Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

HONEST CRITICISM OF ANARCHO-CAPlTALISM

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 2:25:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I often here capitalists defend their position that the worker is as economically free as the business owner because they can choose to work for someone else. But just because you can work for someone else doesn't mean its based on free contracts. So if the basis of private property (land) being that if you claim and homestead it, it is yours..your private property.. then let's imagine the following scenario. You take 100 people and drop them on an island (let's say a square mile) and we follow the notion of claimed homesteaded land as the right of property. Individuals have no restraint (other than the power of the group; which you oppose) on the land and resources they can claim leading to a situation where a percentage of the 100 people would own the land and resources and a percentage of the people don't have land and resources leaving them only their labor to sell (which implies that land and resources hold substantially more power in the contract than labour does.. simply because land and resources are fundamentals for humans to work and create..its the basis of all that the agreement will be predicated on.).

Which now leads me to the problem of capitalism and the complete unequal distribution of power. Power being in the hands of the land "owners" or (claimers).

..because the land and important resources are held in the hands of a few..the buyers (owners of land) and sellers (workers) of labor are not on equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place..meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on (which they obtained through mere claim). Just because you can say no to your current employer and work for someone else who (just like your last employer expresses complete dominion over the land that they have acquired by claiming the land) just means you get to choose who you want to have control over you. If 10 people on the island own all the land, do you really think that those 90 people individually hold as much power as an individual land owner? Hell no. Which means it's not anarchism. That's why unions exist and have existed. That's why less than 10% of the wealth goes to the working class (80% of the people).
I'm not trying to start a war, I'm just trying to explain why, after being an anarcho-capitalist for a number of years, have changed my views to oppose this system.

"just because you can decide your rulers in a period of time doesn't mean you're not a slave"
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.
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.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 1:19:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 2:25:36 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I often here capitalists defend their position that the worker is as economically free as the business owner because they can choose to work for someone else. But just because you can work for someone else doesn't mean its based on free contracts. So if the basis of private property (land) being that if you claim and homestead it, it is yours..your private property.. then let's imagine the following scenario. You take 100 people and drop them on an island (let's say a square mile) and we follow the notion of claimed homesteaded land as the right of property. Individuals have no restraint (other than the power of the group; which you oppose) on the land and resources they can claim leading to a situation where a percentage of the 100 people would own the land and resources and a percentage of the people don't have land and resources leaving them only their labor to sell (which implies that land and resources hold substantially more power in the contract than labour does.. simply because land and resources are fundamentals for humans to work and create..its the basis of all that the agreement will be predicated on.).

Which now leads me to the problem of capitalism and the complete unequal distribution of power. Power being in the hands of the land "owners" or (claimers).

..because the land and important resources are held in the hands of a few..the buyers (owners of land) and sellers (workers) of labor are not on equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place..meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on (which they obtained through mere claim). Just because you can say no to your current employer and work for someone else who (just like your last employer expresses complete dominion over the land that they have acquired by claiming the land) just means you get to choose who you want to have control over you. If 10 people on the island own all the land, do you really think that those 90 people individually hold as much power as an individual land owner? Hell no. Which means it's not anarchism. That's why unions exist and have existed. That's why less than 10% of the wealth goes to the working class (80% of the people).
I'm not trying to start a war, I'm just trying to explain why, after being an anarcho-capitalist for a number of years, have changed my views to oppose this system.

"just because you can decide your rulers in a period of time doesn't mean you're not a slave"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.
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.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 12:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.

