“[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice on the surface, but if you think it through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny. Takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny. It’s a step towards the worst- But it’s all academic, ‘cause the business world would never permit it to happen, since it would destroy the economy. I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.” - Noam Chomsky
ಠ_ಠ
Rousseau, Humboldt, Kant, Ricardo, Mill and all who have agreed with them have postulated enlightenment ideas about human freedom that today find their expression in libertarian socialism.
I have starter a topic with some quotes from Rousseau and Humbolt, and remarks from Kant, although his instistence on always seeing people as ends rather then means is familiar and it’s implications on any master-servant relation are easily seen, ideas of Ricardo and Mill are explicitly socialist.
It can be found in Smith, too, with his opposition to division of labor, and advocacy of markets because they will lead to equality.
You see people as having titles of ownership over them. You think something de facto inalienable- labor- should be de jure alienable (possible to tranfer the title of), and the only consistent view is to considet the title of self-ownership also transferable. So, yes, consistent propertarianism supports slavery, people being property of another, who can do literally whatever he wants with them, they being his property, having voluntarily became such.
Exacly, someone tranfers the title of ownership over himself to someone else, and that someone else has every right to enforce their possession over his property.
Which can be done without employment, like it will be done in a socialist society.
Presumption based on bias and ingorance. Socialism was established twice in Europe, and in both cases lead to increace in production and eradication of poverty.
You advocate a system of hierarchy where people are bossed around by their masters, and you say that abolishing bosses will be a move towards liberty? This has absolutely no relation to reality, you are so immersed in capitalist propaganda you sould like someone with a pathological delusion.
As John Dewey said- capitalism is industrial feudalism. The lords command, and the serf toil according their decrees.
You accept this, don’t see why the underlining- with increaced competition, big business will suffer, that’s preciselly because why they have an interest in maintaneing the nanny state, which they control.
first of all, this isnt true. But secondly, is this your main problem with capitalist theory of property? You keep returning to the issue of slavery, which is a fallacious criticism in this context. If that issue were resolved, what else do you have?
Propertarians don’t accept in self-ownership?
The capitalist theory of property in itself is the problem. It should be abolished, and replaced with the (socialist) labor theory of property.
You have neither pointed out the fallacy, nor resolved any issue.
B-I-N-G-O.
Not all ancaps/voluntaryists believe it is a concept worth exploring. Many do, but not all. Why don’t you spend your time reading and educating yourself instead of “being a wise-ass and making ‘smart’ comments without knowing about what are you talking about.”
Neodoxy provided a great definition of slavery, one that many here hold to be their own. Slavery = being the property of another and forced servitude. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction. It’s like talking about voluntary rape. The definition of rape is that it isn’t voluntary or consensual sex. If you consent, then it isn’t rape.
If I consent to be your “slave”, then it isn’t slavery. The problem is when I rescind my consent. Some here do believe that you should not be allowed to do this, others do believe you should be able to. Rothbard was quite vocal about being allowed to rescind your consent to this arrangement. I agree with him but for different reasons.
So please, quit being an “ignoramus”.
Can you point to some propertarian thinkers that do not accept it?
Ok, slavery means that a person B has a title of ownership over A, and that he is justified in using force in maintaining control over his property.
To say that one does not have the right to use force to maintain his property is to go against the heart of propertarianism, so the only way to be against slavery from a propertarian perspective is to see persons as not being in the realm of property or as having titles over themselves, but inalienable ones, but accepting either of the two would make one inconsistent in accepting alienation of labor, also know as employment.
Sure, I don’t accept it. Utilitarian ancaps don’t accept it. I’m not an ancap for utilitarian reasons, but I believe the utilitarian arguments are worthwhile, even if many here prefer to be Rothbardians or whatever.
To be clear, the only slavery that I could ever support as legitimate is when it is used as punishment for those who had slaves illegitimately. I don’t necessarily support it, but it’s the only kind I could back.
If the property is illegitimate, then it would be very much against voluntaryism to use force to maintain that property. “Self-ownership” need not enter the equation.
All that you have done in your other thread is to show that the enlightenment philosophers favored free, spontaneous, and creative action. Not that it was synonymous with freedom and liberty. Also, to suggest that Smith opposed the division of labor is foolish. He was weary of it and though that certain things had to be done to counteract negative effects of the division of labor, but that is all. I think that certain things have to be done to prevent negative impacts of taking too large a quantity of drug X, for instance, by having a recommended dosage, but this does not mean that I oppose drug X. I also find Chomsky’s argument that Smith promoted markets because they would lead to equality, and not universal advancement, as very arcane since Smith spends a great amount of time talking about why it is that wage gaps do indeed exist.
