Addressing "theft" within the "free market"

[angelatc]

No, you propose the employers, the rich and powerful the ability to impose conditions upon the poor, the labourers, and consumers. The power to choose a different master or tyrant is like the choice to live on the ocean instead of complying with the tyrannical state- it's not a free choice. You say you give everyone "100%" but that's so far from the truth.

Ah, but they also have the choice to start a business.

Socialism is the slavery of the masses.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't really have a problem with using specialized, idiosyncratic, or totally made-up definitions of words, I just wanted to be clear and state plainly that that is what you are doing, so that we're all on the same page.

The term of theft applies to purposefully denying an employee much of the value of their labour in a system that is pressed upon them, in the same scope as taxation. You see, in this system, the state is the originator of the present currency and its value, much like how labour originates from the business owner. the businessowner denies the labourer the full value of their work, saying that they deserve a cut due to the employment opportunity they provide just as the state denies the individual the full value of what they have, demanding some entitlement for creating the opportunity for you to succeed.

Man oh man, you are really hung up on this thing. I already told you I understand and am fine with you calling it theft. I already agreed with you! So what are you going on about? Call the phenomenon you don't like whatever arbitrary combination of symbols you want. Call it murder. Call it hopscotch. Call it scrumdiddillyuptious. I really don't care. I will just translate it in my mind to "something Sanguine doesn't like". So please, please, drop this tediousness. If you post again going on and on about "the term of theft" I am going to simply decide your IQ is too low and cease communication with you for the time.

I'm sorry, what? I don't exactly recall saying anything about knowing exactly what people want and do. I know how a demographic behaves and can draw limited conclusions about them, but no, I never said anything about predicting lives.

What you said was this:

I see people living their lives and voluntarily doing things, such as, for example, working at a factory in Bangladesh for one US dollar a day.
I, Sanguine, know that despite the uncontested fact that these people are freely choosing to do these things, they really do not want to do them!

What I say, is this:

I also see people making choices of their own free will.
I, Helmuth, interpret the fact that they freely and voluntarily make choice X as incontrovertible proof that they do want to do X.

My position is unassailable. And your position is clearly wrong. That's all I was trying to say about that.

No, what you said wasn't relevant to my point. Was I willingly born into capitalist society as opposed to say, developed anarchy? No, I wasn't. I talked about choice, not spiritual beliefs regarding our origins.

Actually, whether you were willingly born into a "capitalist" society (whatever that means -- this term means so many different things to different people it's probably utterly useless and meaningless here, and I would encourage you to use some clearer term and describe what you're talking about in a clearer way) depends on what you believe you were up to prior to being born. If you believe that you existed in some way, it is possible that you did, in fact, get the chance to choose or to have some input into what situation you would be born into.

But, here you ask the same question again and simply answer it yourself: "No, I wasn't." OK, so you were just using the "question" as a rhetorical device. You want to make some kind of point about the "born-into problem". This problem is common to all social orders. It would thus be ridiculous and unfair to try to use it to impeach any particular social order, wouldn't you agree, Sanguine?

To quote myself going further in depth on this issue:

The "born into" problem applies equally to any other voluntary community, such as the drug prohibition community, or the no-prostitution-here community. In fact, the "born into" problem is a feature of any society whatsoever. What if a person is born into a crazy libertarian society where the right to be a baby's guardian can be bought and sold? And he can't move for some reason (that reason being: he's a baby), what then? He's out of luck, huh? What if a person is born into a society wherein there is any element whatsoever with which he disagrees, what then? He's out of luck! Babies are always going to be out of luck, sorry.

The nice thing about a libertarian society is that there is the maximum amount respect for a person's boundaries and private property, and so once he grows up and comes into his own, he can live his life in the way that he chooses. And the "born into" problem can be sorted out by the market, we may expect, in a better way than any other possible. There may be some kind of different, less strict rules that apply to a child up until a coming of age ceremony wherein he agrees to be bound by the rules of his parents' community, and/or whatever other community(ies) he chooses.

How exactly does your system "empower" them? Cut down the rhetoric and provide explanations. Otherwise, I won't take you seriously.

