transportation assets are capital goods as logistics is a legitimate service, there is no objective line between consumption goods and capital goods. You can say “it’s not legitimate to steal it” all you want but the previous ownership was illegitimate so its not stealing, its reclamation. The capitalist had more cars than he needed, that is to say one.
just trying to pick up what youre laying down, kid
Great! We’ve managed to get rid of wretched employment by the use of semantics.
This seems like a different topic. You may want to start on a new thread on the abolition of hierarchy.
If it was illegitimate, then yes, it’s not theft.
*none. Which is also irrelevant. People can have unnecessary stuff if they want to, as long as they haven’t acquired them illegitimately.
If by that you mean babbling nonsense that doesn’t have anything to do with what I was saying, then you’re doing just fine.
If by semantics you mean “taking from the capitalist control over the productive life of the workers”, then yes.
So you said earlier it is legitimate for me to hire you to provide the service of mowing my lawn.
1: Correct?
Can I then have you provide the service of mowing my:
a: (2) lawns?
b (10) lawns?
c: (100) lawns?
2: After you begin providing me the service of mowing my lawns for $30 each your mower breaks down. Unable to afford to fix it I agree to let you use my own. My mower cost me $200 and will last exactly 1000 mowings so I charge you $0.20 cents per mowing to reclaim the depreciation of my property without any profit at all. Is this legitimate?
You wouldn’t be able to own have many lawns in socialism because you would have to “occupy-and-use” areas of land in order to have exclusive use of them.
I would just take a interest-free loan and fix it.
No. Renting is illegitimate. Leting someone use something you own and charging for it is what renting is.
Why would anyone lend you money for free? Where is this free money coming from?
Lol, because interest would be abolished.
Coop mutualist banks, or mutual credit currecies.
So, again, you’re advocating force to stop a voluntary contract. If two people want to do a money lending deal, and pay interest, you would stop them, even without one of them complaining. So, you are aggressing against voluntary association, and cannot call yourself a libertarian nor anarch.
Beyond that point, if you abolish the incentive for lending money, people aren’t going to lend money at all, save perhaps to nepotistic arrangements where close friends and family can beg capital out of others for free based on social pressure.
And where did they get the money?
Is there no remuneration at all for money lending? Why do you think anyone would offer money to lend if there’s no profit for doing so?
You didn’t address the question, why?
Where do poor people experience the best living standards?
You have no argument to make. Capitalism has done far more for poor people than Marx or any clown like him ever have.
Capitalism has done far more for poor people than Marx or any clown like him ever have.
So you believe in objective utility? Interpersonal utility comparison? Social/public choice?
Just curious.
I’m a pacifist and an Austrian.
Utility is subjective, interpersonal comparisons made by mainstream economists are moronic, and individuals have rights not the public.
It is easy to see by any major metric that poor people live better because of capitalism though. Refuting communism is very easy, even academia bandwagoned off communism by the 90’s.
I’m a pacifist and an Austrian.
I had such impression.
But how is it possible to say that “poor people” are better off in one case as opposed to another without resorting to interpersonal utility comparison? And how is it possible to say “far better” without resorting to cardinal utility? Again, this is not an attack in any sense, I am trying to understand the reasoning.
Hmm because my goal is to mess with his mind first, by using his own standards of utility.
Ordinal utility also supports me, an Austrian concept. So either way I feel fine.
Does interest represent the “time value” of money?
Capitalism as opposed to what?
An where did this communist exist, according to you?
Which society is more like communism, North Korea or South Korea?
Yeah that’s what I thought. You’ve boxed yourself in dude.
Stsoc, what is your definition of the verb “use”?
Complex question fallacy, because neither is like communism.
You’ve said that service jobs are legitimate (e.g. plumbers), yet service jobs involve nothing other than selling/renting labor. They do not involve selling the product of one’s labor. For example, if I hire a plumber, I am buying/renting his labor. I am not buying the product of his labor: as the product of his labor is my own house’s plumbing system which I already owned and which therefore does not become the plumber’s property to sell back to me just because he mixed his labor with it (See: car thief analogy). So what is the plumber selling to me if not the product of his labor? What am I paying him for? Why, his labor of course.
Sure he does. He moves the car. He employs labor to take the car from state A (sitting in someone’s driveway) to state B (in his possession), because he values its being in state B more than he values it being in state A.That is production, a productive use of labor, just like picking an apple off a tree is productive labor.
I’ve established the following:
(1) that the employee in fact does not rent the means of production,
(2) that the capitalist taking a share of the firm’s revenues does not constitute the employee being denied part of the product of his labor, because the employee does not own that product at all (just as the thief doesn’t own the car),
So what remains of your criticism of employment, and your distinction between service work and employment?
If you resort to the alienation of labor concept (which I think is all you have left), then you need to clearly explain why a service job doesn’t involve alienation of labor, but an employment job does. And note that you have to do this without referencing “the full product of labor” or “rental of the mean of production,” as I have already undercut those arguments and/or shown why they aren’t applicable to employment.
But this cannot be done, because there is no distinction between employment and service jobs. It’s legitimate for Joe the plumber to mix his labor with my property (the plumbing in my house), and to be paid an hourly wage for that work, but it’s illegitimate for Joe the factory worker to mix his labor with the owner’s property (the machines) and to be paid an hourly wage for that work? Absurd.
His argument seems to rely on the idea that the “true customer” of the employee’s labor is not the employer but the person who buys the product that the employee and employer made together with their productive capital and labor.
But it’s an invisible distinction. If the plumber fixes my plumbing and then I sell the house I had him work on, suddenly the plumber is in the same position as an employee, and the true buyer of the plumber’s work is the one who buys the house, and somehow he’s in the position of saying the plumber got the full value of his labor before the house was sold but now doesn’t get the full value if I sell the house.
Lol, it’s so ridiculous.