I was responding to the point that these workers want to decide how much everyone gets in the process. They get to decide how much is fair for the entrepreneur to get for ‘investment’ and ‘organization’.
I think that’s poppycock. If they don’t like how it’s done, then they can accumulate capital and do it differently. If you decide to have a gigantic family and live in the city, then you’ve nothing to complain about.
I was responding to the point that these workers want to decide how much everyone gets in the process. They get to decide how much is fair for the entrepreneur to get for ‘investment’ and ‘organization’.
Which is why the whole issue can be avoided by turning workers into the capitalists of their own workplaces.
If you decide to have a gigantic family and live in the city, then you’ve nothing to complain about.
Who decides where they’re born and how many children their parents had? Who chooses their parents for that matter? (By familial obligations I was not referring to the nuclear family. I would consider those self-obligations. Family obligations is your extended family. Most good people would feel bad to leave their parents and siblings out in the cold to starve.
You don’t need to turn workers into capitalists. Capitalists already are workers.
And how do you do that?
So because some people want to be good, they are entitled to be good with my property?
And how do you do that?
How long have we been going over these same old issues? I’m not the statist you want me to be. it’s about social orginization and personal ethics, not legal mandates and politics.
How many times, really? (If I had to guess I would say you are well aware of “winning over the lurkers,” and that’s what brings it up. I really just don’t know how many times I can say I don’t support taxation nor forced redistribution)
So you’re an anarcho capitalist who really likes charity?
No lol. I join with my socialist bretheren in saying that anarchy is incompatible with capitalism. I wouldn’t stop you guys from calling yourself as such, I just consider you propertarian market anarchists. Capitalism is what we’re in now, imo. Capitalism is what has occured in hisotry. Capitalism, imho, requires a state. Markets do not, and in fact are only hindered by a state.
But if you want to call me an an-cap cuz I’m a voluntaryist, I am fine with that. I in no way consider myself a capitalist (as a political position, mind you) tho.
I’m just an anarchist who desires a society where class distinctions are virtually non-existent; workers (or just most people) control the means of production (and ergo production is decided more on need).
Some time now. I don’t think you understand anything more about economics since we started.
The issue is that your concept of justice is in contradiction with a free society, because you believe people entitled to things denied them are in an unjust condition, right? This is the class struggle. The people who don’t have what you believe they deserve to have.
You also believe people have positive rights to things. Someone has to provide those. If you say charity, then it’s not a right.
So you can tell me you’re not for politics, taxes etc, but the logical conclusion of your position necessitates a violation of property rights by some to fulfill your concept of good for others.
To think you can lecture to us about taking care of our families, as though it never occurred to any of us. What arrogance.
Right, and what I’m not sure you get is that they can do this precisely because there exists a capitalist that has already previously produced and saved a part of his output by forgoing its immediate consumption in order to hire a worker and pay him a wage.
The issue is that your concept of justice is in contradiction with a free society, because you believe people entitled to things denied them are in an unjust condition, right? This is the class struggle. The people who don’t have what you believe they deserve to have.
I study history; evidence before theory. They do deserve it. We all do. The whole system is built upon theft, murder, and exploitation. You think we could get coffee so cheap in this country without our statist system? You think we could have gotten this land so cheaply without the forced displacement of native people’s? The Mexican-American war? Slavery? You have to be kidding me.
You also believe people have positive rights to things. Someone has to provide those. If you say charity, then it’s not a right
Why, if everyone should be entitled to it, how is it not a right? It is my firm belief everyone deserves subsistence, education, and healthcare; call it what you will, I will continue calling them rights for simplicity.
So you can tell me you’re not for politics, taxes etc, but the logical conclusion of your position necessitates a violation of property rights by some to fulfill your concept of good for others.
Why don’t you just map that out for me then? How do my premises lead to such a conclusion? Or are you just speaking rhetoric you pulled out of your.. favorite right wing propaganda?
To think you can lecture to us about taking care of our families, as though it never occurred to any of us. What arrogance
Do you disagree that good people don’t like to see their families starve? If not, then I don’t see what your issue with my statement is.
