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: Anarchy and FSP together???  (Read 30497 times)

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2004, 08:03:37 am »

<<I disagree.  On a systemic level, capitalism's promises of ownership and autonomy are rendered false for the vast majority of individuals.>>

Ebola! I think your thinking in this instance is a little out of date, by a hundred years or so. Such an inference implies that old progressive thinking intended to raise up the hordes of immigrants or, for Europe, the hordes of the working classes.

This thinking always omits the fact that if the greedy capitalists hadn't invested in the lines of economic production which gave these masses the meagre wages they did, these masses would have starved.

If the wealthy had not invested in the infrastructure which made food production so productive, these masses would have starved.

Look at the state of the poor in America today. They (the poor) have a place to live, and heat in the winter. They have computers and automobiles. If they're hungry, its more likely than not they have a few bucks to spin by the local McDonalds.

Were the Free Capitalist Market be allowed to thrive, individual opportunities- and rewards- would thrive accordingly.
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2004, 11:05:52 am »

Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie

forget the "means of production" argument which is the just product of someone's labor and simply substitute "access to land" and Rand's first principle of self-ownership crumbles under it's own hypocracy...

« Last Edit: March 07, 2004, 11:06:42 am by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #62 on: March 07, 2004, 01:03:59 pm »

Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie

forget the "means of production" argument which is the just product of someone's labor and simply substitute "access to land" and Rand's first principle of self-ownership crumbles under it's own hypocracy...

Poor BillG, can't seem to be able to stay in your georgist ghetto. When the primary organizations preventing access to land are the governments and the charities they give tax exemptions to (tree hugger land trusts), the problem you speak of is obviously not one of capitalism, but of the socialist policies the georgists helped put in place in the early 20th century that create the present state of artificial scarcity.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #63 on: March 07, 2004, 01:37:35 pm »

Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie

forget the "means of production" argument which is the just product of someone's labor and simply substitute "access to land" and Rand's first principle of self-ownership crumbles under it's own hypocracy...

Poor BillG, can't seem to be able to stay in your georgist ghetto. When the primary organizations preventing access to land are the governments and the charities they give tax exemptions to (tree hugger land trusts), the problem you speak of is obviously not one of capitalism, but of the socialist policies the georgists helped put in place in the early 20th century that create the present state of artificial scarcity.

well, I guess it depends if you believe "government" land is collectively owned or held in common...

also, your consternation against private individuals purchasing land and holding it in trust places you squarely in the minority on these forums...that is what most people are advocating for!

 
Logged

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #64 on: March 07, 2004, 02:26:19 pm »

Actually it's held by Government.  Who disallow anyone from entering. Not much of a "commons" if you ask me. It's controlled by a sellect few political agencies. Most of which make their regulations and laws with-out legislation.

If you want to expouse your land-socialist principles, do it in your forum that the board moderators of insainly given you. Don't come out here and discourage would be FSPers from joining.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

Top Dollar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
  • I took the red pill.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #65 on: March 07, 2004, 04:22:09 pm »

Then take a look at the working poor, who typically attempt to support a family on a less-than-living wage.

People shouldn't be having children they can't afford to support.
Logged
Hey, Wow!  Your planet is bright!

U.S. Constitution Text:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html
U.S. Founding Documents:  http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2004, 03:11:45 am »

>>Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.>>

No doubt, although Marx was hardly the first political economist to analyze in terms of class or exploitation in the process of production.

>>I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.>>

I'll give this a read some time.  Is it available online anywhere?  I'm so glad you suggested this instead of saying, "just read the fountainhead, okay?"

>>Ebola! I think your thinking in this instance is a little out of date, by a hundred years or so. Such an inference implies that old progressive thinking intended to raise up the hordes of immigrants or, for Europe, the hordes of the working classes.>>

Marx's analysis holds a great amount of relevance when we look at contemporary society although it needs a great deal of updating.  Luckily, later economists have undertaken this task.  Namely, we need to account for the fact that the present economy is dominated by massive oligopic firms rather than numerous competitive firms, and we must also keep in mind that capitalist exploitation, more than ever before, operates on a global level.  While it may be true that first-world proletarians, by and large, occupy a rather privileged position in comparison to their equivalents of the late nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries, proletarians in the third world are in an even more exploited position than their predecessors in Europe and the USA.  Finally, Marx's analysis of the role of the state in this process is rather lackluster.

