‘I’m not sure that you are barred from opening your own letter/package delivery service. In fact, to the best of my knowledge you are perfectly capable of doing just that, if you can make it profitable.’
It is illegal to open a letter delivery service that competes with the Post Office. You can open a parcel business but not mail.
It is illegal to open a letter delivery service that competes with the Post Office. You can open a parcel business but not mail.
Ya, a few years ago I was considering expanding my capital into courier service (my current business has me driving a lot, so I bought a new Cobalt. I was thinking it could be another productive use of my capital. Turns out it’s not a very competitive market). So I was thinking of that when I said the above.
But as was pointed out later in the thread, you can only deliver packages, not letters. My bad
huh??? capitalism creates scarcity??? i did not know that, i always thought scarcity was already part of life…
You could read a little further and find out what I meant (especially that I was talking about artificial scarcity). But since you’re such a lazy free-loader, I’ll do the work for you (joking )
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=418
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread421391/pg1 (But most importantly from this, the following;)
The need for artificial scarcity In a market economic system, an abundance is not produced because excess product is considered an inefficient use of resources; those resources could be used elsewhere to produce something in greater demand to fulfill more wants. A paradox is reached with artificially scarce products, as an abundance is possible, yet without creating scarcity via legal or subversive means, there is minimal profitability. If scarcity is allowed to reach zero, the economic model fails. If natural scarcity no longer exists, scarcity has to be created to ensure function of the system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction
http://curiouslyawesome.com/2010/09/03/u-s-supermarkets-waste-food/ (<~~~ This, especially. If no other link, this one.)
I could go on…
I’d like to say I enjoy your perspective, but it seems completely nonsensical. You seem to redefine terms at your pleasure.
you are thanked for your thought provoking contribution to the discussion friend
Do you think a <2/3 majority is justified in coercing a >1/3 minority? Why or why not?
Who would draft up this economic bill of rights? Who would decide what it contains? Most importantly, how would this be enforced?
It sounds to me like such an economic bill of rights would need and imply a state.
Can you then explain what you mean by “the heirarchical [sic] nature of the business structure”?
I think we’re using different definitions for “entitled”. What I mean by the term is “considering it justified to coerce others (violently if necessary) if/when said thing(s) is/are lacking”. What do you mean by it?
I think there is too, actually. My concern with believing in prima facie entitlements to such nebulous terms as “adequate shelter and nutrition” is that it invites equating lack of help with harm. For example, if I have food and someone halfway around the world doesn’t, under such a belief I could be thought of as harming that other person because I’m not giving my own food to him.
I’m sorry but Dr. Chomsky doesn’t provide references for the alleged Adam Smith quotes he uses.
How are you defining “markets”? You understand that neither McDonald’s nor McDonnell-Douglas operates in a free market, right?
Can you answer my question please?
You wouldn’t argue with any of that… but then you do. Which is it? Can you make up your mind?
Nothing can be guaranteed for “everyone” without a State because there is no more “everyone”.
Would such unions be completely voluntary? Can they overlap in terms of both territory and membership? If some people aren’t part of such a union, how can they still be governed by it?
Do you think a <2/3 majority is justified in coercing a >1/3 minority? Why or why not?
Depends… what minority are we talking about? Serial killers? Thiefs? Slave traders?
Do you think a 1/100 minority is justified in coercing a 99/100 majority? Why or why do you not support labor’s rights to be represented in the decision making process?
Who would draft up this economic bill of rights? Who would decide what it contains? Most importantly, how would this be enforced?
The people through democratic processes. The people democratically. By the people, democratically. (I’m defining democratic in the literal sense of “people power” of which ancient and modern political Democracy is a subset).
I don’t see purchasing power as a 1man 1 vote phenomenon. This is why I doubt the ancap societies ability to adequately represent the will of the people.
It sounds to me like such an economic bill of rights would need and imply a state.
That is debatable, for sure. But it also sounds to me like the capitalist mode of production would need and imply a state.