Thank you for asking! This is an excellent question. Here is exactly how I want to empower them:

I propose that the poor, the consumers, and the workers (the 3 groups you have expressed concern about) have the power to buy, sell, and do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, however they want, with whomever they want, for whatever price they want. That is a lot of power. In fact, it's absolute power. This is total, unabridged, dictatorial power. It is 100% of the power that is possible to give them.

Let's focus on this above paragraph, since it is the crux of my position. Maybe you agree with it. Maybe you don't. I don't know. You haven't said anything about it. I'd appreciate it if you would. If you do not want to give 100% of the power to the poor, the consumers, and the workers, why not? If you do, then have we come to an agreement and can now join hands in unity?

 

[Sanguine]

Ok, you're resorting to spewing gibberish now, in hopes of being able to simply talk so much that we will all go away and you can pretend that you won the debate.

In your first post, you claimed that raising the minimum wage equated to raising unemployment was a myth spread by rich businessmen.





Then you went on to say that raising the minimum wage actually increases unemployment.



Then you implied that as long as it was only small businesses that went under as a result of an increase in inefficiency, that was ok, and even went so far as to believe that large corporations don't actually care about efficiency, they only care about the profit they will lose as a result of increasing inefficiency. (Another hat tip to the liberal "corporations are evil!" card, komrade.) That's ridiculous. Large corporations buy smaller companies all the time to profit from them - sometimes that profit comes from ending production of the former competitor's product. Small businesses often start with a long term exit strategy of being purchased by a bigger competitor. For someone who claims to intimately understand business, you seem to not really understand business.

So you hate big businesses, but you also sneer at and mock small start-ups, most of whom already run at losses for years. So pray tell - what business endeavors do you actually respect?

Profit is nothing more than a measure of efficiency. Of course business (small and large both) wants to run as efficiently as possible.

You don't even make sense. You're just making noise.

I'm making perfect sense, you're just acting like I'm using your own reasoning. I stated the rules for when wage increases cause unemployment. That does not mean that if a wage rises, people are laid off, but it doesn't mean you can raise the minimum wage to $50 and not expect the economy to go belly-up. Profit IS the first, second, third, and fourth priorities of a business. That isn't a "corporation are evil" line at all, it's the goddamn truth. if a business' priority isn't profit, then it most likely won't do too well.

Then, the rest of your post doesn't really address anything I said. It sort of went "strawman strawman strawman Komrade". By the way, calling me "Komrade" is like saying Mises and Krugman are the same. Just throwing that out there.

Ah, but they also have the choice to start a business.

Socialism is the slavery of the masses.

Hahahaha, as if everyone has the funds to start a business. "But the poor can just buy more money!"

Man oh man, you are really hung up on this thing. I already told you I understand and am fine with you calling it theft. I already agreed with you! So what are you going on about? Call the phenomenon you don't like whatever arbitrary combination of symbols you want. Call it murder. Call it hopscotch. Call it scrumdiddillyuptious. I really don't care. I will just translate it in my mind to "something Sanguine doesn't like". So please, please, drop this tediousness. If you post again going on and on about "the term of theft" I am going to simply decide your IQ is too low and cease communication with you for the time.

You didn't really agree, you said "You are choosing to apply the term "theft" in a "wider" way, to mean (instead of its actual, simple definition) anything you find wrong and lamentable." Which isn't really the case, I'm applying it in the same manner that most RPF users tend to use it as. I'm not hung up on it, I'm responding to what you said and explaining myself. What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency of the popular libertarian position.

What you said was this:

I see people living their lives and voluntarily doing things, such as, for example, working at a factory in Bangladesh for one US dollar a day.
I, Sanguine, know that despite the uncontested fact that these people are freely choosing to do these things, they really do not want to do them!

These individuals do not work freely. Limiting the individual's choices to "work for $1 or work for .50c" and have them pick between the two isn't freedom, that's complete restraint. But, behold the doublespeak of the modern libertarian! Makes me wonder how frustrated Hayek would be to see that.

What I say, is this:

I also see people making choices of their own free will.
I, Helmuth, interpret the fact that they freely and voluntarily make choice X as incontrovertible proof that they do want to do X.