>>This thinking always omits the fact that if the greedy capitalists hadn't invested in the lines of economic production which gave these masses the meagre wages they did, these masses would have starved.>>

While it may be true that capitalists were responsible for driving investment  in the past, it would be rediculous to say that further development in the means of production required the classist exploitation of the capitalist system.  If production were socialized, investment could have continued to occur while workers could have partook in the fruits of their labor.  I also think it is innappropriate to blame individual capitalists as greedy.  It is because of the the acts necessary to thrive in the business world necessitated by the capitalist system that this exploitation has occured.  The exploitation exists on a systemic level; its source does not reside in any individual per se.

>>Look at the state of the poor in America today. They (the poor) have a place to live, and heat in the winter. They have computers and automobiles. If they're hungry, its more likely than not they have a few bucks to spin by the local McDonalds.>>

It seems to me that you are rather removed for the reality of the situation of the poor in the united states.  They lack necessary healthcare, live in overcrowded, delapidated housing, and definitely do not have the money to spend on McDonalds (if they do, it is because they have been working overtime and haven't time to cook), let alone computers.  Also, if you haven't noticed, our streets have a rather large presence of homeless people on them.

>>Were the Free Capitalist Market be allowed to thrive, individual opportunities- and rewards- would thrive accordingly. >>

Prove me wrong with your experiment in new Hampshire. :)

>>Actually it's held by Government.  Who disallow anyone from entering. Not much of a "commons" if you ask me. It's controlled by a sellect few political agencies. Most of which make their regulations and laws with-out legislation.>>

spot-on! :)

ebola
Logged

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2004, 03:48:52 am »

Quote
If production were socialized, investment could have continued to occur while workers could have partook in the fruits of their labor.

Workers have an effect over their wages, which are derived from their labor.  Companies must compete for labor and there are enough alternative ways to live that the workforce has options whether they choose to exercise them or not.

I think too many have the mindset that they are trapped in their job.  While it may be difficult to change jobs, for all the hours people spend daily working, it's worthwhile to invest a small percent of that looking for other options.  It's almost the duty of the populace to change jobs a few times in their life, just so companies don't take them for granted. ;)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2004, 03:49:19 am by SteveA »
Logged
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren.  Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere.  Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile.  But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."

Eddie Willers

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
  • "Neo" Objectivist
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2004, 06:17:43 am »

Quote
well, I guess it depends if you believe "government" land is collectively owned or held in common...

Somebody above pretty well nailed you on this, but I wanted to add that it's amazing what the greenies want.

On one side, they want to have the government buy up all the land, kick any humans on or near it off, and let nature take over. In a few hundred years, perhaps the fires will stop. Or not.

The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc. etc. all have tax breaks, and frequently actual cash to buy land. Then they start messing with their neighbors - tearing up right-of-ways, accidentally knocking down power poles, stuff like that, to push their neighbors off.

Also, once they get a plot of land, and their taxes go to nothing since it's not commercial, they expect the government to use its resources for police and fire protection.

And what if a hiker accidentally meanders onto a path in their property? They litigate them into oblivion.

They're the most hateful, arrogant bastards I've ever encountered. Between them and Uncle Sam, they own 80% of my county.

Which almost burned to the ground 18 months ago.

They swoop in, jobs are lost, property values go DOWN, services get stretched.

Their stated goal is to move everybody to cities, and eliminate the rural folk - such as myself - that "interface" with the wilderness. Those jerks thought that 18,000 people were an insufficient number of casualties to be wiped out during that fire.

We won't even get into the whole wildlife issue.

'nuff said.

Eddie

PS(NO, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is not free. Think about it.)
Logged
Take care of the means and the End will take care of itself.

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2004, 02:06:22 pm »

>>PS(NO, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is not free. Think about it.) >>

Heh, I almost made a crack about that.  Since Ms. Rand is dead, I was hoping someone wouldve pirated it.

ebola
Logged

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2004, 02:21:39 pm »

Quote
well, I guess it depends if you believe "government" land is collectively owned or held in common...

Somebody above pretty well nailed you on this, but I wanted to add that it's amazing what the greenies want.

On one side, they want to have the government buy up all the land, kick any humans on or near it off, and let nature take over. In a few hundred years, perhaps the fires will stop. Or not.

The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc. etc. all have tax breaks, and frequently actual cash to buy land. Then they start messing with their neighbors - tearing up right-of-ways, accidentally knocking down power poles, stuff like that, to push their neighbors off.

Also, once they get a plot of land, and their taxes go to nothing since it's not commercial, they expect the government to use its resources for police and fire protection.

And what if a hiker accidentally meanders onto a path in their property? They litigate them into oblivion.

They're the most hateful, arrogant bastards I've ever encountered. Between them and Uncle Sam, they own 80% of my county.

Which almost burned to the ground 18 months ago.