Can you then explain what you mean by “the heirarchical [sic] nature of the business structure”?
How much representation does the avg worker have over the decision making process at his place of work (especially non-union)?
I think we’re using different definitions for “entitled”. What I mean by the term is “considering it justified to coerce others (violently if necessary) if/when said thing(s) is/are lacking”. What do you mean by it?
Certainly not that. I am entitled to my right to free speech. I’m certainly not going to punch a security gaurd so I can yell violent profanity in the mall.
Entitled; as in, what one should have the right to.
I think there is too, actually. My concern with believing in prima facie entitlements to such nebulous terms as “adequate shelter and nutrition” is that it invites equating lack of help with harm. For example, if I have food and someone halfway around the world doesn’t, under such a belief I could be thought of as harming that other person because I’m not giving my own food to him.
It’s a matter of degree. Are colombian quasi-peasant farmers growing your food for less than subsistence wages so that the food can get wasted in grocery stores and thrown in the dumpster halfway across the world while their people die of inadequate nutrition and lack of medical assistance?
If so, yes.
On Chomsky;
But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, (in the Wealth of Nations. He says it clearly) where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits…
the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That’s the one I used. It’s the best edition.
I’m sorry but Dr. Chomsky doesn’t provide references for the alleged Adam Smith quotes he uses.
Can you answer my question please?
The answer to your question is no. I would not be honest if I said yes.
Nothing can be guaranteed for “everyone” without a State because there is no more “everyone”.
You are saying an cap society could not gaurantee property rights? I agree. But I do not believe we cannot gaurantee all/most of humanity food w/o a state. We did it before teh stae.
Would such unions be completely voluntary? Can they overlap in terms of both territory and membership? If some people aren’t part of such a union, how can they still be governed by it?
If you don’t accept the terms, you don’t drive on the roads (at least not w/o a hefty fee)… or other such measures.
I think you’re well aware that I’m not talking about any minority in particular. When it comes to coercion, I don’t consider any majority qua majority to be justified in coercing a minority. People who commit aggression should be coerced IMO because I think aggression is morally wrong.
Where do such rights come from? What do you mean by “represented”? What do you mean by “the decision making process”?
Well what does “people power” mean? Are you simply talking about “might makes right”?
What is “the will of the people”?
Yes, it’s debatable, and I’m debating it.
How does “the capitalist mode of production” (whatever you mean by that) need and imply a state?
Why should he have a hand in deciding what to do with things that he doesn’t own?
If you’re on someone else’s private property, and you say something that the property owner doesn’t want you to say, and he subsequently asks or tells you to leave, are you going to refuse?
And when the rights one presumes to have are violated (in one’s opinion), he would feel justified to restore his rights, violently if necessary?
I cannot agree with this whatsoever. Let me put it to you this way: if those Colombian quasi-peasant farmers tried to take from me what they thought they deserved, I would defend what I have (including myself) to the utmost of my ability.
Did you understand what I meant by “references”? I meant specific page numbers, at the very least. Chomsky does not provide them. “Hundreds of pages later” is no reference at all under that definition.
I’m noting for the record that you are refusing to answer my original question.
Strictly speaking, there’s never any guarantee of anything. People feel like certain things are guaranteed under a State because there are no other permissible choices under a State. Laws aren’t chains, however.
Can you please answer my questions in a systematic way? Giving an example and pointing to “other such measures” is inadequate to me, as I can’t tell what general principle(s) you expect me to infer. I’d much prefer it if you provided the general principles themselves.
I think you’re well aware that I’m not talking about any minority in particular. When it comes to coercion, I don’t consider any majority qua majority to be justified in coercing a minority. People who commit aggression should be coerced IMO because I think aggression is morally wrong.
If you are not the slave, but you free it violently… how is that not you coercing the slave owner out of his slaves? He didn’t aggress against you. On NAP principles, can you really justify such an action?
Where do such rights come from? What do you mean by “represented”? What do you mean by “the decision making process”?
