Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

[stsoc]

Property is justified through homestead and transfer theories of property.

I don’t know what you mean. If there is no labor exerted, there is no physical connection to what is claimed as property. The only theories of property besides the labor theory of property, that I am aware of, are the Hobbsean theory of the “strongest authority on a territory” and Stirnerian theory of personal physical streght. The modern capitalist theory of property is arbitrary and inconsistent, calling upon labor of theory of property, but then using some form of Hobbsean theory to justify the inconsistent application of the labor theory, and leaving some inconsistencies unanswered.

So no one has to accept your absence of hierarchy axiom (as they do not presently)

If they have no problem with commiting a performative contradiction, they don’t have to accept it.

making them unenforceable. Those consenting parties are free to continue their relationship as long as it is consensual.

They are not free to engage in fraud. Inalienability of labor and employment

The contract is fulfilled as long as the parties to the contract agree that it is, regardless of your feelings on the matter

You are not in a hierarchical relationship with those parties where you may tell them whether they got what they paid for or not.

It’s not hierarchical to prevent fraud.

The need for capital is “natural” because humans are a tool-using species.

We were talking about not about the “need about capital”, but the “need to rent capital from others”.

Socialists want to create a society where they dont “need” capital because they stole capital from people who created it

Renting capital is theft in itself.

The other error youre making is assuming that labor is central, production factors dont matter.

They don’t. If 10 of us rent 11 shovels to dig a hole, even though you demand rent for all 11 shovels, the 11th one had no “marginal production” whatsoever. Meaning you owner of capital is entitled to no “marginal product of capital” that is a part of the price of the products, firstly, because there is no such a thing, and secondly, even if the animistic theory that there is such a thing is accepted it still doen’t entitle the owner the part of product of labor, but to a rent that is not related at all to the labor and those two are in no way connected as demonstrated by the rentier asking for the 11th showel as well.

Labor cant produce without means of production

Then how did the means of production come into being?

Aborigines use capital drawn from the earth itself

Capital is distinct from land in that capital must itself be produced by human labor before it can be a factor of production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)

How is labor “systematically constrained” in what you call a “propertarian” system, and we call ancap?

In any capitalist system, the workers are contrained by capitalist property. Capitalist hold property over land, which is illegitimate, and if they would not hold such property, any worker could go and till some land, or mine some ore, or chopp some timber without having to pay anything to anyone for the “permission” to do so, and then they could make earnings and make their own instruments of production. Of course, the main socialist critique is that the workers are also contrained by being stolen from by sistematical fraud that says that unearned incomes (that is- rent) is ok.

So, he already did his share of the labor.

We just got done explaining that the capitalist is entitled to those to those means of production because he labored for them. He is not entitled to any part of part of the products of workers’ labor if he doesn’t meet the same condition.

Why do you assume it is necessary for the capitalist’s labor to be chronologically simultaneous?

Because his income is chronologically simultaneous. He takes a part of all the earnings that are entirely the workers product.

you act like running a business isnt work

1. Owners mostly don’t run the business, managers do. 2. Running the business mostly isn’t productive, but exploitative work, just like capital- if the workers weren’t there to produce something, it would produce nothing.

In a socialist system, who does the executive work?

Workers themselves or their delegates if there is need for coordination of a larger scale.

there wouldnt be a product without inputs either, how can you claim that providing raw materials isnt an integral part of the productive process?

Raw materials in their state of nature are in the ownership of the capitalist class, and it is illegitimate to be in ownership of them at all if they are in their state of nature.

theres plenty of labor involved in creating and managing a firm.

Likewise in planning and executing a robbery. And neither robbery nor exploatory work have much to do with productive labor.

Someone has to acquire the land

Which capitalists illegitimate own.

Arent you glad someone was willing to make this investment and assume all that risk?

No, I am not glad that thieves and fraudsters exist.

I’m still not convinced that any of this is a bad thing.

You would first have to get out of the capitalist propaganda mindset to consider it.

He waives clam to title of the product

One does that when he sell his products to a buyer. One alienates labor when he is an employee.

presumably, all of those people were compensated for their work.

And that presumption is based on what? That we live in a perfect word of perfect people?

there needs to be a claim, a claimant

If I murder you and there is to plaintiff, there was still a murder.