Ah, so the threat of 'forcefully preventing you access to that which would prevent you from dying' is different from the threat of 'forcefully killing you'?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 8:42:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 2:25:36 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I often here capitalists defend their position that the worker is as economically free as the business owner because they can choose to work for someone else. But just because you can work for someone else doesn't mean its based on free contracts. So if the basis of private property (land) being that if you claim and homestead it, it is yours..your private property.. then let's imagine the following scenario. You take 100 people and drop them on an island (let's say a square mile) and we follow the notion of claimed homesteaded land as the right of property. Individuals have no restraint (other than the power of the group; which you oppose) on the land and resources they can claim leading to a situation where a percentage of the 100 people would own the land and resources and a percentage of the people don't have land and resources leaving them only their labor to sell (which implies that land and resources hold substantially more power in the contract than labour does.. simply because land and resources are fundamentals for humans to work and create..its the basis of all that the agreement will be predicated on.).

Which now leads me to the problem of capitalism and the complete unequal distribution of power. Power being in the hands of the land "owners" or (claimers).

..because the land and important resources are held in the hands of a few..the buyers (owners of land) and sellers (workers) of labor are not on equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place..meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on (which they obtained through mere claim). Just because you can say no to your current employer and work for someone else who (just like your last employer expresses complete dominion over the land that they have acquired by claiming the land) just means you get to choose who you want to have control over you. If 10 people on the island own all the land, do you really think that those 90 people individually hold as much power as an individual land owner? Hell no. Which means it's not anarchism. That's why unions exist and have existed. That's why less than 10% of the wealth goes to the working class (80% of the people).
I'm not trying to start a war, I'm just trying to explain why, after being an anarcho-capitalist for a number of years, have changed my views to oppose this system.

"just because you can decide your rulers in a period of time doesn't mean you're not a slave"

I thought miracles were reserved only for fairy tales.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 8:43:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 12:58:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.

Ah, so the threat of 'forcefully preventing you access to that which would prevent you from dying' is different from the threat of 'forcefully killing you'?

Yes. The thing which you propose to use to prevent death is not owned by you. The cause of death is not the person you're complaining about, but nature. Nature, not the employer, proposes that you must eat or die. The employer merely sets conditions for involving himself in providing you food-- if he didn't exist at all you'd starve just as readily.
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.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 9:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:43:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2014 12:58:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.

Ah, so the threat of 'forcefully preventing you access to that which would prevent you from dying' is different from the threat of 'forcefully killing you'?

Yes. The thing which you propose to use to prevent death is not owned by you. The cause of death is not the person you're complaining about, but nature. Nature, not the employer, proposes that you must eat or die. The employer merely sets conditions for involving himself in providing you food-- if he didn't exist at all you'd starve just as readily.

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:10:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you have anything substantive to say?
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.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:53:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 2:10:00 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do you have anything substantive to say?

About what?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 3:48:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:43:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2014 12:58:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.

Ah, so the threat of 'forcefully preventing you access to that which would prevent you from dying' is different from the threat of 'forcefully killing you'?

Yes. The thing which you propose to use to prevent death is not owned by you. The cause of death is not the person you're complaining about, but nature. Nature, not the employer, proposes that you must eat or die. The employer merely sets conditions for involving himself in providing you food-- if he didn't exist at all you'd starve just as readily.

Nope. First of all, stop viewing the world through the capitalist paradigm when we're trying to establish whether that paradigm is justified.

What I am complaining about is that you are claiming to 'own' the land I need to produce food for myself. If I try to use the land you claim to 'own' to produce food, you will use force against me to 'protect your property'. If you did not exist, I would not starve. Do you still claim that this 'employer' does me any favours other than to enslave me through force?

It's like my house is on fire and you've blockaded my front door until I promise to build you a new conservatory. 'Ooooh, but it's not me that says you'll die with lungs full of carbon monoxide, that's nature's fault. I'm just setting the conditions by which you can gain access to fresh air'.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 4:59:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 2:53:38 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:10:00 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do you have anything substantive to say?

About what?

About what exactly I am guilty of if someone starves to death and, as far as their existence is concerned, I may as well have never existed for it would have made no difference?
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 5:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 3:48:23 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:43:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2014 12:58:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.