"Adopt my job or starve" is not a free choice, any more than "accept the state or be tossed in jail" is. Funny how comparable New Libertarianism's points are to the arguments I've heard in favour of Leninism, isn't it?

My position is unassailable. And your position is clearly wrong. That's all I was trying to say about that.

No, you're just unjustly arrogant.

Actually, whether you were willingly born into a "capitalist" society (whatever that means -- this term means so many different things to different people it's probably utterly useless and meaningless here, and I would encourage you to use some clearer term and describe what you're talking about in a clearer way) depends on what you believe you were up to prior to being born. If you believe that you existed in some way, it is possible that you did, in fact, get the chance to choose or to have some input into what situation you would be born into.

In "free market" capitalism, your life is for the most part made up for you. The system I was raised in was not one of my choosing. If say, someone is born into poverty, then how can they afford an education to become successful? What about the food and medicine needed to sustain life? They don't choose to be poor.

But, here you ask the same question again and simply answer it yourself: "No, I wasn't." OK, so you were just using the "question" as a rhetorical device. You want to make some kind of point about the "born-into problem". This problem is common to all social orders. It would thus be ridiculous and unfair to try to use it to impeach any particular social order, wouldn't you agree, Sanguine?

I would, if we were discussing systems which lack equal OPPORTUNITY to succeed. Most of the impoverished do not have the means to succeed in the first place. They can't just "Go start a business", considering that many require large amounts of money to begin with. That's not to say that you need money to start any business (I can think of multiple businesses which require small amounts of funds), but the options aren't lucrative, and competition would weaken profits considerably.

To quote myself going further in depth on this issue:



Thank you for asking! This is an excellent question. Here is exactly how I want to empower them:

I propose that the poor, the consumers, and the workers (the 3 groups you have expressed concern about) have the power to buy, sell, and do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, however they want, with whomever they want, for whatever price they want. That is a lot of power. In fact, it's absolute power. This is total, unabridged, dictatorial power. It is 100% of the power that is possible to give them.

They don't have the power over what is produced, nor do they have power over their labour. What you described is merely a benefit to the consumer, not to the poor What meagre benefit it is to purchase freely when you don't have the money to purchase or the means to earn it?

Let's focus on this above paragraph, since it is the crux of my position. Maybe you agree with it. Maybe you don't. I don't know. You haven't said anything about it. I'd appreciate it if you would. If you do not want to give 100% of the power to the poor, the consumers, and the workers, why not? If you do, then have we come to an agreement and can now join hands in unity.

As for buying whatever, whenever, wherever, from whomever and for whatever reason, i'd agree with you 100%. My entire point is that it doesn't go far enough, and you're trying to say that I'm taking away their liberty. Maybe you haven't realized yet, but I don't exactly fit in the caricature you people tend to have concerning socialism. In fact, my opinions would get me arrested and shot in the USSR. My stance is for freedom for all, freedom from the state, freedom from poverty, and freedom to control your own life. That last bit? Yeah, that's why I don't like the capitalist systems that RPF users have here- because anarchy is truly the only way to go.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So please, please, drop this tediousness. If you post again going on and on about "the term of theft" I am going to simply decide your IQ is too low and cease communication with you for the time.

You didn't really agree, you said "You are choosing to apply the term "theft" in a "wider" way, to mean (instead of its actual, simple definition) anything you find wrong and lamentable." Which isn't really the case, I'm applying it in the same manner that most RPF users tend to use it as. I'm not hung up on it, I'm responding to what you said and explaining myself. What I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency of the popular libertarian position.

IQ test failure. Enjoy this post while you can, because, as you were warned, it will be the last one you get from me for a while. If you want to have interesting conversations with intelligent people, you have to meet a minumum level of intelligence and reasonableness. Slow, dense, obtuse people are of no interest. I could go talk with an automated phone system.

Even having that little spark of mental talent that would allow you to figure out how to use the forum software properly to reply to posts would have gone a long way to assuage my concern. As it is, I admit that I have reverted to feeling that my first reply to you in this thread was clearly the most accurate.

