Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: A place for people like me?  (Read 18949 times)

Porcupine The Godful Heathen

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2009, 11:30:20 am »

Profits driven out by ending all privilege....wow.
Logged
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Einstein

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #61 on: October 06, 2009, 12:19:18 pm »

Mutualism and Socialism are not the same things.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2009, 12:34:20 pm »

Profits driven out by ending all privilege....wow.

The market will squeeze out profits by ending privilege.

Privilege/regulations etc. are used by business to raise the barriers to entry - thus protect profits.

Most lefties are under the delusion that Big Business hates Government regulations/privilege...nothing could be further from the truth.

The Republican "talk machine" is happy to continue to feed this delusion...
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 01:22:20 pm by WendellBerry »
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #63 on: October 06, 2009, 01:06:01 pm »

Mutualism and Socialism are not the same things.

Some people believe mutualism fits under the broader "non-state, market socialism" terminology...

Some people use the term libertarian socialist
Some people use the term agorist

Each one is a little different...

Logged

Porcupine The Godful Heathen

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2009, 01:38:48 pm »

To me it's a statist philosophy that is kissing cousins with socialism.
Logged
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Einstein

TEBON

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #65 on: October 06, 2009, 01:48:40 pm »

I thought agorism was for those who choose to operate their trades, business, services outside of the government accounting system.  I don't recall hearing that you had to be a lefty to want to choose to keep your money instead of sending it into the government.
Logged

madness!

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
    • please feel free to friend me
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #66 on: October 06, 2009, 01:54:30 pm »

Profits driven out by ending all privilege....wow.

The market will squeeze out profits by ending privilege.

how do you intend to end privilege with out force? there is no market reset button. there are rich families that have "privilege." will you strip their children of their money to keep the market "freed"? 
Logged

yeah, an actual signature. does that blow your mind?!

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2009, 02:09:28 pm »

Quote
how do you intend to end privilege with out force?

privi - private
lege - law
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2009, 02:19:47 pm »

To me it's a statist philosophy that is kissing cousins with socialism.

"Non-state, market socialism" is statism?

All "socialism" is the same? Only if you are interested in setting up strawman arguments...

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

written in 1888 by Benjamin Tucker, an individualist, libertarian, market socialist

excerpt:

The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” – namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.

This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is certain; but whether Marx was not largely indebted to Proudhon for his economic ideas is questionable. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his own that he is fairly entitled to the credit of originality. That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought. So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American, – a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article. Of the purest revolutionary blood, too, this Warren, for he descended from the Warren who fell at Bunker Hill.

From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.

It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phraseology, or followed exactly this line of thought, but it indicates definitely enough the fundamental ground taken by all three, and their substantial thought up to the limit to which they went in common. And, lest I may be accused of stating the positions and arguments of these men incorrectly, it may be well to say in advance that I have viewed them broadly, and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken considerable liberty with their thought by rearranging it in an order, and often in a phraseology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without, in so doing, misrepresenting them in any essential particular.

It was at this point – the necessity of striking down monopoly – that came the parting of their ways. Here the road forked. They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism.

cont'd
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 02:21:47 pm by WendellBerry »
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #69 on: October 06, 2009, 02:20:19 pm »

First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly.

Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx. The history of its growth and progress cannot be told here. In this country the parties that uphold it are known as the Socialistic Labor Party, which pretends to follow Karl Marx; the Nationalists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Edward Bellamy; and the Christian Socialists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Jesus Christ.

What other applications this principle of Authority, once adopted in the economic sphere, will develop is very evident. It means the absolute control by the majority of all individual conduct. The right of such control is already admitted by the State Socialists, though they maintain that, as a matter of fact, the individual would be allowed a much larger liberty than he now enjoys. But he would only be allowed it; he could not claim it as his own. There would be no foundation of society upon a guaranteed equality of the largest possible liberty. Such liberty as might exist would exist by sufferance and could be taken away at any moment. Constitutional guarantees would be of no avail. There would be but one article in the constitution of a State Socialistic country: “The right of the majority is absolute.”

The claim of the State Socialists, however, that this right would not be exercised in matters pertaining to the individual in the more intimate and private relations of his life is not borne out by the history of governments. It has ever been the tendency of power to add to itself, to enlarge its sphere, to encroach beyond the limits set for it; and where the habit of resisting such encroachment is not fostered, and the individual is not taught to be jealous of his rights, individuality gradually disappears and the government or State becomes the all-in-all. Control naturally accompanies responsibility. Under the system of State Socialism, therefore, which holds the community responsible for the health, wealth, and wisdom of the individual, it is evident that the community, through its majority expression, will insist more and more in prescribing the conditions of health, wealth, and wisdom, thus impairing and finally destroying individual independence and with it all sense of individual responsibility.

