so its possible? Or did you mean to say “I have alienated someone elses labor before, I am a criminal in my own eyes”
I couldn’t say such a thing with absolute conviction. However, I fail to see how corporate tyranny is better.
He was an enemy of freedom. Capitalists helped him by trading weapons for oil. It is my impression that many people here think that is justifiable because capitalists and their customers have the right to choose to spend their money that way. Arming Lenin and Stalin isn’t freedom either but I am not supporting that either. Arming myself is not the same as arming monstrous murderers.
What are you talking about? People who receive charity aren’t “masters” if charity is voluntary.
Only that to which I have equal right as any other human. That obviously doesn’t include people’s bodies or food they worked for. However, if you were born to a certain line of ancestors at a certain location and I wasn’t, that is in no way gives you the right to exclude me from a portion of this planet.
Here’s how it causes them. A capitalist deduces that it is more profitable in the long run to hire the army, the police, the Pinkertons etc to force workers to work than to negotiate with them. A capitalist deduces that it is more profitable in the long run to destroy a nation and make people desperate in order to obtain cheap resources and workforce than to negotiate with them. I am sure you are aware of examples of this.
Bolsheviks occupied the Free Teritory. Fascists occupied Catalunya. On the other hand, North Korea is still around. The reasons are obvious, no?
There is also a similarity.
Well, what exactly makes it their property? The fact that their ancestor was Alan Rufus? The fact that banks took people’s money and gave it to them?
Having to work to get food is a law of thermodynamics, not slavery. Being ordered when and how to work is slavery.
If they really did not want me there, they would most likely not force me out but boycott trading with me. (Assuming I did not use force first).
They wouldn’t have to collapse the entire economy to harm a small group of people. Because it may be profitable to not protect them from violence.
I know you meant that as a reductio ad absurdum, but it actually isn’t one. Definitions are inherently arbitrary.
What do you mean by “own”?
That aside, how do you think the work I put into making the hammer can be objectively measured?
It sounds to me like you think my sister would be entitled to the cure, so you’d be robbing her (if not worse) by refusing to give it to her freely. Am I right?
If so, then basically you think a person who discovers or creates something that can benefit others is obligated to give it to them freely.
What do you consider to be “basic rights”?
To be honest, I think a person can obtain by contract a right to kill, rape, and/or torture its other signatories. After all, by signing the contract, they’re each essentially saying “I’m okay with you doing this to me”. What do you think is wrong with that?
A slave is by definition (at least my definition) someone that has no guaranteed rights, therefore the right of the sister to being cured or treated couldnt exist.
Plus slaves didnt make a contract under the condition of free man, but under direct coercion of the master and threat to their lifes, actually they didnt make any contract at all and there was no consent at all. You (as a doctor) are not directly threatning the health of the sister and you didnt cause her disease, and she is doing a contract as a free women and giving her consent, therefore the contract is not comparable. And that settles it.
Now ask me if its moral? No (from the doctor side) ask me if its valid? According to law no because you cant choose to loose your rights permanently and become a non-person, but according to logic Yes its a valid contract (eventhou is very hard to decide). Ask me if any “sister” would acept those terms? I doubt, for sure not a very wise one, most would rather die or pray for a miracle.
And by the way thats a SELLER BUYER contract not a employer employee, so that kind of situation can happen in any life or economical relation.
And whats a “sexual slave”? You mean a prostitute? Either you slave or you not, if you a slave you loose all your rights on everything not just on your “sex”, you cant be a sexual slave, a farming slave, a intelectual slave, a dentist slave, either you a slave or you not. At least thats how I look at it.
What’s your definition of “right”? I ask because a right without a guarantee isn’t a right at all IMO.
Unlike most libertarians, I’ve come to see all rights as alienable (i.e. abandonable). So I think it’s legitimate for a person to abandon his self-ownership and thus become a slave. However, I wouldn’t want him to do that, and I wouldn’t think it would be good for him to do it.
As I see it, Anonymous121393’s problem with the dying-sister scenario is that he doesn’t think she should “have to” become a sex slave in order to be cured of her otherwise terminal cancer. That can only mean that he thinks she’s entitled to different conditions in order to be cured, conditions that he presumably thinks are better. It also means he doesn’t think she has the right to become someone else’s sex slave, or for the sole person that can cure her to demand such of her. Presumably, then, he’d be willing to violently interpose himself between them in order to prevent such an arrangement from happening.