Now that that's out of the way, back to business. You tediously and stupidly insist that you are using the word theft correctly. But you do not explain why you think so. You make no attempt to justify what you're saying. I have pointed out to you the definition of theft. I have pointed out that what you describe as theft bears no relationship to it, as far as I can see. Your reply to my helpful pointings? Zip. Empty set. You didn't tell me that I'm wrong on the definition, you didn't propose your own definition, you didn't attempt to shoehorn the actions you call theft into my definition, you didn't do any kind of fancy intellectual loop-de-loops to try to make it seem reasonable to call "charging credit card-level interest rates" or "employing workers at a lower wage than Sanguine feels they should be happy to work at" theft. Nothing. You just doggedly maintain that you are right to call these things theft, and give no defense whatsoever that might cause someone to agree with you. Furthermore, you seem to be under the delusion that it matters what you call it. As if this calling non-theft actions theft gives you a big stick to beat all who disagree with you into submission.

You then allege some kind of inconsistency on the part of libertarians. You don't explain this statement. No one has any idea what they're inconsistent on, nor why they are, you just make the accusation and leave it at that. Lame, weak, unpersuasive, and worst of all: boring.

These individuals do not work freely. Limiting the individual's choices to "work for $1 or work for .50c" and have them pick between the two isn't freedom, that's complete restraint.

If people are limiting them, if people are making aggressive interference into their lives, then yes, that's restraint. If Joe comes calling on Steve and says, "You can work at my factory, or you can work at Jim's. We won't let you choose anything else. 'Neither' is not an option. If you try to choose neither, we'll drag you in chains to one of our factories and whip you until your work, or maybe just fine you, or maybe throw you in a cage, or take away your food until you starve," then Steve is, in fact, being restrained. But if Joe is just living his life, never making any imposition on Steve, then Joe is not restraining Steve, wouldn't you agree? You can only restrain someone by, umm, restraining them. Even if Joe decides to remodel his garage into a factory and place an ad offering 50 cents an hour to anyone who wants to come assemble widgets with him, he is still not restraining Steve; he's just living his life. Even if Steve reads the ad, he is still not being restrained by Joe. He could have chosen to not read the ad. Even if Steve decides that he wants to come assemble the widgets, he's still not being restrained by Joe. Steve decided, Steve wanted, Steve told his feet to carry him over to Joe's garage. It is Steve's choice to associate with Joe. His free choice. Any forcible modification of that relationship is an abrigment of both Joe's and Steve's freedom, not an enhancement of it.

"Adopt my job or starve" is not a free choice, any more than "accept the state or be tossed in jail" is.

No, indeed it isn't. Just as I said above, if Joe says, "Come work for me or else I'll take away your food until you starve," then he is restraining Steve. In that case, a person (Joe) is doing the restraining, and I think that society should avoid such restraining and non-voluntary relationships.

If instead of a person, reality is doing the constraining, that is a different horse. If Steve is being "restrained" by the fact that his cupboards are not filled with food that naturally multiplies and keeps him from starving, then whose problem is that? Is it Joe's fault? Is Joe restraining him? No, Joe has nothing to do with it. By remodeling his garage, or not, by offering to hire workers, or not, Joe does not restrain anyone. He may give Steve additional choices by putting out the opportunity to associate with him, but he doesn't take away any of the choices Steve had outside of and apart from Joe, the choices Steve would have had even if Joe had never lived.

My position is unassailable. And your position is clearly wrong. That's all I was trying to say about that.

No, you're just unjustly arrogant.

It would be more persuasive to make an argument explaining why I am not right and why you are not wrong. Rather than a bald statement, unsupported and alone, orphaned from any reason to believe it.

In "free market" capitalism, your life is for the most part made up for you.

I propose a system, call it what you will, in which nothing in your life is made up for you. In which you have total, absolute, 100%, dictatorial control over what life you choose for yourself. I should think such a system would be attractive to you.

The system I was raised in was not one of my choosing.

This problem, if it is a problem, is common to all social systems. You cannot blame capitalism(nor fascism, nor Proudhonism, nor monarchism) that babies don't pilot the stork. I already explained this. I assume it all went over your head.

