Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[madness!]

90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids who flipped through the communist manifesto and think that socialism is the caped crusader to right all the wrongs in society. i dont think stateless socialism is what they want because it would require them to get there hands dirty and it wouldnt help to liberate the working class from a perceived tyranny. health care is another biggy. i doubt any one who spends a 100k on med school is going to want to join a commune and work his ass of in the fields for vegetables.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

[John Edward Mercier]

Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553

You mean actually working. NO.
The fact that the Common Resource Regime is not explicitly the State, really makes little difference in the equation.

[Keyser Soce]

I don't remember socialism including the voluntary sharing of resources.

Unfortunately, most times it hasn't. Certainly not when imposed from the top down.

[Keyser Soce]

90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids

I'd bet good money that 90% of the people you've known in toto have been whinny middle class white kids.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

What's so funny about shared resources?

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

Nice attitude.

[Keyser Soce]

Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553

You mean actually working. NO.

I have.

[Vic_Fox]

I am somewhat concerned on this point: Do you disbelieve in property rights, and if so, would you consider it morally acceptable to take a person's legitimately acquired property -- by which I mean something they have produced themselves or acquired by willing, voluntary trade -- by force?

I believe that people have a right to the product of their labor, which is why I oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through profits, loans, investments, and rent, as these individuals are not laboring. I also argue for conditional titles to land and capital, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation. Thus, from my standpoint, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers should collectively own the capital they work with.

I believe, as do many others, that I own myself.  If I am my own property then the things I acquire with my sweat and labor are also extensions of my life and I can do as I please with them and defend them.

I agree completely, which is precisely why I oppose capitalism; the operatives in a factory or a farm create, by their labor and skill, all that is produced. Yet, instead of it belonging to them, the law gives them only their stipulated hire, and transfers what is produced to someone who has merely supplied the capital, almost always without contributing to the labor itself. Capitalism allows the buyers of labor (capitalists) to appropriate the product of other people's labor (wage workers) and denies workers the right to the fruit of their labor. Yet people's right to the fruits of their labor has always been the natural basis for private property appropriation. Thus capitalist production, far from being founded on private property, in fact denies the natural basis for private property appropriation.

Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.

That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.

I beg to differ.

Socialism is considered to be a crime by libertarians because it involves taking money from some people and giving to others, which certainly is not government leaving people alone.

You're describing state administered redistribution, yes? Socialism doesn't, in and of itself, necessitate what you're describing.

There is no such thing as left or right libertarian IMO. Leftists believe in personal liberty, and economic tyranny, while rightists believe in economic liberty, and personal tyranny. Libertarians believe in both personal and economic liberty.

I think you're oversimplifying the political spectrum.

[Keyser Soce]

There is no such thing as a socialist libertarian.

I beg to differ.

As would I but from what you've written, I don't gather that you are one or, at the very least, we're using the same term to describe a vastly different belief system.

[John Edward Mercier]

Have people never heard of non-state socialism?

http://c4ss.org/content/670/comment-page-1#comment-553

You mean actually working. NO.

I have.

I haven't. I know collectivism through voluntary cooperatives works well, but actual socialism... I've never seen work.

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually Vic, capital enhances productivity.

For instance, I could dig a ditch without your backhoe... but the backhoe makes my labor more productive. So any amount of ditch that is produced beyond what I could produce with my labor within the same period of time is due to capital... not labor.

And it makes very little sense that I could purchase the backhoe off from you, but not rent it for only the time that I require it to complete my task. I could of course borrow it... but I find that borrowing requires me to amend my schedule to meet someone else's.
My time is valuable whether it is spent twittling my thumbs or digging the ditch... so the cost to capital is a factor of my choosing.
 

[Denis Goddard]

I believe that people have a right to the product of their labor, which is why I oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through profits, loans, investments, and rent

Wait a sec.

In my early '20s, I barely slept for 5 years of my life, studying my ass off and at the end earning a double major in Chemical Engineering and Computer Science from a very well-respected school (UW-Madison). I'll toot my own horn here and say that a lot of people could not have earned that kind of double-major no matter how hard they worked.

Those degrees helped me land a good-paying job, at which I worked 80+ hours per week for ~15 years until I had saved enough money to buy an investment property -- a duplex. For that property I owe the bank hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they will take from me (and destroy my credit rating) if for any reason I do not pay the mortgage every month.

My renters pay me. I provide them the ability to live in a house they otherwise could not afford, and the freedom to basically just walk away. I assume huge financial responsibility and risk.

Are you telling me I should not be able to take their rent checks?



I put some of my money into stocks. Being involved in the IT industry, I have had some insight about what kinds of businesses would provide real value for customers (Ebay) and which were never going to be viable businesses (Ehow). I bought stock businesses like the former, which gave them money they could use to grow their business to add more value to more peoples' lives.