They swoop in, jobs are lost, property values go DOWN, services get stretched.

Their stated goal is to move everybody to cities, and eliminate the rural folk - such as myself - that "interface" with the wilderness. Those jerks thought that 18,000 people were an insufficient number of casualties to be wiped out during that fire.

We won't even get into the whole wildlife issue.

'nuff said.

Eddie

PS(NO, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is not free. Think about it.)

Eddie,

you either support private indiviuals purchasing land for whatever purpose or not...I agree that their activities in no way should be subsidized.

I personally think everyone should pay a land value tax no matter who owns it but I am not allowed to discuss it outside of "the commons".

You can always start a new thread there and I will respond...
« Last Edit: March 08, 2004, 02:23:15 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2004, 02:27:01 pm »

<<It seems to me that you are rather removed for the reality of the situation of the poor in the united states.  They lack necessary healthcare, live in overcrowded, delapidated housing, and definitely do not have the money to spend on McDonalds (if they do, it is because they have been working overtime and haven't time to cook), let alone computers.  Also, if you haven't noticed, our streets have a rather large presence of homeless people on them.>>

Oops, you got me wrong, Ebola (and though I would love to go about how much I admire the clarity and substance with which you argue, i'll stick with this for now).

The lifestyle which I chose to lead until the past few years left me with no income, no help from the state, no home... The people with whom I socialized were the homeless, the destitute, the poorest of the poor. And I have no sympathy for the large majority of them, as it is largely a matter of choice which keeps them in the predicament they are in and not the capitalist economy which never offers anything but a ladder up.

As for the poor having no health care, let me give you an example in a friend of mine. Shes an older lady, HIV positive for 14 years now (and on the methadone clinic for the same amount of time). She hasn't worked in at least ten years, and is entirely dependant on the state for her housing, her extensive health care, her methadone, her food (largely italian ice and sweet cereal), her utilities, and don't let me forget she has also has an 18 year old daughter who refuses to get a job, but constantly demands money for beer and clothes and for socializing and- you guessed it- McDonalds.

Because I exist, and choose to work, how can you tell me its my responsibility to take care of these people? It would be kinder to leave them to their own devices, and a lot more just. You cannot force- or 'expect'- those individuals who are capable of life to subsidize those who are indifferent or incapable of living.


And don't give me that crap about all the homeless people. A socialist utopia is impossible, as it feigns to exist under rules which have no consideration for the fact of reality. Hell, even the Buddhists will tell you, "LIFE IS DIFFICULT"!!!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2004, 02:38:30 pm by thrivetacobell »
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

Eddie Willers

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
  • "Neo" Objectivist
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #72 on: March 08, 2004, 04:35:56 pm »

Quote
you either support private indiviuals purchasing land for whatever purpose or not...I agree that their activities in no way should be subsidized.

And that's the problem. The money that the WWF and Sierra Club use is partially tax free donations AND Federal money. So MY taxes get used to buy land at firesale prices, which then get taken off the tax rolls, and which the remaining services have to cover, too.

Also, the lands owned by FedGov, StateGov, and SierraGov (er SierraClub) don't have to follow the rules about fire prevention that I do. For example, here in Oregon, you're supposed to clear brush and trash for 30 or 50 feet or something on the perimeter of your entire property. If your property abutts one of these .gov lands, THEY don't have to follow those rules. Also, you can't do a "treatment" for the forest on your land, as that's not following their spec. A treatment is the standard private forestry practice of clearing brush and saplings, and spacing the trees apart for maximum growth and health of a forest.

If YOU don't follow the rules, you can get fined tens of thousands of dollars. Also, since THEY don't have to maintain their land, the fires invariably start in their land and jumps over to your land. You're ruined, they're "back to nature" which is a euphemism for "without man".

Nice system, eh?

Eddie
Logged
Take care of the means and the End will take care of itself.

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #73 on: March 08, 2004, 08:19:37 pm »

Both extremes are wrong.  The successful path lies in between, balancing the efforts and needs of humans with maintaining REASONABLE biodiversity.

BTW, I think that not all species need to be preserved.  However, there is no reason not to DNA-bank the ones we know we are driving out.  That way, we can bring them back if we want to, and don't miss out on undiscovered biological assets they may possess.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2004, 07:05:41 am »

Wow Ebola!
Nice style!  how did I ever miss out on this?!