If say, someone is born into poverty, then how can they afford an education to become successful? What about the food and medicine needed to sustain life? They don't choose to be poor.

Reality is what it is. Just as babies don't pick and choose who they are born to (unless maybe they do), and that's just a part of reality, so too is our conspicuous lack of a Garden of Eden. We don't have infinite plenty. That is not any particular social system's fault. It's just the nature of the cosmos that we live in. Fully roasted ducks do not fall from the sky. Bemoan this all you want, but don't bemoan it to me. Take it up with the Designer.

Reality restrains us always and everywhere. That doesn't take away our 100% power. So long as other people are not restraining me, I will have 100% power over my own life.

I would, if we were discussing systems which lack equal OPPORTUNITY to succeed. Most of the impoverished do not have the means to succeed in the first place. They can't just "Go start a business", considering that many require large amounts of money to begin with. That's not to say that you need money to start any business (I can think of multiple businesses which require small amounts of funds), but the options aren't lucrative, and competition would weaken profits considerably.

Again, it is not anyone's job to change reality into impossible non-reality. So long as no one is forcibly preventing me from starting a business, I am not being restrained. I am 100% in control of my destiny, even though nature didn't provide me with a tool and die shop at the moment of my birth. Stupid nature, what was she thinking!

I propose that the poor, the consumers, and the workers (the 3 groups you have expressed concern about) have the power to buy, sell, and do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, however they want, with whomever they want, for whatever price they want. That is a lot of power. In fact, it's absolute power. This is total, unabridged, dictatorial power. It is 100% of the power that is possible to give them.

They don't have the power over what is produced, nor do they have power over their labour.

Untrue! Perhaps you have misunderstood the words I have typed describing the system I want. I have typed them about a dozen times. (Yet another reason why this is my last post to you for a while.) In my system, they have total control over everything they produce! They also have total control over everything that other people produce which they chose to buy. They literally couldn't have any more power and control over what is produced. It's not possible! 100% is the highest setting!

Or does your dial go to 11?

What you described is merely a benefit to the consumer, not to the poor What meagre benefit it is to purchase freely when you don't have the money to purchase or the means to earn it?

Read again, Grasshopper. "Buy, sell, and do whatever they want". I want them to act freely, to earn freely, to asociate freely, in short to do everything freely. That is 100% freedom. You can't have any more. 100% is the most you can have.

As for buying whatever, whenever, wherever, from whomever and for whatever reason, i'd agree with you 100%.

Buy, sell, and do. It could all be summed up as "do." Or "live." Live however you want. Could you agree with that, too?

My entire point is that it doesn't go far enough, and you're trying to say that I'm taking away their liberty.

Nay, I asked. I asked you. You never answered. I asked, "Do you propose giving them less than 100% freedom, perhaps 90% or 70%, or do you propose a logical absurdity of giving them 110% freedom?" Here you seem to be saying you favor 110% (or more). How would that work, exactly?

Maybe you haven't realized yet, but I don't exactly fit in the caricature you people tend to have concerning socialism.

I have not caricatured you. I do not assume you are a socialist. I have asked you several questions about what you believe, in an attempt to have a reasonable and intelligent conversation. My questions fell on deaf ears.

You have yet to tell us anything of substance about what you believe. Yet you are offended that some don't perfectly characterize what you believe? Get serious.

My stance is for freedom for all, freedom from the state, freedom from poverty, and freedom to control your own life.

Well, excellent. To the extent that you may be meaning by "freedom from poverty," "freedom from reality," to be brought about by infringing on some people's volitional freedom, I may disagree with that. Other than that, however, I am in complete agreement.

 

[Sanguine]

IQ test failure. Enjoy this post while you can, because, as you were warned, it will be the last one you get from me for a while. If you want to have interesting conversations with intelligent people, you have to meet a minumum level of intelligence and reasonableness. Slow, dense, obtuse people are of no interest. I could go talk with an automated phone system.

