Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nonpropertarianism (A Truly Free Market)

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:21:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are many Capitalists on this site who boast a "free-market". But what is it they mean by this phrase? What is "free" in their eyes? Surely they will tell you that it a system void of coercion, one of voluntary exchange. I am here to challenge that. Challenge, that is, that this "free-market" they espouse is really anything of the sort.

Even as a former Capitalist, the understanding escapes me how such an evident coercion could at the same time remain so well hidden. An infrastructure which, when recognized, makes even the Ayn Rand's Minarchist state or the Ancap utopia to be known as an obvious planned and centralized regime but is also a central a theme to Socialism and other such ideologies beyond Capitalism.

I speak of the rule of property. So much bickering, there has been, between which form of this tyranny to have that none have found time to question the very underlining idea.

And I can hear the supposed "free-marketeers" now with their jeers of chaos. "There would be no order!", they say "Shops would be looted every day with nothing to stop the looters!. Oh the shame. Are these not the same ones who herald the invisible hand of the market? Are these not the ones who, when confronted with an economic woe, would say that the market needs to be let to guide itself, to arrive at it's naturally emergent balance out of the seemingly unguided chaos? I only offer you the same principle but to it's actual ends. The degree to which the system has become decentralized and irregulated is the degree to which the natural evolutionary order may emerge. Now, I don't know for certain how a Nonpropertarian economy would function but I have some fairly confident ideas of which I may discuss in this thread if the questions which require their discussion are posed.

Property is an inherently authoritarian concept, whether with it's platform as labor, as needs, as collective ownership, or any other such formula for control. No "right" can be had without limiting the freedom of others to impose upon it, surely this is recognized. So the question is whether such a limitation is being imposed upon something which is anti-liberty. For if the liberty which the right limits is not anti-liberty than the right itself which limits this thing is in actuality the thing which is anti-liberty. So what does it mean posses something which has a claim by another, does it limit the liberty of the claimer? Surely, a person may find a reason to say that it does, for most objects have a political power of some kind when possessed. To take possession of water which one claims is to limit their freedom in consuming that water. So the Capitalist may take the tactic of pointing this out but it is really a half-witted move for they are blind to the fact that it is same vice-versa. The very person claiming the water in the first place is limiting the freedom of others to consume it, so this too is anti-liberty. So both sides are anti-liberty? That, too, is only half the story. For if a person were to claim something while no one else feels a need to do the same, who's liberty is he infringing upon? Vice-versa, if one has a claim to a thing but has does not use it, what liberty is infringed by another taking his claim? But if both sides may be at some times anti-liberty and sometimes not, how are we to know how to maximize freedom? If only there were a way for the system to balance itself. Perhaps if we did not have this rule of making a claim to be imposed upon others, a solution might develop.

"So what..", you say, "just get rid of property?". "Ok, I'll just go to your house and take all your stuff, how bout that?" To suddenly switch off the rule of property would indeed cause instantaneous disorder, panic and destruction. This is not the fault of this new Nonpropertarian environment, it is the example of something much more dangerous in a state of decay--the crumbling of the old and the construction of a new. Out of this chaos would evolve a new infrastructure for the allocation of resources, an infrastructure which can truly be called a free-market.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:46:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:44:07 AM, Sieben wrote:
...

It WOULD work. I promise.

Do you have any other worthless remarks to add?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As much as I like seeing lefties masturbate in public, I really must insist. Your TLDR post is just a string of assertions and rhetoric. Can you please rewrite it in a format that free market ideologues can understand? Short, concise sentences and economic logic?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:01:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
As much as I like seeing lefties masturbate in public, I really must insist. Your TLDR post is just a string of assertions and rhetoric. Can you please rewrite it in a format that free market ideologues can understand? Short, concise sentences and economic logic?