Ah, so the threat of 'forcefully preventing you access to that which would prevent you from dying' is different from the threat of 'forcefully killing you'?

Yes. The thing which you propose to use to prevent death is not owned by you. The cause of death is not the person you're complaining about, but nature. Nature, not the employer, proposes that you must eat or die. The employer merely sets conditions for involving himself in providing you food-- if he didn't exist at all you'd starve just as readily.

Nope. First of all, stop viewing the world through the capitalist paradigm when we're trying to establish whether that paradigm is justified.
To "own" a thing under capitalism, it has to be such that it would not be what it presently is if it were not for you (original acquisition by mixing labor). If the capitalist does not feed you, he may as well have never existed. The thing which he refuses to provide you would still not be yours if he did not exist.


What I am complaining about is that you are claiming to 'own' the land I need to produce food for myself.
He was producing food (or something else) for himself with it first. Since two crops cannot occupy the same space, any attempt in your part to deny him ownership by plucking out his crop and planting yours is an attempt to starve him of what he has actually produced. You can hardly complain if he "starves" you of what you never produced. He didn't create scarcity, and by asserting a rivalrous intention, you, not he, are the one who invoked it.

It's like my house is on fire and you've blockaded my front door until I promise to build you a new conservatory.\
Your house is something you built. The capitalist has posted no barriers save the one that encircles what HE planted. Which should be of no concern to you, unless your intent is to take what he planted, in which case you are a threat to his existence. Are you one? If so, why complain about him responding in the manner appropriate thereto?

'Ooooh, but it's not me that says you'll die with lungs full of carbon monoxide, that's nature's fault. I'm just setting the conditions by which you can gain access to fresh air'.
Unlike fresh air, the only thing an actual capitalist can deny you is the things he mixed his labor with himself.
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.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 2:51:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 4:59:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:53:38 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:10:00 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do you have anything substantive to say?

About what?

About what exactly I am guilty of if someone starves to death and, as far as their existence is concerned, I may as well have never existed for it would have made no difference?

We'd have to go back to yer foundations if we're going to have a discussion. Working within a propertarian framework when I think it's BS to start with wouldn't be helpful.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:09:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 5:07:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/15/2014 3:48:23 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:43:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2014 12:58:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/13/2014 9:33:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/10/2014 2:19:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:46:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place
A free, voluntary agreement is in no way predicated upon equal negotiating position.

meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on
And on an island with 100 men and 5 women, guess who has negotiating power in sexual relations? This doesn't mean all cases of sex on that island are rape and should be prohibited.

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to put the money in the bag, would I be acting freely and voluntarily if I did so? Because if that's the case perhaps agreements need to be more than just 'free and voluntary'.

You would not, because gun. Threat of force.

Ah, so the threat of 'forcefully preventing you access to that which would prevent you from dying' is different from the threat of 'forcefully killing you'?

Yes. The thing which you propose to use to prevent death is not owned by you. The cause of death is not the person you're complaining about, but nature. Nature, not the employer, proposes that you must eat or die. The employer merely sets conditions for involving himself in providing you food-- if he didn't exist at all you'd starve just as readily.

Nope. First of all, stop viewing the world through the capitalist paradigm when we're trying to establish whether that paradigm is justified.
To "own" a thing under capitalism, it has to be such that it would not be what it presently is if it were not for you (original acquisition by mixing labor). If the capitalist does not feed you, he may as well have never existed. The thing which he refuses to provide you would still not be yours if he did not exist.


What I am complaining about is that you are claiming to 'own' the land I need to produce food for myself.
He was producing food (or something else) for himself with it first. Since two crops cannot occupy the same space, any attempt in your part to deny him ownership by plucking out his crop and planting yours is an attempt to starve him of what he has actually produced. You can hardly complain if he "starves" you of what you never produced. He didn't create scarcity, and by asserting a rivalrous intention, you, not he, are the one who invoked it.