Quote
It seems to me that you are rather removed for the reality of the situation of the poor in the united states.  They lack necessary healthcare, live in overcrowded, delapidated housing, and definitely do not have the money to spend on McDonalds (if they do, it is because they have been working overtime and haven't time to cook), let alone computers.  Also, if you haven't noticed, our streets have a rather large presence of homeless people on them.
first off 'necessary healthcare' is totally subjective - there is a cost to healthcare and the amount any one person decideds to spend upon it is determined by their own values/morals/desires/needs - it is immoral for you or I to impose upon others how much they should spend on this service/good.  This same with 'delapidated housing' - why would you want to insult their housing of choice?  I am sure this housing they choose is quite inexpensive and fits within their budget - they are of course free to improve their skillset and employ themselves in undertaking labor which would bring them greater wealth to afford a wider choice in housing.  In comparing the poor in our country in a socio-economic-philisophical context, we must be honest and do so in an 'apples-to-apples' manner: our economic system has a great degree of free market overtones (though it is vastly hindered by our government interference and monetary policies), so to see how 'good' our poor are doing, we should compare with other nations of different economic models.  In this we see that almost across the board, the 'freer' the market is, the better the overall standard of living is - EVEN for those existng on the lowest rungs of society.

now, regarding the socializing of production: the total salaries of 90% the workers in america per year is TWICE the total value of 90% of all the companies - this means that if the workers truly desired to 'own the means of production' they could easily band together and voluntarily socialize just about the entire productive capacity of the US in perhaps three years (depending on how they mortgaged out the financing, etc).  Why don't they do this?  It is because they, for the most part, do not have the skills or talents necessary to guide the production in the best manner - the folks who DO know how to achieve this already own the companies.  I think a great misconception that alot of folks have is that somehow the 'worker' is different from the 'owner' or a 'company'.  The great insight which everyone needs to understand and where our 'public' education falls short on preparing kids for the 'real world' is this: basically every human being IS a 'company' - you make 'capital expenditures' (education), you have an 'overhead' (expenses like food, shelter, etc just about everything you spend your money on), and you provide a 'service' (your labor).  Now when a  person truly understands this and then understands how a free market works then it is easy to see that it is soley up to you to determine where you want to go.  Businesses MUST cater to their customers to continue to exist - the same for wage-earners, the 'customer' in question are 'wage-payers' or businesses.  You are competing with other wage-earners and it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the best service you can so you can be successful in your goals.  Continued education is a boon as well as a 'work ethic' (be on time, etc).  You simply CANNOT be exploited without coercion UNLESS you allow it, in which case it ceases to be 'exploitive'.  We do not 'exploit' migrant workers from mexico, they certainly don't feel that way or else they wouldn't make the ffort to work for the wages offered to them.  Perhaps to YOU, if you were forced to accept those same wages it would be exploitive, but those workers are not being forced (and those few that are should have legal retribution).  I suppose you might also rail against 'sweatshops' in the phillipines?  Do you understand that the folks that work in those businesses CHOOSE, purposely, to work in that environment over EVERY other job choice at their disposal - doesn't this tell you something - like if the 'sweatshops' were closed down then the workers would have an even lesser standard of living?

Re: minimum wage/liveable wage
ahhh, gotta love this argument: all people should be paid a 'liveable wage' for the work they do in our society.  Do you agree that different jobs require different skills and different labor abilities?  A Neurosurgeon has a much higher skillset and talents than a garbage collector.  Assuming you understand the logic here and understand that different jobs have different 'values' and that these 'values' are not arbitrarily set by some Godly Tome but by the aggregate values in society which is shown by the pricing system we have in the free market, then how can you tell me with a straight face that a person should be paid some 'minimum amount no matter what their particular labor is?  should everyone with a paper route earn enough to feed/clothe/shelter a family of four?  How do you determine this 'level' without using prices to determine what the desires of the market are?  I have a business and I get paper scraps all over the floor everyday.  I am too lazy to clean it up myself and would rather pay someone else to do so, BUT, is this worth paying someone $20/hr for, or even $10?  Not to me, to me I would offer someone perhaps $4/hr to do it PLUS give them a chance to learn other skills to make themselves more useful.  Is this a job for a 40 yr old supporting a family? no - it is an entry level position which great possibiliy for advancement.  The sad thing is, it is illegal fo me to provide this kind of 'on the job traing' because the government has priced all labor too high to be of use to me.  So my place remains a mess and some teenager remains without a job and the ability to access the benefits f all I offer.  how nice of the government.  On the other side of the coin is the unionized worker (it is the unions you advocate for min. wages) who gains from this as they are protected from competition in labor by the government.  So, basically, the minimum wage laws increase the wages for the already skilled at the expense of the non-skilled - I wonder where a portion of our unemployment comes from....

I look forwar to continueing with you at a later dater, forgive the Rant and good night for now, my friend!
michael
Logged
nothing to say...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up