Yea, I’m always suspicious of people (of whatever ideological bent) who disregard the consequences of their ethics. It’s one thing to realize that the adoption of certain ethical principles yields the best outcomes universally and to apply those principles absolutely rigidly without taking the circumstances of individual cases into account (this is analogous to rigidly applying the laws of physics in an R&D department once those laws have been demonstrated to be valid with a very high degree of certainty), but its quite another thing to pretend (or actually believe) that your ethical principles are “good” in themselves, without feeling the need to demonstrate their grounding in empirical reality (this is analogous to Moses receiving his principles on Mount Sinai).
If he feels certain ethical basises are wrong, he should simply live by that conclusion, and live with others whom similarly conclude.
This is what freedom means, the corollary of free association means he should group together with like-minded people and live in the fashion that seems right to them.
This would not give him the right however to impose on a group that does not agree with his ethical precepts, to force his ethical conclusions on them. Especially if there is no victim.
In libertarianism, in conjunction with the NAP, we would recognize the right for someone to jump into any situaiton where aggression is patently taking place and to investigate the circumstances. But we also recognize the fact that if the supposed victim decides not to press charges so to speak, not to pursue a tort against their attacker, that the guy who stepped in gets to walk away. He doesn’t get to prosecute the claim as if he were a district attorney, as if there were some crime against a non-existant society.
Thus, it’s illegitimate for him to stop any employment contracts being freely entered into. Whether he feels it’s slavery or not. He’s free to evangelize for that theory of labor, I don’t think he’ll find many converts, but he’s certainly free to make a nuisance of himself that way.
I also think it legitimate for a libertarian society to invade another country IF they are invited to do so by someone being aggressed against. If they witness actual use of coercion on slaves, they should feel free to step in, but they’re gonna have to deal with the fallout too. And they’d better be right lest they become guilty of aggression themselves (they might misinterpret prisoners in jail being forced to work as illegitimate slave-holding).
Thus every attempt at third-party justice requires due process to bridge the gap between perception and judgment.
Since employment and capital-renting or w/e would be illegal in his society, he would not attract investment, and economic growth generally would be void in any regions governed by these theories.
This is exactly what a lot of green revolutionaries want, zero economic growth and zero population growth. Actually negative growth in both. These are the leftists that say we need a new plague to reduce the size of human population, or who like war for reducing population sizes, or who smile at malaria-kill numbers. Cynical anti-human bastards.
I’ll bet stsoc falls somewhere in that range. I’ll bet environmentalism is a partial motivator for him. He hates modern capitalism in his green zeal.
To be fair, that it is wrong to force your ethics on other people is itself a normative ethical claim. For someone like stsoc, that doesn’t hold any water, because he’s not concerned with aggression in the same sense that we are. And it’s this normativity of ethics that makes it so important to pay attentiont to the real consequences of your ethics. It’s a lot easier for people to say “Well I’m entitled to my opinion same as you” with respect to ethical abstraction than it is for people to do the same with respect to real situations. Would stsoc feel the same way if he spent a year living in a libertarian society, and then spent a year living in his socialist society? Methinks not. Which is why (contra Molyneux) I think we really need to focus on consequentialism. The debate about principles should bemostly reserved for people who are already basically libertarians; it’s an effort to codify our knowledge (like codifying our knowldge of physics in the form of laws), not to prove anything.
Yep, they stepped out from behind the Iron Curtain and into the “environmental” movement. For instance:
…For anyone who’s been living on the moon for the last 20 years, that’s Mikhail Gorbachev, former premier of the Soviet Union. LOL, you couldn’t make this stuff up. But go tell somebody on the street that the goal of the Green Movement is to create an international socialist dictatorship on the model of the Soviet Union and they’ll look at you like you’re nuts.
It is, being that the employee made it.
Then the only way that the employee is said to be entitled to something is renting his labor, which is illegitimate being that labor is inalienable, people are not tools.
It does not follow. Thief does not exert any productive labor.