Even having that little spark of mental talent that would allow you to figure out how to use the forum software properly to reply to posts would have gone a long way to assuage my concern. As it is, I admit that I have reverted to feeling that my first reply to you in this thread was clearly the most accurate.
Yet again, you resort to ad hominem

Now that that's out of the way, back to business. You tediously and stupidly insist that you are using the word theft correctly. But you do not explain why you think so. You make no attempt to justify what you're saying. I have pointed out to you the definition of theft. I have pointed out that what you describe as theft bears no relationship to it, as far as I can see. Your reply to my helpful pointings? Zip. Empty set. You didn't tell me that I'm wrong on the definition, you didn't propose your own definition, you didn't attempt to shoehorn the actions you call theft into my definition, you didn't do any kind of fancy intellectual loop-de-loops to try to make it seem reasonable to call "charging credit card-level interest rates" or "employing workers at a lower wage than Sanguine feels they should be happy to work at" theft. Nothing. You just doggedly maintain that you are right to call these things theft, and give no defense whatsoever that might cause someone to agree with you. Furthermore, you seem to be under the delusion that it matters what you call it. As if this calling non-theft actions theft gives you a big stick to beat all who disagree with you into submission.

I'm sorry, but A worker is denied most of the fruits of their labour in the capitalist system, earning only a fraction of what they make. I've explained this before, and yet you are acting like it isn't "theft" ...

You then allege some kind of inconsistency on the part of libertarians. You don't explain this statement. No one has any idea what they're inconsistent on, nor why they are, you just make the accusation and leave it at that. Lame, weak, unpersuasive, and worst of all: boring.

It looks like I have to be absolutely direct, because the supposedly intelligent libertarian cannot figure it out: Capitalism is not liberty, nor is it liberating. To be denied much of your value as a labourer, and to be made dependent upon the employment of others is not liberty in the slightest. It's coercive, and exploitative.


If people are limiting them, if people are making aggressive interference into their lives, then yes, that's restraint. If Joe comes calling on Steve and says, "You can work at my factory, or you can work at Jim's. We won't let you choose anything else. 'Neither' is not an option. If you try to choose neither, we'll drag you in chains to one of our factories and whip you until your work, or maybe just fine you, or maybe throw you in a cage, or take away your food until you starve," then Steve is, in fact, being restrained. But if Joe is just living his life, never making any imposition on Steve, then Joe is not restraining Steve, wouldn't you agree? You can only restrain someone by, umm, restraining them. Even if Joe decides to remodel his garage into a factory and place an ad offering 50 cents an hour to anyone who wants to come assemble widgets with him, he is still not restraining Steve; he's just living his life. Even if Steve reads the ad, he is still not being restrained by Joe. He could have chosen to not read the ad. Even if Steve decides that he wants to come assemble the widgets, he's still not being restrained by Joe. Steve decided, Steve wanted, Steve told his feet to carry him over to Joe's garage. It is Steve's choice to associate with Joe. His free choice. Any forcible modification of that relationship is an abrigment of both Joe's and Steve's freedom, not an enhancement of it.

When one is completely dependent on employment to survive, they are simply not free. "You may work for me, or you may work for Joe, or you may starve" is not free whatsoever. The system itself is what infringes liberty, and those that own the means of production are the ones that keep it going. It is, in reality no different than the state enforcing the "support or die". Either way, you are a slave to a master.

No, indeed it isn't. Just as I said above, if Joe says, "Come work for me or else I'll take away your food until you starve," then he is restraining Steve. In that case, a person (Joe) is doing the restraining, and I think that society should avoid such restraining and non-voluntary relationships.

Yet, starving is considered voluntary? Well, I guess you are "free" to choose between taxes and jail. That is coercion through the existing, not enduring reality. Reality is, Steve doesn't have to starve. He doesn't have to make thousands of dollars for his employer and make a paltry amount in wages for it.

If instead of a person, reality is doing the constraining, that is a different horse. If Steve is being "restrained" by the fact that his cupboards are not filled with food that naturally multiplies and keeps him from starving, then whose problem is that? Is it Joe's fault? Is Joe restraining him? No, Joe has nothing to do with it. By remodeling his garage, or not, by offering to hire workers, or not, Joe does not restrain anyone. He may give Steve additional choices by putting out the opportunity to associate with him, but he doesn't take away any of the choices Steve had outside of and apart from Joe, the choices Steve would have had even if Joe had never lived.

