Economics Questions

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Jack Roberts — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:27:22 GMT

It is not possible to implement a system on the population that prevents people from being employees. Some people just want to be employees. stcoc, you might think that is above you but some people do not see that as slavery and have no problem with that sort of voluntary arrangement.

You still have not explained what actually happens to all the people who do not want to agree with your philosophy. How exactly will people prevent a type of business arrangement from occurring, practically speaking. You will need some form of organisation and possibly even weapons. How would that be any different from despotism?

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Anenome — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:27:16 GMT

SkepticalMetal:

Neodoxy brought up Kropotkin and his endorsement of voluntary anarcho-communism, which I would have no problem with. As I have pointed out a few times before, a perfect example of voluntary socialism would be the kibbutzim in Israel.

Yes, a free society can tolerate voluntary communes in their midst and many other forms of social experimentation. Interesting how they cannot, no? Always the comman economies use force to impose their way on everyone else, whether they choose it or not.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:25:32 GMT

Legitimate property comes into being by mixing labor in it. Labor is central to existence of property. When people labor they are entitled to everything they make and earn, it is illegitimate for someone to take any part of product of their labor when he has not labored with them

Unless that person made a voluntary contract with the boss of the company saying I will give you X amt of labor to make a product for X amount of money.

Either way the person is getting compensated.

Are you saying that voluntary contracts like this should not be allowed?

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:17:14 GMT

Neodoxy brought up Kropotkin and his endorsement of voluntary anarcho-communism, which I would have no problem with. As I have pointed out a few times before, a perfect example of voluntary socialism would be the kibbutzim in Israel.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Anenome — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:14:20 GMT

Yes I posted that link in the last discussion I had with him. The guy is a genuine murderer, since he has no qualms about that article. In practice he's a monster and nothing else.

Ah, didn't see that. Ah well. I was reading it and seeing Rothbard mention the bit about the Spanish communists reminded me of stsoc, thought I'd post it.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

h.k. — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:38:23 GMT

Anenome:

For anyone wishing to understand stsoc, here's a piece by Rothbard called

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

It even goes so far as to talk about the Spanish-communists takeover of Spain in the 1930's, something stsoc likes to mention with affection, and explains that these communists not only destroyed all money, but issued the death penalty for anyone who continued to use money.

We can expect people like stsoc to again be mortal enemies should they ever gain power.

A taste:

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice — all this in the name of "freedom". The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.

Seems like Ayn Rand's philosophy was primarily constructed in opposition to this ideology.

Yes I posted that link in the last discussion I had with him. The guy is a genuine murderer, since he has no qualms about that article. In practice he's a monster and nothing else.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Anenome — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:29:35 GMT

For anyone wishing to understand stsoc, here's a piece by Rothbard called

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists

It even goes so far as to talk about the Spanish-communists takeover of Spain in the 1930's, something stsoc likes to mention with affection, and explains that these communists not only destroyed all money, but issued the death penalty for anyone who continued to use money.

We can expect people like stsoc to again be mortal enemies should they ever gain power.

A taste:

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice — all this in the name of "freedom". The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.

Seems like Ayn Rand's philosophy was primarily constructed in opposition to this ideology.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Neodoxy — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:09:02 GMT

"Because using force to prevent someone from homesteading land would be illegitimate which is not the case in your capitalist society and because I am not saying a libertarian socialist society is perfect (in any sense) but better. Socialism means no private ownership of this land and is possible. If the only vote that counts is money, then the rich decide the fate of the workers. I think it is clear that the workers are better off if real votes are used because then they can decide themselves."

What are you talking about? Socialism means no private ownership but it does not mean no ownership. All that this would mean is that one group of people would own a piece of land instead of another (or maybe even the same) person or group of people. Who said that money is the only vote which matters? No capitalist who I know.

"I am when we talk about land because there is no other 'historical context'."

So do you concede the legitimacy of individual property rights or not? If you do not then argue that point, not the history of the matter because even if we determine that the property is legitimate from the viewpoint of individualistic property rights then you will still contest its legitimacy.

