In that case, without the justification of property out the window, it’s even more imperative to uphold the a priori ethical axiom of absense of hierarchy (even though if we would to accept property as a natural right, this axiom still superior to it).
Impinging on invalid contracts. Self-sale contracts are contracts that de jure trasfer something that is de facto inalienable, making them void. Same with employment contracts, which are self-rental contracts where the rentier buys man-hours, like he would buy car-days if he would to rent a car. Both self-sale and self-rental contracts are inherently unfulfillable, irregardless to whether someone really want to sign them.
Exactly. That’s why socialists want to a create a society where there is no such need, being that this ‘need’ is not a natural one, but one imposed on by the nature of the economic system.
A slim try of relativisation of the labor’s central role. Labor will producte without capital, in fact it was the labor that produces the capital, being that only labor can produce anything. Labor and capital cannot be equated as inputs, if any process can be applied as a metaphorc, it would be to call land or capital reactants, and labor the catalyst.
You should firstly recognize how reality works. Without labor, CNC mill will produce nothing. Capital without labor produces nothing. Whereas labor will create it’s own capital (unless systematically contrained).
The capitalist makes nothing happen. He does no labor.
Which are not productive. Marginal product of capital isn’t produced by capital, it is produced by labor. Capital without labor produces nothing. Labor produces everything.
The problem is he doesn’t produce it. The workers of the firm produces it, he contributes no labor.
All that is done by the workers. The workers produce the products that other workers sell and then that money goes to the capitalist who then gives some of it to the workers.
It is impossible to waive control over one’s action. I cannot say I am not responsible for murder because I was hired for it, likewise it is illegitimate for the employer to be considered responsible for the products of my labor.
Someone’s preference of having no headaches that come with being a person doesn’t validate self-sale contracts. Likewise with employment.
I don’t see why. CNC mills would never exist if workers didn’t mine materials from which it was made of, and if people didn’t make primitive mills in the 19th centrury, and if some other people did not make something even earlier, etc. If you start using previous labor as a justification for the present unearned income, there is nothing inconsistent in carrying on to the collectivist expropriation.
I don’t see any internal inconsistency, I oppossite it on the grouds of the socialist labor theory of property to which collectivist forced expropriations would in contradiction.
Negative, ghostrider. Property is justified through homestead and transfer theories of property. So no one has to accept your absence of hierarchy axiom (as they do not presently). These norms are entirely sufficient to the purpose, your norms are unnecessary.
making them unenforceable. Those consenting parties are free to continue their relationship as long as it is consensual. No matter the alleged performative contradictions in their charter. Mock all you like, just do not dare to lift a finger in aggression towards them.
your opinion on whether the contract is fulfilled or not is irrelevant as you have no standing to a claim on anything in the contract. 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.
now youre talking crazy talk. The need for capital is “natural” because humans are a tool-using species. Humans also recognize territoriality and permissions. Socialists want to create a society where they dont “need” capital because they stole capital from people who created it, or created enough goods to trade for capital.
I’m glad we are having this discussion. Means of production, or capital, are higher order goods. They only become useful when transforming inputs (labor, raw materials, thoughts, information) into products. The other error youre making is assuming that labor is central, production factors dont matter. This seems youre assuming labor is homogenous, and that goods are fungible. Neither is the case. Labor cant produce without means of production, you cant take the time to make snares if you dont have some caloric capital built up in the form of anatomical fat or dried berries in your satchel. What are you gonna do, hammer nails with your hands? Aborigines use capital drawn from the earth itself, labor cant produce anything without capital and production inputs.
oh boy, here we go. How is labor “systematically constrained” in what you call a “propertarian” system, and we call ancap?
first of all, we just got done explaining that the capitalist provides the means of production. So, he already did his share of the labor. Why do you assume it is necessary for the capitalist’s labor to be chronologically simultaneous?
secondly, you act like running a business isnt work. Which leads me to believe that, contrary to your earlier assertions, you have never had to supervise anyone professionally. In a socialist system, who does the executive work?
there wouldnt be a product without inputs either, how can you claim that providing raw materials isnt an integral part of the productive process? What is the worker and his reappropriated hammer supposed to do, pound on his own inalienable body?
theres plenty of labor involved in creating and managing a firm. Someone has to acquire the land, the buildings, the capital goods, and the inputs. Then he has to purchase labor in advance, including people who can account for the business process to make sure it works according tomplans, and people who will find customers for those products. Then after all of this is paid for, the capitalist can bein to replenish what the starting of the firm cost him. It might be a quarter-century before he goes back into the black, if his initial investment was sizeable, and in a competitive field. Arent you glad someone was willing to make this investment and assume all that risk?