Whatever, then, the State Socialists may claim or disclaim, their system, if adopted, is doomed to end in a State religion, to the expense of which all must contribute and at the altar of which all must kneel; a State school of medicine, by whose practitioners the sick must invariably be treated; a State system of hygiene, prescribing what all must and must not eat, drink, wear, and do; a State code of morals, which will not content itself with punishing crime, but will prohibit what the majority decide to be vice; a State system of instruction, which will do away with all private schools, academies, and colleges; a State nursery, in which all children must be brought up in common at the public expense; and, finally, a State family, with an attempt at stirpiculture, or scientific breeding, in which no man and woman will be allowed to have children if the State prohibits them and no man and woman can refuse to have children if the State orders them. Thus will Authority achieve its acme and Monopoly be carried to its highest power.

Such is the ideal of the logical State Socialist, such the goal which lies at the end of the road that Karl Marx took. Let us now follow the fortunes of Warren and Proudhon, who took the other road, – the road of Liberty.

cont'd
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #70 on: October 06, 2009, 02:20:33 pm »

This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.

When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They saw in competition the great leveler of prices to the labor cost of production. In this they agreed with the political economists. They query then naturally presented itself why all prices do not fall to labor cost; where there is any room for incomes acquired otherwise than by labor; in a word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the present one-sidedness of competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated legislation that unlimited competition is allowed in supplying productive labor, thus keeping wages down to the starvation point, or as near it as practicable; that a great deal of competition is allowed in supplying distributive labor, or the labor of the mercantile classes, thus keeping, not the prices of goods, but the merchants’ actual profits on them down to a point somewhat approximating equitable wages for the merchants’ work; but that almost no competition at all is allowed in supplying capital, upon the aid of which both productive and distributive labor are dependent for their power of achievement, thus keeping the rate of interest on money and of house-rent and ground-rent at as high a point as the necessities of the people will bear.

On discovering this, Warren and Proudhon charged the political economists with being afraid of their own doctrine. The Manchester men were accused of being inconsistent. The believed in liberty to compete with the laborer in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury. Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital. But how to correct this inconsistency, how to serve this gander with this sauce, how to put capital at the service of business men and laborers at cost, or free of usury, – that was the problem.

Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring capital to be a different thing from product, and maintaining that it belonged to society and should be seized by society and employed for the benefit of all alike. Proudhon scoffed at this distinction between capital and product. He maintained that capital and product are not different kinds of wealth, but simply alternate conditions or functions of the same wealth; that all wealth undergoes an incessant transformation from capital into product and from product back into capital, the process repeating itself interminably; that capital and product are purely social terms; that what is product to one man immediately becomes capital to another, and vice versa; that if there were but one person in the world, all wealth would be to him at once capital and product; that the fruit of A’s toil is his product, which, when sold to B, becomes B’s capital (unless B is an unproductive consumer, in which case it is merely wasted wealth, outside the view of social economy); that a steam-engine is just as much product as a coat, and that a coat is just as much capital as a steam-engine; and that the same laws of equity govern the possession of the one that govern the possession of the other.

For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But, though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few. And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost, – that is, to nothing beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it. So they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule. Under this banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class monopolies that now prevail.

Of the latter they distinguished four of principal importance: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly.
Logged

madness!

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
    • please feel free to friend me
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #71 on: October 06, 2009, 02:21:19 pm »

Quote
how do you intend to end privilege with out force?

privi - private
lege - law
a rough decryption.

privilege
1154 (recorded earlier in O.E., but as a Latin word), from O.Fr. privilege (12c.), from L. privilegium "law applying to one person," later "privilege," from privus "individual" + lex (gen. legis) "law."

but regardless, when i say privilege i dont mean a private law, or a law only one person has to follow, i mean an advantage given to a single person or group over another. as long as it doesnt come from the government, i dont really see what the problem is... a good reputation is a form of privilege.
Logged

yeah, an actual signature. does that blow your mind?!

madness!

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
    • please feel free to friend me
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #72 on: October 06, 2009, 02:31:09 pm »


Privilege/regulations etc. are used by business to raise the barriers to entry - thus protect profits.
how do you intend to remove privilege without regulation?! sounds very much like the sherman anti-trust act. which punishes efficient/innovative firms.
Logged

yeah, an actual signature. does that blow your mind?!

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #73 on: October 06, 2009, 02:37:06 pm »

Quote
how do you intend to end privilege with out force?

privi - private
lege - law
a rough decryption.

privilege
1154 (recorded earlier in O.E., but as a Latin word), from O.Fr. privilege (12c.), from L. privilegium "law applying to one person," later "privilege," from privus "individual" + lex (gen. legis) "law."

but regardless, when i say privilege i dont mean a private law, or a law only one person has to follow, i mean an advantage given to a single person or group over another. as long as it doesnt come from the government, i dont really see what the problem is... a good reputation is a form of privilege.

Are you going to continue to set-up strawman arguments?
Logged

madness!

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
    • please feel free to friend me
Re: A place for people like me?
« Reply #74 on: October 06, 2009, 02:53:52 pm »

you didnt make an argument. you crudely defined a word. but i digress.

what do you define as privilege? Patents? owning land? passing capital to another generation of your family?
Logged

yeah, an actual signature. does that blow your mind?!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
 

anything