"What you describe is a world of tyranny of the rich and the rich want to be rich, they do not want to form a society worth living in. What happens is decided entirely by where the money is and if you have $100 and someone has $100,000,000, your vote is worth a millionth of theirs. I think history shows well how the rich vote."

No it's not. This is the perverted world in which leftists live where you hold the contradictory worldview that people are somehow motivated by their own selfish desires while at the same time in your world they would care about all of their fellow men. Most people are motivated by things other than monetary concerns. If you have millionaires trying to oppress majorities then they will be violating the law and they will either be stopped in a relatively peaceful manner, or if they somehow find a military that will fight for them then they will be forcibly stopped by the masses directly or through their hiring of a military themselves, and I think that it's no stretch of the imagination to believe that they would find it more profitable to remain peaceful than to be violent.

The law of the free society is NOT the sovereignty of the moneyed, the propertied, or ultimately even the consumer, the law of the free society is the sovereignty of the individual. This is what you oppose. You want to throw man directly to the will of his fellow men, rather than allowing to cooperate in whatever way he chooses, you want him to have to perform a specific and inefficient form of this which would ultimately result in ruin for man in general, destroy his capacity as a true individual, and quite possibly result in general warfare.

"I was talking about a specific kind, not inflation in general. Whoever has the power to print money just like that also has the power to take from others against their will."

No they don't. Inflation only works because people allow it to work, the banks still have no power to steal from anyone, only to devalue the products of some people. This is in affect the same as if inflation was caused through some other means except that the method itself is fraudulent. Therefore what needs to be opposed is the fraud, not the affects of the fraud.

"I am not sure what do you mean by nations being in the way. I do know that the media are private and they do what they do. People have feelings, unless it's "them". You know, the poor, the mexicans, the blacks, the communists, the arabs, the savages,.. Last time I checked, 9/11 was the big thing. It claimed about 3000 victims. The war in Congo claimed about 5.5 million. Who cares? And you are telling me that if we knew corporations were behind it, we would care? What about Saddam? People cared in the 2000s becase he had WMD. Except that he didn't. People did not care in the 80s when everyone was in business with him and he was killing thousands."

You pretty much just proved my point. We agree that if there aren't clear barriers and "sections" that humans are chopped up into, that we would better feel empathy for others and see collective danger. Yet you propose to artificially section up humans into different communes and societies, hoping that somehow their apparently insatiable desire for material wealth will go away?

"They would be rich and that is what matters. You do not have to hide it happened, just bribe the court to not establish your guilt. You do not have to kill all of them. A few examples are usually enough."

If the court accepted the bribe then it would be done for in the long run, or straight up dishonored as a court.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Anonymous121393 — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:26:41 GMT

Neodoxy:
Why and why? I think the similarity is equivalent, if not greater. At any rate, this would bring out the question of whether or not socialism is A. Possible in a meaningful sense and B. If the same workers would be better off under capitalism.

Because using force to prevent someone from homesteading land would be illegitimate which is not the case in your capitalist society and because I am not saying a libertarian socialist society is perfect (in any sense) but better. Socialism means no private ownership of this land and is possible. If the only vote that counts is money, then the rich decide the fate of the workers. I think it is clear that the workers are better off if real votes are used because then they can decide themselves.

Neodoxy:
So you are not contesting individual property rights as such? Merely the historical context of much modern property?

I am when we talk about land because there is no other "historical context".

Neodoxy:
Inflation and the INDIRECT affects that it brings are not things which could be called theft.

...

Inflation is not only caused by changes in the money supply, but also changes in the demand for goods.

I was talking about a specific kind, not inflation in general. Whoever has the power to print money just like that also has the power to take from others against their will.

Neodoxy:
Because in some cases they would care, and in others they would not. Just as how in a socialist system they would sometimes care and sometimes wouldn't. Under an individualist system there is a much greater possibility for prosperity as well as a better chance for any one individual to attain happiness. I would like to know exactly why you oppose private property when, if you are right, the pure capitalistic system puts you in a better position to achieve your ultimate end than the current system.