The economic logic can't be teal deered, because there was none. Try reading it. It is a good laugh.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:39:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This was very well written. I especially enjoyed he first few paragraphs. Good job.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 11:30:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
As much as I like seeing lefties masturbate in public, I really must insist. Your TLDR post is just a string of assertions and rhetoric. Can you please rewrite it in a format that free market ideologues can understand? Short, concise sentences and economic logic?

I thought it was quite well written. Very Proudhonian, though he seems to be staking out a more radical position than Proudhon himself.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 11:32:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." - Proudhon
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 11:33:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?" - Proudhon
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 11:34:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 11:32:16 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." - Proudhon

Why wouldn't Reasoning drink Earl Grey?
Because proper tea is theft!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:38:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
As much as I like seeing lefties masturbate in public, I really must insist. Your TLDR post is just a string of assertions and rhetoric. Can you please rewrite it in a format that free market ideologues can understand? Short, concise sentences and economic logic?

Lol. That's fantastic. You say TLDR to his post, but then say HE's the one masturbating in public. Meanwhile you're just declaring his ideas as useless without even reading them. But right, HE's the one jerking off. He's the one mindlessly stroking away at his... ideology.

The thing is that it's not only about economic logic. I could provide a supply and demand chart, write a capitalist formula proven to maximize profit, and still have an argument about why capitalism is immoral. It's not just an economic model but a political philosophy, one that can easily be questioned as unethical.

But yes. All the leftists are just masturbating. It's so fun that even Reasoning who seriously wants to blow Rothbard all day long can't help but simultaneously spew leftist ideals. It just feels sooo good ^_^
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:08:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are these not the same ones who herald the invisible hand of the market?
The "invisible hand of the market" works based on the exchange of....

property.

Not the exchange of hugs (Although hugs can be a service, to make a market out of them it has to be possible to exchange them for ownership of goods. It's all well and good to trade hug for hug if one does it with someone one enjoys, but it doesn't contribute to the material necessities of human existence. Which is why anarcho-huggism is bad, given that it is the sort of anarchy that forbids other exchanges).

Property is an inherently authoritarian concept, whether with it's platform as labor, as needs, as collective ownership, or any other such formula for control. No "right" can be had without limiting the freedom of others to impose upon it
This premise leads to a contradiction. If you have no property rights, then you do not own your ***, and hence Bubba has the right to use it as Bubba doth please, in quite an authoritarian manner despite your protests. There can be no liberty without the liberty to determine the use of the fruits of one's labor, for one will starve lest the Tribe all consent to leave him some pitiful scraps to live another day. And the Tribe never agrees on anything unless the Chief makes it so.

For if a person were to claim something while no one else feels a need to do the same, who's liberty is he infringing upon?
It's called scarcity. The things a person needs to claim in order to live are ALL useful to other people.

"So what..", you say, "just get rid of property?". "Ok, I'll just go to your house and take all your stuff, how bout that?" To suddenly switch off the rule of property would indeed cause instantaneous disorder, panic and destruction. This is not the fault of this new Nonpropertarian environment, it is the example of something much more dangerous in a state of decay--the crumbling of the old and the construction of a new. Out of this chaos would evolve a new infrastructure for the allocation of resources
This is an unwarranted assertion. Out of this chaos one of two things would happen. One. We'd continue in chaos. Or two. Someone with the power it takes to make authority comes along and saves lives by making property rules.

an infrastructure which can truly be called a free-market.
Again, a market cannot exist where there is no property to exchange, any more than a market can exist where exchanges are mandated.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:21:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:38:17 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
As much as I like seeing lefties masturbate in public, I really must insist. Your TLDR post is just a string of assertions and rhetoric. Can you please rewrite it in a format that free market ideologues can understand? Short, concise sentences and economic logic?

Lol. That's fantastic. You say TLDR to his post, but then say HE's the one masturbating in public. Meanwhile you're just declaring his ideas as useless without even reading them. But right, HE's the one jerking off. He's the one mindlessly stroking away at his... ideology.

Well his post is TLDR. And just because I was masturbating when I wrote the post with my other hand doesn't mean he's not doing it also. At least mine didn't last very long. As always.