It's like my house is on fire and you've blockaded my front door until I promise to build you a new conservatory.\
Your house is something you built. The capitalist has posted no barriers save the one that encircles what HE planted. Which should be of no concern to you, unless your intent is to take what he planted, in which case you are a threat to his existence. Are you one? If so, why complain about him responding in the manner appropriate thereto?

'Ooooh, but it's not me that says you'll die with lungs full of carbon monoxide, that's nature's fault. I'm just setting the conditions by which you can gain access to fresh air'.
Unlike fresh air, the only thing an actual capitalist can deny you is the things he mixed his labor with himself.

Hah.

"He was producing food (or something else) for himself with it first. Since two crops cannot occupy the same space, any attempt in your part to deny him ownership by plucking out his crop and planting yours is an attempt to starve him of what he has actually produced."

You've assumed that the capitalist is working the land he prevents me from working on, and that he has only enough land to provide for himself, essentially muddying the waters between private property and personal use. If you want to have a fair argument, you would obviously have to defend the capitalist's ownership of an empty field that he does not work on.

"Your house is something you built. The capitalist has posted no barriers save the one that encircles what HE planted. Which should be of no concern to you, unless your intent is to take what he planted, in which case you are a threat to his existence. Are you one? If so, why complain about him responding in the manner appropriate thereto?"

'Your house is something you built', yet again, you rely on fleshing out the situation so that it completely blurs the lines between our separate beliefs... For some reason you're defending capitalism by arguing for a 'personal use' conception of property, not private property. Are you sure you aren't a socialist?

I mean seriously, capitalism allows for private property. It's absolute, not predicated on need. and you respond to my criticisms by creating a scenario in which I am killing the capitalist by taking nutrition for myself? Insanity. Please now, empty field, capitalist has more than enough, prevents me from working on it without his permission (which involves becoming his employee) so that he can take what I produce and give me a certain quantity of it back.

"Unlike fresh air, the only thing an actual capitalist can deny you is the things he mixed his labor with himself."

That's funny, because I thought a capitalist could deny you anything that he owned, and as for your definition of ownership - it has to be such that it would not be what it presently is if it were not for you - you're going to have to explain that, because Is among the most vague things I've heard all year.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 11:47:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:09:38 AM, Wocambs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:08:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 11:47:59 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:38 AM, Wocambs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've noticed that justification for the above either resorts to intuition or clouding the range of possible options such that it becomes the only coherent possibility.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 6:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 11:47:59 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:38 AM, Wocambs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Intuition indeed. I 'produce a product' from an area of land, therefore I own it, forever?

So if I herd my sheep across hectares and hectares of land while shaving them, I have used the resources of many hectares to produce wool, therefore I own all that land, exclusively, and just because I fed my sheep there? Rothbard's response is:

"If A uses a certain amount of a resource, how much of that resource is to accrue to his ownership? Our answer is that he owns the technological unit of the resource. The size of that unit depends on the type of good or resource in question, and must be determined by judges, juries, or arbitrators who are expert in the particular resource or industry in question"

Seems a tad subjective to me! Just as Noumena said: intuition.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:47:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:09:38 AM, Wocambs wrote:: Hah.

You've assumed that the capitalist is working the land he prevents me from working on
Well, if he bought it, it's from someone else who was doing so.

and that he has only enough land to provide for himself, essentially muddying the waters between private property and personal use.
Private property is for personal use. It's not for public use you know.

If you want to have a fair argument, you would obviously have to defend the capitalist's ownership of an empty field that he does not work on.
Why would I have to defend that? That's not capitalism, that's a socialist policy (national parks).

"Your house is something you built. The capitalist has posted no barriers save the one that encircles what HE planted. Which should be of no concern to you, unless your intent is to take what he planted, in which case you are a threat to his existence. Are you one? If so, why complain about him responding in the manner appropriate thereto?"