Some people think it is alright to murder children and some do not. Does that mean we should back by force those who do? What you describe is a world of tyranny of the rich and the rich want to be rich, they do not want to form a society worth living in. What happens is decided entirely by where the money is and if you have $100 and someone has $100,000,000, your vote is worth a millionth of theirs. I think history shows well how the rich vote.

Neodoxy:
This could happen today, but it doesn't exactly because of what happens to the corporations if they are found out, and people would feel VERY concerned if this had a possibility of happening. The very shock value you intended this to have is evidence of this. People do not like corporations, my guess is that in the anarchist society they would like them even less and be even more weary of them.

Neodoxy:
People have very definite feelings about killing and using force against people when nations aren't in the way of people's sanity.

I am not sure what do you mean by nations being in the way. I do know that the media are private and they do what they do. People have feelings, unless it's "them". You know, the poor, the mexicans, the blacks, the communists, the arabs, the savages,.. Last time I checked, 9/11 was the big thing. It claimed about 3000 victims. The war in Congo claimed about 5.5 million. Who cares? And you are telling me that if we knew corporations were behind it, we would care? What about Saddam? People cared in the 2000s becase he had WMD. Except that he didn't. People did not care in the 80s when everyone was in business with him and he was killing thousands.

Neodoxy:
If the courts were found out then they would lose all reputation. How exactly do you intend to keep mass-killings behind closed doors?

They would be rich and that is what matters. You do not have to hide it happened, just bribe the court to not establish your guilt. You do not have to kill all of them. A few examples are usually enough.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Autolykos — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:09:55 GMT

Anonymous121393:
[By "own"] I mean it is yours to keep, use, destroy, exchange for something. By something I do not mean my right to speak, though. And I also do not mean my right to own what I made.

Could you provide an example that you think constitutes exchanging property for the right to speak?

I'm pretty sure you have in mind employment when you say "I also do not mean [exchanging something] for my right to own what I made". Let's say I cut down some trees and mill them into lumber, all on my own. I then offer to pay you to take that lumber and build a house with it. Should you accept my offer, would you say that building a house with the lumber means you take ownership of it (and thus of the resulting house)?

Anonymous121393:
Joules. Why do we have to measure it objectively?

Well, the alternative would mean that, if I decide that this hammer I made is worth $1 million, then if I don't get $1 million in exchange for it, I'm therefore being robbed. In other words, it means I'm entitled to whatever price I arbitrarily set on what I've made. By "entitled" I mean "owed", in the sense of having the right to obtain it by force.

Anonymous121393:
They are free to not give something freely but they are not free to give it in exchange for human rights. Such contracts should not be enforced and those who try should be stopped. I consider it my rights to be free and to own things I made. Consent does not make something ethical.

What do you mean by "free"?

Aside from that, it sounds to me like you would be willing to forcefully prohibit certain consensual arrangements. Another way of putting it is that you don't think a person has the right to abandon any of what you see as his rights. But why is that?

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Neodoxy — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:37:23 GMT

"The similarity is also smaller and therefore irrelevant to the discussion."

Why and why? I think the similarity is equivalent, if not greater. At any rate, this would bring out the question of whether or not socialism is A. Possible in a meaningful sense and B. If the same workers would be better off under capitalism.

"He "owned" it by getting it from a king who "owned" it by killing everyone who objected, including the people who lived there"

So you are not contesting individual property rights as such? Merely the historical context of much modern property?

"If a bank can just make money out of nothing and loan it to me, the moment I start spending, everyone else's money is worth less which is the same as taking a percentage of their money and giving it to me."

Inflation and the INDIRECT affects that it brings are not things which could be called theft. To give an imperfect example, if I am mooching off of a village, and convince them that they should give me materials to live, and you come along and convince them not to, then have you stolen from me? No, not at all, you have merely convinced people to act in a different way. Meanwhile inflation is not only caused by changes in the money supply, but also changes in the demand for goods. If people in general start increasing their consumption levels then the same process which you are talking about takes place. Would you claim then that every collective increase in consumption patterns are acts of theft?