no, the capitalist pays the workers and then attempts to sell the products. He may also employ people to do these tasks, further spreading the wealth around. I’m still not convinced that any of this is a bad thing.
he doesnt waive control. He waives clam to title of the product. Stop equivocating. If the product were faulty the worker still bears some liability. Employer and employee both share liability and proceeds, both were an actual contributing factor to the product. If someone knowingly let you use their car to rob a bank, they too are liable. It doesnt matter that they “didnt do anything.” they consented to the use of their capital. That is enough.
presumably, all of those people were compensated for their work. This is on the presumption that if someone had a claim, then they would petition the defendant or a third party for relief. So if the property was justly acquired, all previous claims satisfied, then all those people were paid and they have no further claim. So theres no basis for collective ownership. You dont seem to understand the affect that accumulation of capital has on production. Its not even really the same good, to compare handmade boots to machine made boots, etc.
also adding, that if one or more of those previous owners were not justly compensated, there needs to be a claim, a claimant, and an alleged tortfeasor estate in order to satisfy the claim. That claim isnt against any human alive today, or just the rich ones, or whatever.
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.
If they have no problem with commiting a performative contradiction, they don’t have to accept it.
We were talking about not about the “need about capital”, but the “need to rent capital from others”.
Renting capital is theft in itself.
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.
Then how did the means of production come into being?
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.
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.
Because his income is chronologically simultaneous. He takes a part of all the earnings that are entirely the workers product.
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.
Workers themselves or their delegates if there is need for coordination of a larger scale.
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.
Likewise in planning and executing a robbery. And neither robbery nor exploatory work have much to do with productive labor.
Which capitalists illegitimate own.
No, I am not glad that thieves and fraudsters exist.
You would first have to get out of the capitalist propaganda mindset to consider it.
One does that when he sell his products to a buyer. One alienates labor when he is an employee.
And that presumption is based on what? That we live in a perfect word of perfect people?
If I murder you and there is to plaintiff, there was still a murder.
In a free society, if you jump into a situation between two people and attack one of them for supposedly defrauding the other, even tho the other hasn’t complained, in what would be, according to you, the same as stepping into a situation where someone’s being attacked, using defensive coercion to stop an aggresion, the way this would go down is that you’ve now used force to stop that situation from happening. If there was no fraud, then you’re the aggressor!
So, the matter goes to court. The two people in the transaction both express mystification as to why you attacked one of them. The one attacked counter-sues you for assault.
The judge takes one look at your claim of fraud, finds no fraud himself, notes that neither parties complain about the deal that was going down, and judges against you, ordering you to pay damages and restitution for your assault of an innocent party.
God, I so hope that happens to you. You’re supposed superhero act will be popped like a ballon.
Stsoc: “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.”
Here’s the problem. We live in a society which allows workers to either use the capital of the industrialists, OR, to rent capital as you suggest they should.
So why aren’t people choosing to rent capital themselves rather than using the capitalist’s capital as employees in the process of production? Solve that question and you might actually achieve a breakthrough that will lead you resolutely towards capitalism.
Or, you know, just rationalize it away like you have done everything else
But there is fraud. To take someone fruits of labor is theft, and to convince them that is ok for their product of labor to belong to someone else is fraud. To conspire and to sistematically take away options other then to succumb to the fraud from the defrauded doesn’t make it in any way legitimate.
Which would meand that the judge is also a supproter of capitalism, and thus- of theft.
And it is the aim of socialists to live in a society where all workers will use their own capital.
I did not suggest that workers should do that, I just mentioned that employment can be abolished but the renting of means of production not to be.
There doesnt need to be a physical connection, property is a social relation. We recognize first proprietor because this claim helps to reduce the amount of conflicts. We recognize transferable claims because this also is among consenting adults, there is no claim against prohibiting the transfer (barring a lien). We recognize rent as legitimate because it occurs between two consenting people.
will you then force them to accept it?
its hierarchical to inject yourself into a situation where there is no plaintiff and expect people to take your word for it that there is indeed fraud, when neither party feels defrauded.
I thought you said that labor could produce capital all on its own.
no one shares your definition of ownership. You might as well say that deep sea fishing was theft from the sharks.