But yes. All the leftists are just masturbating. It's so fun that even Reasoning who seriously wants to blow Rothbard all day long can't help but simultaneously spew leftist ideals. It just feels sooo good ^_^

Yeah Reasoning does TLDRs too.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:32:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Your TLDR post...

What the hell are you doing on this site if you can't read a few paragraphs? It's kinda how debates are done.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:48:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 7:32:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
Your TLDR post...

What the hell are you doing on this site if you can't read a few paragraphs? It's kinda how debates are done.

TLDR is an adjective. Your post is "TLDR". But I did read it. That's why I asked you to distill it into its basic logical components.

(I didn't really see any)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:56:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like:

"For if the liberty which the right limits is not anti-liberty than the right itself which limits this thing is in actuality the thing which is anti-liberty."

Will earn you an F on an english paper.

"So what does it mean posses something which has a claim by another, does it limit the liberty of the claimer?"

Run on sentence.

There are many many other grammatical mistakes and the paragraphs are HUGE. According to this website http://www.lincoln.edu... paragraphs are supposed to have 8-10 sentences in academic papers. Your paragraphs have up to 16 sentences, and many of them are run-on sentences.

So don't ask me to take your writing style seriously. K?

"Out of this chaos would evolve a new infrastructure for the allocation of resources, an infrastructure which can truly be called a free-market."

would

Gooood argument Freedo. Nice analysis. Oh wait. It wouldn't work. Now I've matched your level of intellectual rigor.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:39:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarcho-capitalists are not opposed authoritarianism in the sense that you are describing it. We (if I may speak for others) are opposed to the use of violence against nonviolent people. Our definition of "people" is extended to include the physical objects in their use.

Any autonomous act is essentially "authoritarian" in some sense. My ability to move my arm is authoritarian because no one else has any say in the matter (unless they physically restrain me, of course). Moving my arm under my own will is not equivalent to using it to strike someone.

The issue is not authoritarianism but collectivism, or more clearly the subjugation of the individual below abstractions like "society" and "the greater good" which are used to justify the reduction of human beings to mere objects.

So, we are not inconsistent in our basic principles by opposing that system of property (or lack thereof). Ragnar has already explained why the ideal of the free market rests on the fact that people can make a deal.

Really, the ideals of the anarcho-capitalists are not so different than those of the leftist anarchists. Rothbard regarded the modern union of government and business to be an abomination and he too called for workers to seize control of business, but for a much different reason: because the modern mega corporation is build and sustained by stolen property, abusive regulation, and the general use of state violence to support 'private' interests.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 11:34:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 7:56:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
"For if the liberty which the right limits is not anti-liberty than the right itself which limits this thing is in actuality the thing which is anti-liberty."

Will earn you an F on an english paper.

A lot of great writers have written some very famous and deep lines that likewise would not have been treated kindly by an English professor.

It is, in fact, the way the sentence twists and turns only to return to the beginning, finding that what was thought to be there is not there at all, that is the beauty of it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 1:46:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:38:17 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 8:56:53 AM, Sieben wrote:
As much as I like seeing lefties masturbate in public, I really must insist. Your TLDR post is just a string of assertions and rhetoric. Can you please rewrite it in a format that free market ideologues can understand? Short, concise sentences and economic logic?

Lol. That's fantastic. You say TLDR to his post, but then say HE's the one masturbating in public. Meanwhile you're just declaring his ideas as useless without even reading them. But right, HE's the one jerking off. He's the one mindlessly stroking away at his... ideology.

The thing is that it's not only about economic logic. I could provide a supply and demand chart, write a capitalist formula proven to maximize profit, and still have an argument about why capitalism is immoral. It's not just an economic model but a political philosophy, one that can easily be questioned as unethical.