'Your house is something you built', yet again, you rely on fleshing out the situation so that it completely blurs the lines between our separate beliefs... For some reason you're defending capitalism by arguing for a 'personal use' conception of property, not private property. Are you sure you aren't a socialist?
I defend laissez-faire capitalism under a non-proviso Lockean theory of property, not the Marxist bogeyman idea of capitalism.


I mean seriously, capitalism allows for private property. It's absolute, not predicated on need.
It's predicated on action. Capitalism allows for private property that was originally acquired by mixing labor.

and you respond to my criticisms by creating a scenario in which I am killing the capitalist by taking nutrition for myself?
That's actual historical events, not some hypothetical (granted, YOU are not the guy who did it).

Insanity. Please now, empty field
Capitalism does not allow ownership of an "empty field," i.e. nature unmixed with labor.

"Unlike fresh air, the only thing an actual capitalist can deny you is the things he mixed his labor with himself."

That's funny, because I thought a capitalist could deny you anything that he owned
The two are synonymous (aside from things he bought from those who mixed their labor-- I'm keeping it simple).

and as for your definition of ownership - it has to be such that it would not be what it presently is if it were not for you - you're going to have to explain that, because Is among the most vague things I've heard all year.
You have to create what you intend to own by your labor (or, buy It from someone who did). You can't just find a bush of berries, plant a flag on it, and expect no one else to pick from it-- that's the national socialist conception of property, not the capitalist one.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:50:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 6:39:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:47:59 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:09:38 AM, Wocambs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Intuition indeed. I 'produce a product' from an area of land, therefore I own it, forever?

So if I herd my sheep across hectares and hectares of land while shaving them, I have used the resources of many hectares to produce wool, therefore I own all that land, exclusively, and just because I fed my sheep there?

The answer a capitalist court would give is another question, when you sued someone for doing something to that land-- what interference with your preexisting practice of feeding your sheep occurs when someone does that something to the land?
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.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 1:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 4:47:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I'll give you credit for not blindly defending that status quo, but that's about it... although it does seem that this 'libertarianism' is the 'status quo' among dissatisfied Americans, much to my dissatisfaction.

"Why would I have to defend that? That's not capitalism, that's a socialist policy (national parks)"

If I was to clear an area of shrubbery to produce an 'empty' grassland space, that would presumably be an area of land that I owned, not an attempt to institute 'socialist policy'.

Now, having cleared that space, and continuing to clear it from whatever else may try to grow there, I own it, having 'mixed it with my labour', and from the seven seconds of reading I have done on the 'Lockean proviso', you would presumably support my right to own that land even if someone was starving for want of land with which to produce, or suffering without land on which to build shelter, or whatever.

Now that strikes me as completely immoral, and furthermore, like some kind of bizarre custom.... In the absurd case that you turn around and claim that I can't just clear a space to 'own' it, let's say I throw a few seeds over the area and occasionally deign to piss on them.

Furthermore, this whole thing is presumably based on the concept of self-ownership. Self-ownership is imaginary; from what I have seen, it is argued for by saying that by controlling your body you own your body - from that, ownership does not follow. Neither does saying 'These are my words', as recognising the origin of something is not the same as recognising something's 'ownership' over that thing.

"The answer a capitalist court would give is another question, when you sued someone for doing something to that land-- what interference with your preexisting practice of feeding your sheep occurs when someone does that something to the land?"

I don't know. Maybe I'm a poor little shepherd living in the countryside, and I wake up from my deaf slumber to find that my grazing fields have been tarmacked over to build a private airport (complete with strip-club) for some rich guy. Now apparently I'm meant to head over to a court run for profit and pay them to enact justice upon a man rich enough to build a goddamn airport for himself?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:53:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 1:05:53 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/18/2014 4:47:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I'll give you credit for not blindly defending that status quo, but that's about it... although it does seem that this 'libertarianism' is the 'status quo' among dissatisfied Americans, much to my dissatisfaction.