From the people, that is true in all times and places. If a large enough community wants to take away your rights, they will. There wil be no protection against it. I support there having to be some lengthy and costly legal process for a community to do as such. But I do think there are times when it is justified, like appropriating a slave holders property.
Represented; as in, given a say in the matter. Like “no taxation w/o representation.”
I mean, the day to day affairs of the business, and even its wider goals, I think should be subject to democratic ratification through the workers as much as it is (currently) through ownership and management. And I think this will do for companies what it did for countries; provide stability and more long-term growth.
Well what does “people power” mean? Are you simply talking about “might makes right”?
No. Might makes right is disgusting. I mean what Orwell meant when he said “freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4.” A worker should have the right to tell his boss he’s a tosser who doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Demo - cracy; people - power. Power to the people.
What is “the will of the people”?
I am not the people. It is not in my place to say. But I do feel they should be able to express their will.
(Just have to point out, if it wasn’t obvious in my context, that “the people” is merely a collection of individuals which attempt to work in concert w one another)
Yes, it’s debatable, and I’m debating it.
You’re welcome to do that. But you merely asserted “socialism requires a state imo.” That’s your opinion, I hold the same of capitalism. And I have no hard evidence to suggest it wouldn’t. But I don’t think it requires a state, and I am in fact, diametrically opposed to the state.
How does “the capitalist mode of production” (whatever you mean by that) need and imply a state?
The history of capitalism has lead to more statism, rather than less. It is in people’s nature to protect themselves. Capitalism, with its creation and maintenance of large gaps in wealth, allows those with a lot to protect themselves much better than those w/o. Once again, I find it no coincidence that constituion replaced the articles, and that the first supreme court decision was a decision over market protection.
Why should he have a hand in deciding what to do with things that he doesn’t own?
Why should the one have all decision making in their hands simply because they claim ownership over something (w/e ownership means)? The business does not make money w/o people working (that is blatantly obvious). As such, labor should have a representation in the productive and exchange process.
If you’re on someone else’s private property, and you say something that the property owner doesn’t want you to say, and he subsequently asks or tells you to leave, are you going to refuse?
I may refuse. Let’s say he is abusive to his wife, and I tell him as such. I may refuse to leave w/o her. You can’t, imo, do whatever you want merely becaue you claim arbitrary ownership over something.
And when the rights one presumes to have are violated (in one’s opinion), he would feel justified to restore his rights, violently if necessary?
Whether he would feel justified, and whether he is justified, are two entirely different arguments. You feel justified in allowing all decision making processes to lay in ownership. I do not. But the community as a whole will decide which of us is actually right… at least for now.
See, I don’t try imposing a system upon the world, such as ancap propertarianism. I merely encourage certain things in hopes that the society will build itself… becaue I find no way I could, nor would I want to, authoritarianly impose my views on the rest of the world.
I cannot agree with this whatsoever. Let me put it to you this way: if those Colombian quasi-peasant farmers tried to take from me what they thought they deserved, I would defend what I have (including myself) to the utmost of my ability.
If they violently opposed the companies that own all the farmland in colombia, would you side with the quasi-peasants, or with “ownership?” That is the question.
Or let me put it to you this way; if you recieve stolen property and the legitimate owner tries to get it back, will you violently oppose him?
I’m noting for the record that you are refusing to answer my original question.
If it pleases the court, I will submit that you are saying this in response to my answer of your original question. No, it would not be honest for me to use your definition of terms if I find them ahistorical just because you use them.
Can you please answer my questions in a systematic way? Giving an example and pointing to “other such measures” is inadequate to me, as I can’t tell what general principle(s) you expect me to infer. I’d much prefer it if you provided the general principles themselves.
It is not my place to tel communites what they can and cannot do. Merely what I find they should or should not do.
What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes? You hinted at the “will of the people”. Assume I sold each of 10 people a loaf of bread. Then, after they ate them, the “will of the people” was that I had to return their money back (or else…). Would you say that this constituted a “decision making process” that is superior to ownership based on voluntary exchange?