My definition of right is strictly the right that comes from that contract in particular, in other words, Im going to be a “sexual slave” and get a right in exchange. Being that right the right to be cured. Thats all I was saying, but I understand your confusion, im not talking about abstract rights.
The slaves didnt have a GUARANTEED return on their non-existent contract. Of course the master would feed them (if they wanted) or not, there was no guarantee. If the doctor didnt cure her, she didnt need to be sexual slave (acepting the contract was valid).
“There is also a similarity.”
There’s also a similarity between renting yourself out to a commune, but of course you won’t talk about that.
“Well, what exactly makes it their property? The fact that their ancestor was Alan Rufus? The fact that banks took people’s money and gave it to them?”
If their ancestor did indeed own the property, then yes because it was a peaceful, rightful, and voluntary transfer of property. Banks have no power to take anyone’s money under capitalism. I’m glad that we agree that theft is wrong.
“Having to work to get food is a law of thermodynamics, not slavery. Being ordered when and how to work is slavery.”
Really? I thought that scarcity was something created by the capitalist system and something which is avoidable. Anyway, so are you saying that the commune won’t tell me what to do, I just show up and do “work” and they’ll pay me?
“If they really did not want me there, they would most likely not force me out but boycott trading with me. (Assuming I did not use force first).”
Most likely? So somehow human nature is changed and the same people would, in a capitalist society, suddenly care and expunge you from the property?
“They wouldn’t have to collapse the entire economy to harm a small group of people. Because it may be profitable to not protect them from violence.”
Maybe not, but it would be a violation of the law to use force against them, so they could sue for a huge amount of money. At any rate, I can’t see law keeping authorities as being at all happy that this is going on in the first place, nor the people in the community accepting of the fact that force is being used by a corporation for this sort of work.
Actually Autolykos I think what I was basically saying (having a deeper look at my own words) was that you cant make a contract choosing to be a slave because from the moment you become a slave you loose any rights therefore you cant make a contract, therefore nothing can force the “doctor” to cure you, you lost the right to break the contract, and you lost the right to demand his part of the contract, therefore, I take my word back it is not valid contract because it cant be a contract.
I said it was “hard to decide” 
but my main point is that it cant be compared with a “traditional slave situation”.
But still…who would violently intervene to stop that situation? ITS HARD! lol I guess the women could just walk away, after getting what she wanted and claim she is not a person she is a slave therefore she cant be a part in a contract, she is property, and…since people cant be property she was ilegal property and therefore would have to confiscate herself…something like that 
Disgree. Rights in one’s self are inalienable. Maybe your right to a piece of property outside yourself is abandonable. But when it comes to rights in yourself you can only ever license that right to another, never abandon it.
I already know you disagree. We’ve been down this road before.
I’m assuming you mean “I believe that rights in one’s self are inalienable” as opposed to what you said, which, if I take it literally, constitutes a factual claim. Anyways, what do you think is the difference between licensing a right to another and abandoning it? As I see it, if I abandon my right to life (for example) to one or more others, that means I license them to kill me if they so wish.
No, I take it as a factual claim, since I don’t think one can in fact alienate those rights.
The difference is future severance from that right. To abandon a right in your own property means to have no more say in it, which contradicts the inalienability of your will.
Even if I license my right to my life to another for the purpose of killing me, there is a passage of time between the license of it and the ending of that life, and I could break the contract during the period, change my mind. That affirms the inalienability.
Obviously once you’re dead you’re alienated from your rights in yourself–rights only make sense in the context of living things.
Under this rubric, the only way to abandon your rights in yourself is to die, you could not abandon any natural right and still be alive, all such farming out of your rights to another would be licensure.
If I may stick my nose a little deeper (I like this topic): this is indeed hard to tell I have tendency to agree with Anenome but…on the other hand by saying “you cannot abandon any natural right and still be alive” its taking a right away from you (and there is no way around this fact), the right to abandon your rights, just like killing yourself (which is also illegal by law) and is a right that doesn’t take away nobody else’s liberty or rights therefore could be legitimate.
I wouldn’t like to insert the notion of “passage of time” to justify the illegitimacy it seems a little artificial.