I have explained multiple times that employment is not he same as performing a service, being that the
I don’t see why. Slaveowners defended slavery by saying that slaves were better off then employees, and they were pretty much right untill workers pressured the state into providing pensions, healthcare, and similar welfare.
Ownership of land is intself illegitimate, land can be only occupied-and-used.
State was abolished in both socialist societies that were established in Europe.
Industrial revolution did that, capitalism has kept people poorer then they should be by an entire class living off other people’s labor.
Yes, no king was homeless.
http://libcom.org/files/images/Transporte.jpg http://libcom.org/files/images/phoca_thumb_l_spanischer-buergerkrieg-88[1].jpg
![http://libcom.org/files/images/phoca_thumb_l_spanischer-buergerkrieg-88[1].jpg](http://libcom.org/files/images/phoca_thumb_l_spanischer-buergerkrieg-88%5B1%5D.jpg){kind=link}
Yes, hunter-gatherer.
And we will exercise our freedom by taking illegitimate property of swindlers.
Dude stop, you lost in 1991.
Poor people have the best living conditions in capitalist countries. Why don’t you move to Venezuela, that sounds like your type of country.
What happened in 1991?
Venezuela isn’t socialist, it’s state capitalist.
State capitalism isn’t pure capitalism, you still lost.
Poor people love us. Capitalism slam dunked all over you.
It’s pure capitalism, it’s just not laissez faire capitalism.
Yeah, the workers love capitalism. In some imaginary world maybe.
It is, being that the employee made it.
No he didn’t. By this definition gardeners own every lawn they cut, plumbers every drain they unclog. They don’t. Because they don’t make it, they work on it. The employee does not differ here.
Then the only way that the employee is said to be entitled to something is renting his labor, which is illegitimate being that labor is inalienable, people are not tools.
He’s not entitled to anything. A serviceprovider is not entitled to the hair he cuts, or the wall he paints or the brick he lays, he is only entitled to the sum his customer agreed to pay him for the labor he provided. The same is true of an employee. You’ve failed again and again to show any difference between these situations.
It does not follow. Thief does not exert any productive labor.
He repaints the car he steals, thus he is as entitled to the car as the employee at the workshop who painted the car after it was built, according to your own logic. In fact, every time you have your car repainted, the person repainting it for you must be as entitled to the product of his labor (the car) as the employee at the factory was entitled to the product of his labor (the car). This is either true, or we must deal with the idea that an employee is not in fact entitled to the finished product that he takes part in producing, but only the wages given for his specific part in the production (the service rendered to his employer).
I have explained multiple times that employment is not he same as performing a service, being that the
No, you’ve claimed it is not the same, and then failed to demonstrate it.
How is it that it is illegitimate for an employer to pay his employee for painting cars on the assembly line, but it is legitimate for a car-owner to pay a carshop-owner to paint his car?
How is it that it is illegitimate for an employer to pay his employee to pick apples off the ground on his farm and put them in baskets, but it is legitimate for an apple-tree owner to pay a gardener to do the same thing?
I don’t see why. Slaveowners defended slavery by saying that slaves were better off then employees, and they were pretty much right untill workers pressured the state into providing pensions, healthcare, and similar welfare.
Non sequitur. Slavery and employment have two very definite differences. To pretend that these differences do not exist is what makes the insult.
Ownership of land is intself illegitimate, land can be only occupied-and-used.
The same can be said for anything. Either ownership of land is legitimate, or ownership of everything else, including one’s labor and one’s body is illegitimate.
State was abolished in both socialist societies that were established in Europe.
Yes and replaced with ‘commitees’, ‘councils’ or ‘unions’ who dictated the rules to everyone else and expropriated resources and this is totally different, guys, totally.
Yes, no king was homeless.
He was if he wanted to be. Much like the poor of America.
http://libcom.org/files/images/Transporte.jpg http://libcom.org/files/images/phoca_thumb_l_spanischer-buergerkrieg-88[1].jpg
Yes, hunter-gatherer.
Nice paintings. I’ve one of a spaceship, therefore intergalactic space travel is real.
By this definition gardeners own every lawn they cut, plumbers every drain they unclog.