I am glad that we agree that credit undue expansion should be prohibited, but the theft is on the side of the bank originally issuing the extra money when it is indeed not money at all and NOT the indirect effects which this has upon the economy.

"If people in a capitalist society would not care then why do you support the notion of private property?"

Because in some cases they would care, and in others they would not. Just as how in a socialist system they would sometimes care and sometimes wouldn't. Under an individualist system there is a much greater possibility for prosperity as well as a better chance for any one individual to attain happiness. I would like to know exactly why you oppose private property when, if you are right, the pure capitalistic system puts you in a better position to achieve your ultimate end than the current system.

"Or they could get killed or intimidated into silence... Or the people who are supposed to take its money out of the bank. Or the bank. Or the corporation will hide its tracks. Or they will find a scapegoat. Or they will use propaganda, infiltrate unions etc and make it look as if it was self-defense."

This could happen today, but it doesn't exactly because of what happens to the corporations if they are found out, and people would feel VERY concerned if this had a possibility of happening. The very shock value you intended this to have is evidence of this. People do not like corporations, my guess is that in the anarchist society they would like them even less and be even more weary of them.

"Or courts can get a share of the profit to side with the corporation."

If the courts were found out then they would lose all reputation. How exactly do you intend to keep mass-killings behind closed doors?

"Or maybe all the rest of us will make a profit out of their misery because we like cheap tantalum and lithium for our electronic gadgets so we will not do anything about it. We certainly are not very concerned today so what makes you think it would be different in a free market?"

People have very definite feelings about killing and using force against people when nations aren't in the way of people's sanity.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

Anonymous121393 — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:00:22 GMT

DemiProphet:
Ok Im aware that most comunists (or whatever you call them I dont even know anymore) reject most connections with any "comunist" regime, they always say "that was not real comunism, not real marxism,. not real socialism, and so on..." (unfortunatelly many dont even bother to reject the connection as if they are not ashamed (or aware) of all they did)

Why would they? If both me and Charles Manson said "I love all people", why is denouncing him not enough for you? Why would I have to "reject the connection" between love and what he did? That doesn't even make sense.

DemiProphet:
Which could lead a reasonable person to make the question: why? is it possible that maybe our system its only possible in theory and thats why it could never be properly implanted?

If properly means 100%, then probably it is not. However, that does not mean we should not try to do our best.

DemiProphet:
Even in my country the left always says that the policies of the government are never left, everything is always right, eventhou there is basically no party that has the courage to call themselves right wing. Their theories never failed they were just never put into practice correctly...therefore they are unattackable and above any criticism.

Again, "left" means many things today. Our views about those excuses are probably very similar, however, I am certain they were not talking about libertarian socialism when they said "left".

DemiProphet:
Ill just say it again, if the system was such a paradise and it worked so well, would only be natural to continue (or even copied), if it was destroyed (weak defense system) would still be natural that people tried to get it back.

At what cost? Doing it peacefully takes time.

Neodoxy:
There's also a similarity between renting yourself out to a commune, but of course you won't talk about that.

The similarity is also smaller and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. We may not be able to achieve zero suffering in the world but that does not mean all degrees of suffering are equally desirable.

Neodoxy:
If their ancestor did indeed own the property, then yes because it was a peaceful, rightful, and voluntary transfer of property. Banks have no power to take anyone's money under capitalism.

He "owned" it by getting it from a king who "owned" it by killing everyone who objected, including the people who lived there. Who was the first rightful owner of any land? Who transfered it to them voluntarily? If you say they acquired the right by working, I have to ask who decided that the amount of work they did justifies owning it forever, even through death? If you say the market decides how much work is worth and how much land is worth, I have to point out that the price of land presupposes ownership and that a market that existed in the past has no relevance today. Had the indigenous Australians accepted the notion that one European who plucked an apple worked hard enough to own their entire continent, would you say that his descendants have a stronger claim to it today? I doubt it. Earth belongs to the living, not the dead.

If a bank can just make money out of nothing and loan it to me, the moment I start spending, everyone else's money is worth less which is the same as taking a percentage of their money and giving it to me.

