up staying in the 1% at 20 times the rate they'd be there in a rational society.  Pathological lying to themselves about their independent value is carried over to everything they tell us.

[dsayers]

Being picky is just an evasion

Actually, being picky is an assertion. I've looked over what you use it to refer to, and you're lying. When you put forth an objective claim, you are also claiming that there's such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. What happened here was that YOU put this forth as a standard and then maligned somebody for holding you to that standard.

 

When you say "anyone who fits description X," you are collectivizing and exaggerating. Collectivizing isn't useful in the pursuit of truth and exaggeration is a confession that one believes their argument isn't meritous enough on it's on, so one must overstate it if they are to convince others.

 

This and the constant RP'ing, I would say that not knowing how to talk to others as if they're human beings is a fair assessment. Rejection of that feedback indicates either that you have no interest in speaking to others as if they're human being, or you reject your own capacity for error as a human being and therefore know, before consideration, that's it's not worth considering.

[AncapFTW]

The only way to fully defend oneself from "idea" theft is with the threat of violence from government who will define what a novel idea is and can claim to defend it through censorship. Therefore, you can not have anarchy and patents. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

 

Private property can be defended by the individual through physical self-defense (yes guns even).

 

In reality, intellectual property is best defended through secrecy, encryption, etc. That is up to the individual to ensure when they start a new business - the government has no jurisdiction around protection of ideas in the same way that I should not be prosecuted for playing Mozart, covering a Pink Floyd song or telling a joke by George Carlin..

 

That is the slipperiest of slippery slopes and leads to the circumstances we face to day with corporations basically running the world because they have the "ring of power" (government) backing them up.

There is no reason you can't defend intellectual property through DROs the same way you defend physical property, or even by yourself.  It's very easy to know whether or not you came up with an idea and whether or not you have the permission of the creator.

 

Why do people think that you have to have a government for people to own a song, or a movie, or a schematic?  That's basically a meaningless statement made by people who want an excuse for violating other's property.