Slavery is not the same as employment. I am not holding someone as my property, the matter of the inalienability, or alienability of labor is a different matter from slavery if only because of the extent. But here’s something that might make you a little bit frustrated and which, to my knowledge, no one here has actually mentioned. Murray N. Rothbard agreed with you. He thought that labor was something which was indeed inalienable because someone can not stop owning their body. He opposed the idea of employment in terms of “I give you this and you must do this”, rather he supported along the lines of a “If you do this then I will give you this”. If I acknowledge your premise and build it into my practices, then I can’t agree to exchange with someone preemptively for a promise of their labor in the future, but I can tell them that if they do something then they will recieve a cash payment from me, a promissory note to my alienable money to their inalienable labor if they do exchange it to a certain extent. This cannot in any way be considered slavery unless all exchange between men are to be invalid. A mother telling her child that if he sets the table then he will get a treat is enslaving her child, as are all communist interactions.
Here’s some quotes for you:
As mentioned above, a man may not agree to permanent bondage by contracting to work for another man for the rest of his life. He might change his mind at a later date, and then he cannot, in a free market, be compelled to continue working thereafter. Because a man’s self-ownership over his will is inalienable, he cannot, on the unhampered market, be compelled to continue an arrangement whereby he submits his will to the orders of another, even though he might have agreed to this arrangement previously…
-Chapter 2 Section 12
On the other hand, take the case of a promise to contribute personal services without an advance exchange of property. Thus, suppose that a movie actor agrees to act in three pictures for a certain studio for a year. Before receiving any goods in exchange (salary), he breaks the contract and decides not to perform the work. Since his personal will is inalienable, he cannot, on the free market, be forced to perform the work there. Further, since he has received none of the movie company property in exchange, he has committed no theft, and thus the contract cannot be enforced on the free market. Any suit for “damages” could not be entertained on an unhampered market. The fact that the movie company may have made considerable plans and investments on the expectation that the actor would keep the agreement may be unfortunate…
Any such enforced payment would be an invasion of his property rights on the free market rather than an attack upon invasion. It may be considered more moral to keep promises than to break them, but the condition of a free market is that each individual’s rights of person and property be maintained, and not that some further standard of morals be coercively imposed on all. Any coercive enforcement of such a moral code, going beyond the abolition of invasive acts, would in itself constitute an invasion of individual rights of person and property and be an interference in the free market
-Chapter 2 Section 13
“On a free market, they cannot purchase labor services outright, as was explained in the preceding chapter. Since man’s personal will is inalienable, he cannot, in a voluntary society, be compelled to work for another against his present will, and therefore no contracts can be made for purchase of his future will. Labor services, therefore, can only be bought for “hire,” on a “pay-as-you-go” basis.”
-Chapter 3 section 5
-Murray Rothbard: Man, Economy, and State
Congratulations! Libertarians (because that’s what we qualify as now right?) accept that you cannot sell your labor. What’s your problem again?
In the socialist society one will still be “employed”, just not in the same words. You will still have to do work for goods and services, unless you think it will all be done out of charity which could still come out of the capitalist society, and which would not have to come about in the socialist society.
My belief that socialism (Even in the libertarian sense) will result in destruction is because of an open economic analysis after reading Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Chomsky, Proudhon, and Guerin as well as reading and listening to a lot of material on the subject and talking to socialists and even came to the conclusion that it might be sustainable and could, in some situations, be a good complement to capitalism. That’s biased as hell, isn’t it? I’m sure that you performed a similar process while rejecting capitalism, right?
I meant prominent espousers of your views. I have now looked it up, and found one consequentalist stateless capitalist- David Friedman, who, afaik, advocates an open market of laws, which I don’t see how differs from moral relativism.
Their point is clear to any able-minded person not wanting to delve into forgeries for propagnda purposes.
In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become… His dexterity at his own particular trade seems to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilised society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
In a civilized society goverment should intervene to prevent consequences of it. You said that like “I don’t support some of it’s consequences but I’m not against it” like Smith wanted to counteract it’s consequences by “market spontaneity” or something of the sort.
Yes, like “that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion”; “In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don’t labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it.”; “No other sovereigns ever were, or, from the nature of things, ever could be, so perfectly indifferent about the happiness or misery of their subjects, the improvement or waste of their dominions, the glory or disgrace of their administration, as, from irresistible moral causes, the greater part of the proprietors of such a mercantile company are, and necessarily must be.”; “When the toll upon carriages of luxury upon coaches, post-chaises, etc., is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, etc., the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor”, toghether with similar quotes such as calling the profit motive “the vile maxim of masters of manking” and his insistence on the centrality of labor in the economy make Adam Smith at least equaly close to what some people call libertarian socialism as to the principles of capitalism, if not closer.
It is not, slaves are sold, employees are rented. I don’t find that difference a reason for approval.
It a form of institutionalized fraud because de facto product of laborer de jure belongs to the employer, de jure, the laborer is consider a tool, a piece of property, and the employer, by virtue of his propety being used, is imputed with the responsibility for (given the ownership of) someone else’s act.
It is theoreticaly possible that under socialism people could voluntarily replicate all the relations that exist in capitalism- that a guy comes to a coop and convinces the members to run their business insted of them and that they obey his orders and give him all their earnings, and he will then give a part of it to them as wages. Without there being any the illegitimate employment contract between such parties, but just the voluntary action where everyone knows what is legitimately whose, such a scenario would not be opposed. But I’m pretty sure that no such thing would happen in socialism, maybe only if some people with some strange view of fun are really bored and do it for kicks.