Anemone is basically saying that you can’t LIVE without rights even if you choose (just like the law says by the way) and that’s all he is saying. I would like to be able to explain why, but I guess it has something to do with the responsibility of your actions, or some way that affects others, because if it doesn’t affect others, I really can’t tell YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS. (says who? I want to and nobody is going to force me! Is it? Ironically maybe somebody had the right to force me because I have no rights)
So…the good news is this has nothing to do with the employer employee situation so we still on the right side here. And the other good news is that nobody is going to accept becoming a slave and if they do maybe they didn’t deserve having any rights to start with.
Then either you’re committing a category mistake or we’re each talking about something different when we use the word “right(s)”. As I see it, rights are entirely normative, hence there can’t be any factual claims about them per se.
I think a person can certainly possess something without owning it. That just means it’s owned by someone else. Hence I think a person can be in possession of himself without necessarily owning himself. Again, that just means he’s owned by someone else.
Basically, possession and ownership are two different things to me. Possession is descriptive, while ownership is normative. Possession concerns facts, while ownership concerns rights.
By that reasoning, you must logically consider it to be legitimate for a person to change his mind after conducting a trade with someone. As I see it, once rights are abandoned, they can’t be reacquired unilaterally. The only way to do that is by homesteading.
Please explain how it’s possible to derive an “ought” from an “is”.
The only valid ‘is-ought’ constructions in my view are those which correlate is’s.
Such as, if you want to live, you ought not eat that poison mushroom which will kill you. Or, if you want to live, you ought to drink sufficient quantities of water, as water is necessary to survive.
I think we can assume most people inherently accept the value of continuing to live, generally.
“DemiProphet”
Its quite simple what I want, and I dont want to impose nothing neither I need to, I just think would be better for everyone (including me) to stop socialist rhetoric, as you think the opposite, nothing wrong with that and its quite simple.
I thing it would be much better if you would to accept true socialism, where everyone would get the full product of his labor.
Since I respect democracy and individual freedom
Socialism is about that. We want all people to be in control of their lives, and that everyone gets to participate in all decision making where decisions affect him. Not just that gets to decide to with master to subordinate so that master can order him what to do, how to do it, and how much to be payed for that.
unfortunatelly 95% of lefthists are not like you.
Depends who are you talking about. Leninist (who I suppose everyone means when they say “left” today) have nothing to do with socialism as espused by Owen, Hodgskin, Thompson, Spooner, Tucker, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, Marx, Kautsky, Pannekoek, Chernov, and similar socialist theorist, they all talk about non-hierarchical systems of freedom for people to be the masters of their lives.
The problem is that for decades the two major propaganda centers- USA and USSR both called Leninist countries “socialism”, which is false, and it’s pretty hard for people to get around such strong propaganda and find out the truth.
Malachi
so its possible? Or did you mean to say “I have alienated someone elses labor before, I am a criminal in my own eyes”
I was an employee too. The owner did nothing, he had about a dozen gas pumps, and and he hired managers to manage about two dozen workers on each one. We all alienated our work to him, like every employee does to it’s employer.
Ok Im aware that most comunists (or whatever you call them I dont even know anymore) reject most connections with any “comunist” regime, they always say “that was not real comunism, not real marxism,. not real socialism, and so on…” (unfortunatelly many dont even bother to reject the connection as if they are not ashamed (or aware) of all they did)
Which could lead a reasonable person to make the question: why? is it possible that maybe our system its only possible in theory and thats why it could never be properly implanted?
Even in my countrie the left always says that the policies of the government are never left, everything is always right, eventhou there is basically no party that has the courage to call themselves right wing. Their theories never failed they were just never put into practice correctly…therefore they are unattackable and above any criticism.
Socialism has been established twice in Europe, but it was destroyed, in the first example (Free Territory) by the Red Army, and in the second (Revolutionary Spain) by Franco’s fascsist troops together with the Comintern commanded troops.
The second example, of Revolutinary Spain, shows that socialism is not only good in theory, but that it is very effective and beneficial for a society to organize itself according to socialism, and, as oppossed to Leninist countries like USSR, there doesn’t need to be totalitarianism or suffering for anyone in order to modernize the country and get general well-being.
Riiight. How do you respond to socialism’s economic calculation problem then?
It doesn’t apply to socialism, since in socialism there is no central planning. Socialism can exist with a free market, it’s then called mutualism.
But, yes, there are socialist whose preferences are collectivist (myself included), and in socialism, they would not operate on the market, but would form (Bakuninist) collectives or (Kropotkinist) communes.
Here is a general socialist response:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html#seci11
and the next chapter gives a response from a collectivist perspective.