That evil capitalism!:
Right, and what I’m not sure you get is that they can do this precisely because there exists a capitalist that has already previously produced and saved a part of his output by forgoing its immediate consumption in order to hire a worker and pay him a wage.
Not all capitalists have really produced anything other than investments. Inheritance does exist you know? I’m all for inheritance, I just don’t follow you (and it seems to take a certain dissonance to) that this does not create a distinct advantage in one’s ability to further prosper.
But either way on inheritance. Are you saying poor people are only able to eat and have shelter because of the grace of some rich guy? That’s what paycheck to paycheck is; the modern equivalent of subsitence farming. If our civilizations no longer existed, that is exactly what most poeple would do.
Clayton -
First, Im not sure that’s relevant.
Second, is there a text version of it? It’s takin forever to load on this lap top.
investments=savings.
Savings=previous production that is not consumed
Sure, it creates an advantage. But you have yet to provide a valid economic and ethical argument as to why this somehow unfairly makes other people that have less worse off. Other then sheer spite and envy, there is no basis to your complaints.
No grace involved. Just the rich guy, but actually in the capitalistic system, it’s not not just rich people that save. Almost everybody saves. Almost everybody is a stockholder.
subsistence farmers don’t have an obesity problem like 30% of our lower wage paycheck to paycheck people.
And what is subsistence to you? Obviously the bar must be constantly raised to keep the subsistence argument relevant. It’s always some bottom 20% or something. No matter what this 20% means compared to 50 years ago, or 200 years ago, or even to today’s India or China. I won’t even mention Africa.
You take offense when people imply that you’re a statist. Well, you will and should deserve that title until you stop arguing against economic logic out of sheer principle.
Nothing says the one who did the investing was the original producer and saver. That was my whole point.
It’s not a refutation of rich people so theres no spite or envy involved. Its an explanation for why, in capitalist societies, the rich far outstrip the poor.
It doesnt matter about 50 years ago, I’m talking about real people in real time; living in the here and now. And I include chinese, indians, and africans in that.
Subsistence means shelter and food and the ease at which one can obtain that. You can make fun of poor people all you want, but obesity is a problem for all classes, so Im not sure what your point is. In a culture w a high calorie diet (which is the cheapest food btw) and a sedentary lifestyle (most jobs are retail), that is to be expected.
So, in summation. If I disagree with you, I obviously want to force you to agree with me. Obviously I will put a gun to your head and force you to help poor people out. Disagreement = statismt! That’s moronic.
The bias is strong in this one.
Wouldn’t that mean that no one should hire any employees without relinquishing control over their accumulated capital in the deal? What if both sides simply desired an exchange of labor for wage? You would oppose such an agreement?
It should be obvious that we’re only defending people who legitimately saved and invested, not slavemasters and crony capitalists.
I live with a bunch of poor minorities. They blow all their money on cigarettes, alcohol, and cosmetics (brand name clothes, makeup). You might think that spending $3.5/day on a pack of cigarettes is negligible, but if you quit smoking RIGHT NOW, it has a net present value of $16,000 (assuming you smoke every day for the next 20 years at a discount rate of 5%. Very modest)
I do feel legitimately sorry for like, actual poor people who have no opportunities because they’re being shafted by the greater powers. Mostly in “developing” countries. (Scare quotes because many of these countries are actually not developing… they’re regressing)
Source? I remember calculating how much you need to spend to get a very healthy diet (40/40/40 p/c/f, vitamins, fiber). It was about $10/day. Fast food is expensive as hell.
I still don’t understand how you’re not an anarcho-capitalist who really likes charity. I really like charity. Are we the same?
I don’t oppose it per se. I just think it is outdated and retarding of progress. Capitalists dont have to relinquish capital by force. But I find stock options and pensions make people more wealthy than wages.
I don’t understand why you equate capitalism with 1930’s business structures. Some of them are still around, but more sophisticated models are making their way in. I see it all the time. The managers who are about 40 are the best balance between experience and new business structures. Where do you work? What do you do?
p.s. The Amish are the ultimate anarcho capitalists.