Neodoxy:
Most likely? So somehow human nature is changed and the same people would, in a capitalist society, suddenly care and expunge you from the property?

There is no absolute certainty either, but that does not invalidate degrees of certainty. I am still talking about principles, not individual humans who may or may not be irrational or insane. You might also get killed for no reason in any capitalist market transaction, but that is not an argument against your position. If people in a capitalist society would not care then why do you support the notion of private property?

Neodoxy:
Maybe not, but it would be a violation of the law to use force against them, so they could sue for a huge amount of money. At any rate, I can't see law keeping authorities as being at all happy that this is going on in the first place, nor the people in the community accepting of the fact that force is being used by a corporation for this sort of work.

Or they could get killed or intimidated into silence. Or courts can get a share of the profit to side with the corporation. Or the people who are supposed to take its money out of the bank. Or the bank. Or the corporation will hide its tracks. Or they will find a scapegoat. Or they will use propaganda, infiltrate unions etc and make it look as if it was self-defense. Or maybe all the rest of us will make a profit out of their misery because we like cheap tantalum and lithium for our electronic gadgets so we will not do anything about it. We certainly are not very concerned today so what makes you think it would be different in a free market?

Autolykos:
What do you mean by "own"?

I mean it is yours to keep, use, destroy, exchange for something. By something I do not mean my right to speak, though. And I also do not mean my right to own what I made.

Autolykos:
That aside, how do you think the work I put into making the hammer can be objectively measured?

Joules. Why do we have to measure it objectively?

Autolykos:
It sounds to me like you think my sister would be entitled to the cure, so you'd be robbing her (if not worse) by refusing to give it to her freely. Am I right? If so, then basically you think a person who discovers or creates something that can benefit others is obligated to give it to them freely. What do you consider to be "basic rights"? To be honest, I think a person can obtain by contract a right to kill, rape, and/or torture its other signatories. After all, by signing the contract, they're each essentially saying "I'm okay with you doing this to me". What do you think is wrong with that?

They are free to not give something freely but they are not free to give it in exchange for human rights. Such contracts should not be enforced and those who try should be stopped. I consider it my rights to be free and to own things I made. Consent does not make something ethical.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

DemiProphet — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:44:24 GMT

Ill just say it again, if the system was such a paradise and it worked so well, would only be natural to continue (or even copied), if it was destroyed (weak defense system) would still be natural that people tryed to get it back.

SO I understand what you say but I guess if I was healthy would only be natural to want to be healty again, there is no killing here, Ukranians still alive, catalunians and andalusian also. even if catalunia is not a state anymore, they can still vote, and they want to be independant but dont have plans to be "comunists", about Ukraine is a countrie so I dont know.

Anyway my main question was about the time, you didnt answer I just check on wikipedia about the catalonia revolution are you talking about a thing that happened during 15 days? is that the paradise experiment? Is that the evidence that it works? a 15 days thing?

Maybe I checked the wrong revolution. But anyway not very interested in checking more details thanks for the reply.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

stsoc — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:33:35 GMT

Actually is not a stupid question

"If you were so healthy, how come you weren't alive after I killed you" is a damn stupid question, and don't ask questions like that.

I guess that is not capitalism at all since there was no free market at all

You guess wrong. Capitalism is not defined by markets, but by it's notion of property. Markets can exist in a non-capitalist economy, like mutualism (a type of socialism), and capitalism can exist without markets (state capitalism). Laissez faire capitalism is not the only type of capitalism, state capitalism and mixed economy capitalism are the other two kinds. Laissez faire capitalism is just the only type of capitalism that never existed.

Re: Libertarian Socialism?

DemiProphet — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:23:30 GMT

Actually is not a stupid question things that are good and work perfectly as a system tend to prevail while bad systems tend to disappear, people that lived under that paradise would still be fighting to get it back. But ok you think is stupid Im not trying to look smart anyway, just trying to find out how smart your theorie is.

About USSR being state capitalist....Im far from an expert on economics but I guess that is not capitalism at all since there was no free market at all, and there was no economic freedoom, so things like state capitalism dont make any sense to me. But OK lets just say was "something else".