Also, do you deny ownership as a meaningful concept altogether, or only sometimes? If the latter, could you provide a consistent basis for determining when?
Z.
What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes? You hinted at the “will of the people”. Assume I sold each of 10 people a loaf of bread. Then, after they ate them, the “will of the people” was that I had to return their money back (or else…). Would you say that this constituted a “decision making process” that is superior to ownership based on voluntary exchange?
In what context is this done? Did the bread make them sick? Most people don’t just wantonly take things. They usually have some kind of justification for it. The question is, is one’s justifications valid?
Let’s say you own property in america. You would justify your ownership that you worked for the money, and used the money to buy the property. It is therefore yours. But how did the US government establish this ownership system that eventually led to your buying of a parcel of land? Say an old shaman comes to you and says your land is the exact spot his tribe lived, and he can prove it. Would you willingly give up your property, or you willingly be a reciever of stolen property? Would you run to the state, or in an ancap society, your local PDA, to protect you against what you percieve to be someone, in fact stealing your property by claiming you stole their property? Who would decide the legitimate owner of said property? If the “loser” refuses to follow the will of the court, who will enforce it?
That’s the problem with the propertarian system. The law is very arbitrary. Is a slave not property? Why? Who says? WHo enforces this decision?
I have few prescriptions for what society should do. But I do think they should decide it democratically. (And I definitely see purchasing power as decision maker [ancap] as more open to tyranny)
Z, you’re debating him wrong. The only way to make progress with EiK is to leave it at this.
What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes?
As soon as you ask more than one question, or present an example, he will use that as an opportunity to obfuscate further.
It’s all about precision. Or in a situation where there are so many assertions, false premises and contradictions, “target selection”.
I agree. I was hoping there was a new angle somewhere there – something I hadn’t thought about, so wanted to make it easier for it to get uncovered. Seems there’s nothing there, though. From what I could gather, the best basis he could provide is whatever made him feel better or less disgusted about each outcome on a case by case basis.
So after a horrible fight with his wife one night, he sees a guy on a bicycle eating ice-cream and riding past a disabled person in a wheel-chair, and he’s disgusted by a “system” that allows the satisfied biker to just ride off without helping the disabled, a “system” that has not taxed away the ice-cream from the healthy biker and given it to the disabled. Then another day, after a good night of sex, he sees a guy in a Porsche driving by a disabled person, and thinks nothing of it, as all is good with the world.
Quite a refreshing perspective.
Z.
No.
Yes, and you have yet to offer anything even close to a consistent basis for such justifications, apart from your personal feeling of approval or disgust on a case by case basis.
More open to tyranny then what? The “will of the people”? Sure about that – being that you’re so fond of historical examples?
Z.
Fiat-purchasing power or free(literally) market purchasing power?
I agree. I was hoping there was a new angle somewhere there – something I hadn’t thought about, so wanted to make it easier for it to get uncovered. Seems there’s nothing there, though. From what I could gather, the best basis he could provide is whatever made him feel better or less disgusted about each outcome on a case by case basis.
What more can I offer? You propose their is an objective way to structure societies to it’s maximum capacity? If so, I think you’re being idealist. Rothbard once said something about not basing your system off the outliers… I think that is entirely backwards. Human societies are naturally fickle, we can only decide on a case-by-case basis, and from that build general patterns to follow.
So after a horrible fight with his wife one night, he sees a guy on a bicycle eating ice-cream and riding past a disabled person in a wheel-chair, and he’s disgusted by a “system” that allows the satisfied biker to just ride off without helping the disabled, a “system” that has not taxed away the ice-cream from the healthy biker and given it to the disabled. Then another day, after a good night of sex, he sees a guy in a Porsche driving by a disabled person, and thinks nothing of it, as all is good with the world.
I see after failing to bait me into a false position (straw man-ing me) you revert to the timeless ad hominem.
Quite a refreshing perspective.
EiK.