This reminded me of http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Jasaydog.html:
Did you know that your dog owns your house, or rather some portion of it? If this is not immediately obvious to you, you will find it helpful to consider some aspects of the ethics and economics of redistribution.
They don’t because they are provides of services. As opposed to employees that are wage-slaves. You continously confuse those two even though I have explained they are not the same multiple times.
The who does all the work is not entitled to anyting. Spoken like a true parasite.
Which has nothing to do with employment.
I have demonstrated it by simply pointing out the basic functining of the two, and the radical differences are clear to anyone with a half a gram of brain. When you by a potato from a farmer, that farmer is not your employee, you are his customer. Likewise, when you buy a service from a service provider, he is not your employee, but you are his customer.
My magic of being able to use your reason and not be blinded by bias towards capitalism.
Yes, one is selling oneself, and the other is renting onself. A difference that doesn’t in any way justify the latter.
Then don’t pretend that providing a service and being a wage-slave is the same.
Ownership of one’s labor and one’s body is illegitimate, because people are not property and to consider them as such is to commit a category error. I have reffered to those as such only for the sake of argument, so you slavetarians would know what I’m talking about. Areas of land, not being products of labor cannot be owned. Only products of labor can be owned.
And replaces with ‘commitees’, ‘councils’ or ‘unions’ that were constituded by everyone (who is not a murderer or thief).
People do not become homeless by choice, but because of the thieveng system that they live in.
After all other idiotic claims you made that would not come as a suprise if you claimed that.
This…
Was just confirmed here…
stsoc,
Please respond to the claim that the thief who repaints a car or changes the tire either is or is not the new owner of the car. I’m interested in your explanation.
I can predict the answer depends on whether the thief is a worker or not.
I have a quick question. (I have no background in economics, so if this is trivial, forgive me in advance)
When you use the term “labor”, what exactly do you mean? When I use the term, I am referring to productive activity. I can see how labor, in that sense, would be inaliable. However, stsoc seems to be using the term “labor” to denote the actual product of one’s labor, i.e. what is produced. For me, this is a major distinction, as I don’t see how the product of my labor is inalienable.
I believe, the usual meaning of the term is to be one of three factors of production, the other two being land (or nature) and capital (tools, machines, materials). The factors are the input to the process of production, and the product is the output of the process. The product of one process can be a factor (capital) for another process (or even for a future iteration of the same process), but I cannot see how this can apply to labor.
What explanation is necessary? Service provider that provides a service (repaints a car) for a customer doesn’t get to own the car, only an idiot would say that a thief does. And I said no such thing, but it was said.
You could get such an idea only but not really trying even to read what I write, which wouldn’t be supristing, being that some here are interested in nothing but trolling, they don’t read or they don’t undestand what I write, but just reply with nonsense.
stsoc, would this contract fulfill your requirements?
1)Capitalists (C) agrees to rent equipment to labor (L) for 1 penny/day.
-
L agrees to build, according to however he sees fit, 10 widgets/day.
-
C agrees to puchase 10 widgets from L at a price of $X each day.
well, if I take the car away from the previous occupant, he has no continuity of occupance and therefore no claim. And if I mix my labor with it by painting it, doing a valve job, and changing the tires, then I have made it my property according to the labor theory of property. Where did I go wrong?
A system where C rents equipment to L for some amount of money/day without having any say in how will L use it, or whether he will use it at all, like someone renting a car (of course C could later, like anyone else, come to L and buy he’s product or service) would eliminate employment, but almost no socialists want to abolish just employment (I literally know only one thinker that is for this kind of society), but to abolish hierarchy (even without employment, e.g. a worker managed firm [that rents equipment from a capitalist] electing a boss who then decides about things instead of them), and also to abolish unearned income (all rent).
Car is product of labor, that is- property, so it is under ownership, not under “occupancy-and-use”. And even it were under occupancy-and-use, it’s still not legitimate to steal it.
Maybe after the “idiotic theory of property”, I wouldn’t be supprice if you espouse such a theory.