"Reality" is that in fascist Italy, you supported the state, or you were imprisoned. Reality doesn't constrain coercively, but the system does. The capitalist system does exactly that. You are supportive of a system in which poverty is determined upon birth. Additional choices doesn't equal freedom (think support the state, slave labour, or death)

It would be more persuasive to make an argument explaining why I am not right and why you are not wrong. Rather than a bald statement, unsupported and alone, orphaned from any reason to believe it.

I propose a system, call it what you will, in which nothing in your life is made up for you. In which you have total, absolute, 100%, dictatorial control over what life you choose for yourself. I should think such a system would be attractive to you.

mhm, but you fail to do that by supporting a system where equal opportunity is not given.

This problem, if it is a problem, is common to all social systems. You cannot blame capitalism(nor fascism, nor Proudhonism, nor monarchism) that babies don't pilot the stork. I already explained this. I assume it all went over your head.

Except I know systems wherein it can. We call it the Nordic model, which while it has its flaws, is substantially more free.

Reality is what it is. Just as babies don't pick and choose who they are born to (unless maybe they do), and that's just a part of reality, so too is our conspicuous lack of a Garden of Eden. We don't have infinite plenty. That is not any particular social system's fault. It's just the nature of the cosmos that we live in. Fully roasted ducks do not fall from the sky. Bemoan this all you want, but don't bemoan it to me. Take it up with the Designer.

It isn't reality. Free market capitalism of the hard right is a system that is forced upon us by the rich.

Reality restrains us always and everywhere. That doesn't take away our 100% power. So long as other people are not restraining me, I will have 100% power over my own life.

We call that anarchy, which is inherently socialist.

Again, it is not anyone's job to change reality into impossible non-reality. So long as no one is forcibly preventing me from starting a business, I am not being restrained. I am 100% in control of my destiny, even though nature didn't provide me with a tool and die shop at the moment of my birth. Stupid nature, what was she thinking!

Tell me, how did you acquire the tool and die shop? How did you receive the education to be a competent tool and die maker? The reasoning you and your peers tend to use tends to assume that people just have the funds to do whatever they wish. That is simply faulty reasoning, as poverty is really caused by the system itself.

Untrue! Perhaps you have misunderstood the words I have typed describing the system I want. I have typed them about a dozen times. (Yet another reason why this is my last post to you for a while.) In my system, they have total control over everything they produce! They also have total control over everything that other people produce which they chose to buy. They literally couldn't have any more power and control over what is produced. It's not possible! 100% is the highest setting!

Just because you SAY it's so, it doesn't make it true. The labourers don't have control over what they produce. If they did, it would e called socialism through public (not state) ownership of the means of production.

Or does your dial go to 11?

Maybe your dial doesn't have much of a difference between settings.

Read again, Grasshopper. "Buy, sell, and do whatever they want". I want them to act freely, to earn freely, to asociate freely, in short to do everything freely. That is 100% freedom. You can't have any more. 100% is the most you can have.

Buy, sell, and do. It could all be summed up as "do." Or "live." Live however you want. Could you agree with that, too?

It would be, if options for many weren't limited to begin with. Freedom isn't by any means one-dimensional.

Nay, I asked. I asked you. You never answered. I asked, "Do you propose giving them less than 100% freedom, perhaps 90% or 70%, or do you propose a logical absurdity of giving them 110% freedom?" Here you seem to be saying you favor 110% (or more). How would that work, exactly?

Maybe because you cap it far early? It looks as odd to me as if a fascist told you that their ideology provides "100%" freedom.

I have not caricatured you. I do not assume you are a socialist. I have asked you several questions about what you believe, in an attempt to have a reasonable and intelligent conversation. My questions fell on deaf ears.

I'm an anarchist that advocates the dissolution of political hierarchy that is enforced by both wealth and political power, as both are tools to commit coercive acts and as both are limited almost completely to one class. I believe that ideally, there should be public ownership of the means of production and that materials should be delivered to the individual by an unbiased AI, meeting life needs while also factoring scarcity. However, I realize that capitalism is a means to make such a society possible, but at the same time, I don't think that would mean that the liberty and potential of individuals should be stomped on by poverty generated capitalism.