"Why would I have to defend that? That's not capitalism, that's a socialist policy (national parks)"


If I was to clear an area of shrubbery to produce an 'empty' grassland space, that would presumably be an area of land that I owned, not an attempt to institute 'socialist policy'.
What are you actually doing with the empty grassland? Making a lawn for something else you built, or just putting it in the middle of nowhere? Because if you just put it in the middle of nowhere-- well, you can sue someone for messing with that, but it's gonna be hard to see what your damages are.

Now that strikes me as completely immoral, and furthermore, like some kind of bizarre custom.... In the absurd case that you turn around and claim that I can't just clear a space to 'own' it, let's say I throw a few seeds over the area and occasionally deign to piss on them.
A few seeds are gonna cover a pretty small area, as is your piss. Good luck with your 10 foot by 10 foot field.


Furthermore, this whole thing is presumably based on the concept of self-ownership. Self-ownership is imaginary
So you have no objections if I appropriate your body?
But no, it's not "based on" self ownership, self-ownership proceeds from this. It's based on our mutual need as rational beings to not have our attempts at producing the needs of our existence interfered with.

"The answer a capitalist court would give is another question, when you sued someone for doing something to that land-- what interference with your preexisting practice of feeding your sheep occurs when someone does that something to the land?"

I don't know. Maybe I'm a poor little shepherd living in the countryside, and I wake up from my deaf slumber to find that my grazing fields have been tarmacked over to build a private airport (complete with strip-club) for some rich guy.
Golly gee, it does appear you have a cause of action then! I do believe you need to be compensated for the remaining market value of your sheep, any serious questions of calculation calculated in your favor, as they are going to die from this gigantic airport that covered all your grazing fields.

A more normal sized airport would have proportionally less compensation for the lesser but not eliminated ability to graze.

Now apparently I'm meant to head over to a court run for profit and pay them to enact justice upon a man rich enough to build a goddamn airport for himself?
Well, there are a lot more of you to collect dues from than there are of him.
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.
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 9:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 2:25:36 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I often here capitalists defend their position that the worker is as economically free as the business owner because they can choose to work for someone else. But just because you can work for someone else doesn't mean its based on free contracts. So if the basis of private property (land) being that if you claim and homestead it, it is yours..your private property.. then let's imagine the following scenario. You take 100 people and drop them on an island (let's say a square mile) and we follow the notion of claimed homesteaded land as the right of property. Individuals have no restraint (other than the power of the group; which you oppose) on the land and resources they can claim leading to a situation where a percentage of the 100 people would own the land and resources and a percentage of the people don't have land and resources leaving them only their labor to sell (which implies that land and resources hold substantially more power in the contract than labour does.. simply because land and resources are fundamentals for humans to work and create..its the basis of all that the agreement will be predicated on.).

Which now leads me to the problem of capitalism and the complete unequal distribution of power. Power being in the hands of the land "owners" or (claimers).

..because the land and important resources are held in the hands of a few..the buyers (owners of land) and sellers (workers) of labor are not on equal ground for a free voluntary agreement to take place..meaning that the bartering value is skewed in the favor of the buyers because they own all the land that production takes place on (which they obtained through mere claim). Just because you can say no to your current employer and work for someone else who (just like your last employer expresses complete dominion over the land that they have acquired by claiming the land) just means you get to choose who you want to have control over you. If 10 people on the island own all the land, do you really think that those 90 people individually hold as much power as an individual land owner? Hell no. Which means it's not anarchism. That's why unions exist and have existed. That's why less than 10% of the wealth goes to the working class (80% of the people).
I'm not trying to start a war, I'm just trying to explain why, after being an anarcho-capitalist for a number of years, have changed my views to oppose this system.