No, you don’t, you are propertarians / voluntaryists. Hijacking our name that we invented for our views (totally different then yours) cannot in no way be legitimate.
You support employment, which is a de jure transfer of title over one’s labor-hours, that is, rent of one’s labor. Preciselly because labor is de facto non-transferable, such contracts are illegitimate and should abolished.
And who will be the “employer”?
I’d say because of rejection of historical facts.
We don’t have to theoretize, we live in it. Leissez faire capitalism has not existed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t reject it on that basis of living in mixed economy capitalism- because we are not against free markets, as I have said a few times, IMO, socialism will be primarily mutualism, which is based on market free of state intervention; we are against capitalism itself, because we are against hierarchical organization of people and against unearned incomes.
thats awesome. Youre clinging to semantics, in 12 to 24 months you will be an ancap.
Consequentialist libertarianism is not a prominent libertarian view. Natural rights is. However, libertarianism as a worldview is young, just as communism is. Give it time. Anyway, Mises was a utilitarian classical liberal. So was Hayek. Sure, Hayek supported the state, but by the time he was old, he was actually an anarchist. In an interview with Reason Magazine, Milton Friedman stated he would have liked to have been a no government libertarian, but he didn’t think it were possible. So, there are prominent libertarians who are consequentialists other than David Friedman. And then of course there are those of us who are not prominent who either sympathize with consequentialism or are quasi-consequentialists.
Also, with people of this generation such as Jonathan Catalan being attracted to consequentialism to some degree, I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes a more prominent view among libertarians.
I’m not even sure what to say to you regarding moral relativism other than it has nothing to do with libertarianism of any kind.
Where exactly did any of those Smith quotes did you show that he opposed the division of labor? He supported the division of labor but thought it would have negative consequences which the government had to counteract. This is not the same as opposing it. The same goes for the idea that markets would bring equality, none of your quotes show what you think that they show.
The idea that because someone is critical of the rich and profit that he’s closer to a libertarian socialist than capitalist is foolish. Most in that time were exceedingly critical of profit and the rich, and yet I don’t think that you’d find many in the 18th century church libertarian socialists.
“It a form of institutionalized fraud because de facto product of laborer de jure belongs to the employer, de jure, the laborer is consider a tool, a piece of property, and the employer, by virtue of his propety being used, is imputed with the responsibility for (given the ownership of) someone else’s act.”
… Did you read anything I just wrote? This is not the case in the system that Rothbard argues for, at any rate we have shown that labor is in no way slavery unless you’re going for the wage slavery argument which originates from another point.
“You support employment, which is a de jure transfer of title over one’s labor-hours, that is, rent of one’s labor. Preciselly because labor is de facto non-transferable, such contracts are illegitimate and should abolished.”
… Are you joking me? Are you f***ing serious? I give you three Rothbard quotes which say you cannot make labor contracts and then you say that I support labor contracts. That was the meat of the post, that was the whole point and you practically ignore it because it obviously makes your entire argument irrelevant You might want to try reading what someone’s put in a response if you want to be considered seriously, which I’m increasingly sure you don’t want to be.
“And who will be the “employer”?”
The commune.
“I’d say because of rejection of historical facts.”
That’s not a response to what you quoted?
“We don’t have to theoretize, we live in it. Leissez faire capitalism has not existed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t reject it on that basis of living in mixed economy capitalism- because we are not against free markets, as I have said a few times, IMO, socialism will be primarily mutualism, which is based on market free of state intervention; we are against capitalism itself, because we are against hierarchical organization of people and against unearned incomes.”
You don’t have to theoretize because that’s not a word, nor is leissez .
Anyway, you just admitted that you don’t actually need a framework for understanding, you don’t need theory, you just need to look out the window and know that we’re in a mixed economy, right? If your system doesn’t cause destruction and does call for abundance then you should be calling for the anarcho-capitalist system just as much as anyone here is because it will result in your preferred system since mutualism is so much better for the workers and the consumers… Oh wait, theory is invalid… Oh well, I guess that that’s invalid but at least I don’t have to attend my math class tommorrow!
Also, if you want to talk about history the way you are you should dawn the conservative mantle right quick, because history has shown the system you’re advocating as being unsustainable.
Please try to manage some actual logic, try to understand the implications of what you’re saying and what actual evidence for this might be. Don’t just quote stuff and spit off arguments which were just disproven.
You just went full retard. Never go full retard.
That movie was aweome, by the way. The director’s cut was even more absurd
I dont know what its called, I just know the sound it makes when it takes a man’s life.
I also think our friend knows the game is up, based on the para above
Lol, black Robert Downey Jr
Did anyone else see how he totally sidestepped my extremely relevant Rothbard quote?
It’s not a side step. It’s a dance known as the Communist Two-Step.
Not to be confused with the following:
lol what a find.