But yes. All the leftists are just masturbating. It's so fun that even Reasoning who seriously wants to blow Rothbard all day long can't help but simultaneously spew leftist ideals. It just feels sooo good ^_^

please. lol. i know you're not a fan of ancaps, but freedo's post was just utter nonsense. according to him simply existing is coercive against another person since if you didn't exist then they could occupy the space that you now occupy.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:08:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A lot of great writers have written some very famous and deep lines that likewise would not have been treated kindly by an English professor.
"Great writers" is reverse ad hominem that does not even mention the damn hominids in question. Appeal to fame I'm pretty sure is its classified as its own informal fallacy somewhere. "Deep" is another way to say "Bull****." And I'm no fan of English professors mind.

It is, in fact, the way the sentence twists and turns only to return to the beginning, finding that what was thought to be there is not there at all, that is the beauty of it.

If declaring that anyone who does not slaughter everyone who is not themselves and then proceed to abrogate gravitation is a slave is your idea of beauty, I shall stand steadfast behind ugliness.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:35:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sieben, what kind of arguments are looking for? I'm not exactly making an economic assertion. I pointed out something which is almost always over-looked, which is the regulative and constrictive nature of property and then I posed a hypothesis that chaotic order would apply to a Nonpropertarian economy as it does in a Propertarian one.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 4:49:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 2:35:28 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sieben, what kind of arguments are looking for? I'm not exactly making an economic assertion. I pointed out something which is almost always over-looked, which is the regulative and constrictive nature of property and then I posed a hypothesis that chaotic order would apply to a Nonpropertarian economy as it does in a Propertarian one.

Tell me, would birds fly better without gravity?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 9:14:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 2:35:28 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sieben, what kind of arguments are looking for? I'm not exactly making an economic assertion. I pointed out something which is almost always over-looked, which is the regulative and constrictive nature of property
This is never overlooked. The only thing you brought to the table was prophetic rhetoric.

and then I posed a hypothesis that chaotic order would apply to a Nonpropertarian economy as it does in a Propertarian one.

And you did not defend or construct your hypothesis. You just kind of put it out there as a grotesque non-effort to trump everyone else's belief system.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 9:59:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
yeah.. I'm willing to use force to get me and mine some food... Or to protect that food/shelter which I need and worked for..

the idea of property, law, and enforcement makes it so that violent force both doesn't tend to be resorted to as often.

Though, I am for Lawful "gaps" in those rights to Force people to provide for starving folks...

this is both b/c I don't like to see people in pain.. And b/c the whole reason IMO for property rights in the first place is to have more Regular... and lessen the possibility of Violence in.. interactions with others.. And starving people will generally do whatever they can to get food.. and if they were to resort to stealing it by themselves the chances of violence against Property owners... Or against those who are hungry.. would be Very much greater than if someone overwhelmingly powerful stole such things on their behalf..

Thus I'm for that state which Protects property rights in Most situations.. Also stealing on behalf of the hungry.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:55:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 9:59:04 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
this is both b/c I don't like to see people in pain...

Did you ever stop to think that we don't need to be inflicting pain on people in the first place? Instead of just letting people prosper, we feel this need to impose an administrative hierarchy over them and take their money while driveling a little back socialistically.
kfc
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 12:05:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:51:44 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
http://i201.photobucket.com...

9/10

I don't ever try to win arguments by critiquing people's grammar. I just point it out for fun. At most I'll use ad homs as inductive arguments.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 12:15:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 12:05:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/17/2011 11:51:44 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
http://i201.photobucket.com...

9/10

I don't ever try to win arguments by critiquing people's grammar. I just point it out for fun. At most I'll use ad homs as inductive arguments.

Exageration is the soul of comedy. Just making that up because it sounds good; maybe it holds water I don't know.
kfc
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 12:42:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:55:43 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/17/2011 9:59:04 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
this is both b/c I don't like to see people in pain...

Did you ever stop to think that we don't need to be inflicting pain on people in the f
first place?

sometimes... if you there are other, conflicting, things you want more.. you may.

Instead of just letting people prosper, we feel this need to impose an administrative hierarchy over them and take their money while driveling a little back socialistically.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."