That money is immediate purchasing power I lost -- but for which, I owned a tiny piece of the business, which I could sell later to someone else.

Are you telling me I should not be able to buy and sell ownership of a business?
That I should not be able to lend my money to an entrepreneur that I believe will bring valuable goods and services into the world?



Are you saying that it isn't "work" to run a rental property?
Are you saying it isn't "work" to research a company & understand its investment value?

Are you saying that if my renters and I agree to exchange money for housing, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?
Are you saying that if a business and I agree to exchange money for part-ownership of the business, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?
Or are you just saying you are bummed that people can make money in these ways, but that no such laws should be enacted?

My suspicion is that you haven't had much experience making money, except as an employee, in which your employer absorbed most of the risk inherent to being in business in the first place. That does not make you a bad person. It does mean that you should carefully examine your premises, and their implications. You are very close to Enlightenment

[WendellBerry]

Are you saying that if my renters and I agree to exchange money for housing, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?
Are you saying that if a business and I agree to exchange money for part-ownership of the business, men with guns should come and stop that transaction from taking place?

Housing is capital and produced by labor. Land is not.

What aspect of the business's "profit" is due to privilege?

[JasonPSorens]

Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.

That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

The question is whether it permits violence.

[madness!]

90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids

I'd bet good money that 90% of the people you've known in toto have been whinny middle class white kids.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

What's so funny about shared resources?

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

Nice attitude.

I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood and did most of my schooling in a public school, with a few in private because me mom worked there and we got a discount. right now i am at college and both my parents are working two jobs to help me pay for it with out student loans. 

I guess nothing is funny about shared resources, what i was referring to was the cognitive dissonance a commune would have to contend with when they realize that they have to compete in a free market in order to stay alive (the few i have seen sell some sort of product to the outside world in order to make money, whether crops, or honey.)

Its not my attitude. most far lefties i know say "1% owns more capital than the lower 95% combined." theywant to take all of there money and use it to build schools and give everyone free healthcare.

ive seen a few history channel docs on communes in america, they main problem in them is that the hard working people are tired of people who just lounge around and do nothing. jealousy and spite are problems they have to content with over the inherent inefficiencies of a socialist system. so yes. laughable.   

[WendellBerry]

90% percent of the "socialists" ive known have been whinny middle class white kids

I'd bet good money that 90% of the people you've known in toto have been whinny middle class white kids.

Non-state socialism is a bigger laugh than regular socialism.

What's so funny about shared resources?

Plus socialism is no fun unless you get to steal all the rich peoples money.

Nice attitude.

I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood and did most of my schooling in a public school, with a few in private because me mom worked there and we got a discount. right now i am at college and both my parents are working two jobs to help me pay for it with out student loans. 

I guess nothing is funny about shared resources, what i was referring to was the cognitive dissonance a commune would have to contend with when they realize that they have to compete in a free market in order to stay alive (the few i have seen sell some sort of product to the outside world in order to make money, whether crops, or honey.)

Its not my attitude. most far lefties i know say "1% owns more capital than the lower 95% combined." theywant to take all of there money and use it to build schools and give everyone free healthcare.

ive seen a few history channel docs on communes in america, they main problem in them is that the hard working people are tired of people who just lounge around and do nothing. jealousy and spite are problems they have to content with over the inherent inefficiencies of a socialist system. so yes. laughable.   

Left-libertarians only consider a "freed market" (there is no "free" market) one without privilege. If you remove all privilege our contention is that wage labor will become:

1. ad hoc
2. truly voluntary
3. rare

What will be the NATURAL result?

Some form of mutualism or non-state, market socialism where socialism means that "labor should be put in possession of its own". In other words - it's own capital and the just rewards that are due to labor-based property theory WITHOUT law-based property (usury as the result of privilege) or at least some obligation to those being excluded where exclusive use is necessary (i.e., land).

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

http://mutualist.org/

In political economy, "just due" is the return on each of the factors of production - land, labor, capital...

a. return on land being economic rent
b. return on labor being wages
c. return on capital being economic interest

You can see that "profit" is no where to be seen in the equation because "profit" is not possible to the extent it is today without SERIOUS rent-seeking via PRIVILEGE.

[WendellBerry]

Some self-described left-libertarians think that all property is theft & that it is acceptable to use violence to socialize the means of production in an "anarchist" society.

That's a straw man. Although I agree that property is theft, I don't like using the phrase, as it tends to alienate people who are unfamiliar with Proudhon and what he meant when he coined the phrase. Secondly, the occupation and use basis for libertarian socialist property rights in no way necessitates violence.

The question is whether it permits violence.

No need for violence. The market itself will "socialize the means of production" when profits are driven out by ending ALL privilege. Then reciprocity, mutual aid, and solidarity will become more prominent ways of voluntarily organizing society.