If I were to fully write my thoughts, we might be here for a while. To summarize, I hold that politics and capitalist economics are centred around personal gain, which would chiefly be the expansion of their influence, or personal profit. I hold that society today could be seen as three separate powers at work- the state, the business, and the people as a collective, and further divided by class. I however, unlike those that want to see balance between the two, or favouring the state (authoritarian) or business (right wing capitalist), I favour the people (known as original libertarianism [which anarchism is the extreme side to], though now you guys took that term after losing "liberal" to slightly liberty oriented-moderates). Super simple stuff, really.

You have yet to tell us anything of substance about what you believe. Yet you are offended that some don't perfectly characterize what you believe? Get serious.

Calling me "komrade" would be as crass as to call you Rand Jr. I don't particularly enjoy calling other people sociopaths for no reson.

Well, excellent. To the extent that you may be meaning by "freedom from poverty," "freedom from reality," to be brought about by infringing on some people's volitional freedom, I may disagree with that. Other than that, however, I am in complete agreement.

Freedom from oppression through the class system is more like it.

Answers in Bold

 

[noneedtoaggress]

When one is completely dependent on employment to survive, they are simply not free. "You may work for me, or you may work for Joe, or you may starve" is not free whatsoever. The system itself is what infringes liberty, and those that own the means of production are the ones that keep it going. It is, in reality no different than the state enforcing the "support or die". Either way, you are a slave to a master.

What about when one is completely dependent on consuming scarce particles? If you don't consume scarce particles you will perish. Given the choice wouldn't anyone prefer to not have to breathe or eat to survive? Is there a difference between liberty and freedom? Are you a slave if you must expend energy to breathe oxygen or consume nutrients? Can the laws of nature perpetuate a system of slavery and infringement on liberty? Is nature coercive?

"Reality" is that in fascist Italy, you supported the state, or you were imprisoned. Reality doesn't constrain coercively, but the system does. The capitalist system does exactly that. You are supportive of a system in which poverty is determined upon birth.

In other words, reality doesn't restrain through coercion, but individual human beings acting within certain paradigms do.

While it's certainly true that poverty can be caused by humans and that human productivity can be affected on a large scale by institutionalization of a paradigm, it's also true that poverty can't be simply reduced to humans not adopting and acting within an ideal paradigm.

Nature has determined that poverty is the base state and that humans must produce their way to prosperity. All humans are born with nothing and don't develop the necessary skills to produce anything for themselves for a number of years. What they consume can only be given to them by someone who came before them acting in their interest. Nature has determined that humans must grapple with the fact of scarcity and the necessity of producing goods to satisfy needs and desires.

We all may share and enjoy the the same rights as humans equal to each other but nature will still consistently remind us that our diversity and individuality, along with scarcity, are facts of reality.

Additional choices doesn't equal freedom (think support the state, slave labour, or death)

All freedom is, is the ability to make choices. Utter freedom would be the ability to conform even the laws of nature to whatever you so chose. The more choices you are able to make the more freedom you have. The more choices are made for you, the less freedom you have. Additional choices = additional freedom.

That being said, there's a difference between freedom and liberty, and a reason why libertarianism isn't used interchangeably with "freedomism".

I'm an anarchist that advocates the dissolution of political hierarchy that is enforced by both wealth and political power, as both are tools to commit coercive acts and as both are limited almost completely to one class. I believe that ideally, there should be public ownership of the means of production and that materials should be delivered to the individual by an unbiased AI, meeting life needs while also factoring scarcity. However, I realize that capitalism is a means to make such a society possible, but at the same time, I don't think that would mean that the liberty and potential of individuals should be stomped on by poverty generated capitalism.

What does it mean to have an "unbiased" AI determining resource allocation? How would the AI access the constantly changing values contained within each individual's mind? What if you're not satisfied with the choices the AI makes for you? Are you free from oppression? What if a significant number of people are dissatisfied with the choices the AI makes?