"just because you can decide your rulers in a period of time doesn't mean you're not a slave"

Private property seems to me, in many ways to be the natural conclusion of allowing people to negotiate with each other for the use of land. No one is anymore justified to seize the land than anyone else. It comes down to whether or not you allow people the freedom to convince each other for the use of land or not. (Now a days chiefly through purchasing it)
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 1:42:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/20/2014 7:53:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"you can sue someone for messing with that, but it's gonna be hard to see what your damages are"

So if I decide to live in a tin shack, someone could knock it down and build a brothel over it, and my recourse would be to head to a for-profit court, who may decide after I pay them that I am owed $20 in damages, because my home was a piece of trash. If this is your system, fine, but it seems fairly inhuman to me.

The whole idea of 'value' is subjective anyway - even my tin shack may be worth millions if you asked the right person (and even if they're being honest).

Furthermore, "So you have no objections if I appropriate your body?", aside from being incredibly kinky, seems to imply that morality is simply property rights. Does that mean that if I get shot by a cranky old man that I should simply try to sue him?

"But no, it's not "based on" self ownership, self-ownership proceeds from this. It's based on our mutual need as rational beings to not have our attempts at producing the needs of our existence interfered with"

1. I 'need' X
2. Y is the only way I can think of that will achieve X
Therefore, Y is justified.

This is an argument from pure intuition. Would you like to try again? I'm sorry to have to be the one to say this, but 'want doesn't get' unless you can provide a justifiable way of attaining that want. Don't worry, even Sam Harris has made this mistake.

"Golly gee" - Oh, please tell me that behind that Mars sign next to your name is a gorgeous little South Carolinian girl.

"I do believe you need to be compensated for the remaining market value of your sheep, any serious questions of calculation calculated in your favor, as they are going to die from this gigantic airport that covered all your grazing fields"

I know, it was obscene wasn't it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 4:11:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 1:42:33 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/20/2014 7:53:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"you can sue someone for messing with that, but it's gonna be hard to see what your damages are"

So if I decide to live in a tin shack, someone could knock it down and build a brothel over it, and my recourse would be to head to a for-profit court, who may decide after I pay them that I am owed $20 in damages, because my home was a piece of trash. If this is your system, fine, but it seems fairly inhuman to me.
Pretty sure it costs more to build a new tin shack to live in. The utility of the tin shack obviously consists of the whole having somewhere to reside sheltered thing, which means they need to replace that value.


The whole idea of 'value' is subjective anyway - even my tin shack may be worth millions if you asked the right person (and even if they're being honest).
Sentiment is not something a court can determine. The price of shelter is.


Furthermore, "So you have no objections if I appropriate your body?", aside from being incredibly kinky, seems to imply that morality is simply property rights. Does that mean that if I get shot by a cranky old man that I should simply try to sue him?
Precisely because you can't sue him at that point deterrent rather than compensatory justice is appropriate to that situation.

1. I 'need' X
2. Y is the only way I can think of that will achieve X
Therefore, Y is justified.
I need X.
You need X.
If we both do Y, our getting of X is more secure.
If one of us doesn't do Y, the other loses the reason to do Y toward that one.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 4:14:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In other words, it's not an argument from intuition, it's an argument from mutual self-interest.
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.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 5:54:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 4:14:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, it's not an argument from intuition, it's an argument from mutual self-interest.

So in other words it relies on freely-given consent, which means that there's no reason why I ought to abide by Y if I don't want to. That seems okay, but I don't think you'll find me signing up to this method of distributing property... Which makes the whole thing pretty futile.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:59:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 5:54:23 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/22/2014 4:14:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, it's not an argument from intuition, it's an argument from mutual self-interest.

So in other words it relies on freely-given consent, which means that there's no reason why I ought to abide by Y if I don't want to.
It does not rely on "consent" in the sense you're thinking of-- it's not right because it's a social contract, it's right because it logically proceeds from your actual interest (in producing food you can eat to live for example, as opposed to engaging in a war where you loot scraps because only a chump produces something they won't get to keep without compensation).
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.