Value is subjective. Rephrase your object in terms where I charge you the old price for 11 shovels, for the rental of 10, and because you say the 11th isnt necessary I rent it to your competitor, who has a contract where he watches from the shade drinking lemonade and his teenage son does the work.
I certainly hope that answers your question. People on a starvation diet cant do much of anything. Caloric surplus is required.
well, theyre wrong. A wild gamelands is capital, you can go hunt grouse and search for truffels.
can you say why?
first of all, he is entitled to the services of his laborers, because they have agreed to come work with him. Secondly, you admit that the use of capital is necessary for products, but you do not explain why the capitalist must not only provide capital, but also labor simultaneously, whereas the laborer only labors simultaneously. Third, you again neglect the contributions of executive and managerial functions to the running of a successful enterprise.
first of all, thats not true. His income is after the labor gets paid. I explained this above.
secondly, his income comes much later than the laborers when measured from his labors in producing the capital. Laborers assume less risk and get paid much sooner than capitalists.
third, those earnings are not entirely the workers product, as they used the capitalist’s capital to produce them.
yes, and someone has to pick good managers and audit the sales numbers and provide for the reinvestment of proceeds, and managers that are involved in day-to-day affairs simply dont have the time to be experts at those things too, even so, its not their money to invest.
secondly, if the business wasnt there, the workers wouldnt be producing much of anything anyway, seeing as they havent had the foresight to accumulate much capital of their own, and they seem to think they are better off working for someone who knows a thing or two about capital.
so you acknowledge than an executive can be a worker, and you acknowledge that this authority is transferable. Do you realize that all of your objections to market propertarianism can be answered with legerdemain?
ownership is a social relation. Its legit as long as everyone involved says it is. Unless you want to throw hierarchy into the mix…
interesting that you would say this, as these workers who organize themselves and dont need capital ought to be outproducing these exploitative firms in a free market, which would mean you wouldnt have to deprive them of their property, market forces would do it all on their own.
by definition, of course. Likewise if you sleep in a factory because you are homeless and the owner’s representative locked the gate and went home, and no one ever catches you, you are still a trespasser.
If there is no physical connection then property is a social construct, based on some form of consequentialism.
Consequentialist perspective is much more in favor of socialism them capitalism.
It is how capital came into existence in the first place. Tools didn’t grow on trees.
Capitalists dont. Socialists do.
That’s another subject, I was not talking about value, but about property.
You have used “capital” the same way as me, to name the instruments of production, until you felt the need to confuse the subject in order to change the topic or what ever. I will not participate in that.
The example clearly shows the disconnection between “marginal product of capital” in the part of price that the product is sold for (that the capitalist takes) and both the productive process and the rent of means of production. Capitalist taking income is justified by the “margical product of capital” and that example show that the 11th shovel produced nothing, meaning capital produces nothing but labor does, and by capitalist asking payment even for the 11th shovel shows that renting of means of production has nothing to do with the product of labor (a part of which is called “marginal product of capital” and taken by capitalist), and therefore shows that capitalist taking any part of the product of the labor of the workers is unjustified.
Labor theory of property. Areas of land not being products of labor cannot be property, but only “occupied-and-used”.
No more then he is entitled to the service of his slaves, who have agreed to sell themselves to him. That is to say- not at all.
I do not admit that. Labor creates capital. Capital is created by labor, and without labor creates nothing. Even with labor it creates nothing, it is labor that creates by using it.
Because labor is central to property. LTP.
I see those function as not only largely superfluous to the productive process, but damaging to it, being that much of work of the manager is not to coordinate workers (which workers’ delegates could do) but to maintain the hierarchical structure of the workplace that keed workers disempowed and deskilled (effectively making them into tools, and thus be easier to train, thus increasing the pool of workers available to replace any specific worker), so the majority of the work that the manager does is not productive, but exploitative.
Yes. Being that capital sitting around produces nothing, the capitalist has to wait for someone else to produce something and then to defraud him of his of the product of his labor.
And being that both “marginal product of labor” and “marginal product of capital” are produced by labor (because capital itself produces nothing), both belong to the laborer.
Slaveowners too had to pick good slave drivers to control slaves picking cotton. They did not contribute to picking cotton, but to the hierarchical relation.
They would be producing everything, like everything that is is produced by workers, everything is produced by labor, that is how reality works. At least until someone makes a AI perpetuum mobile productive machine/ robot.
Or were prevented to do so by the way the system works. When the workers did establish an economy of their own and shown that it is not only possible, but that is more effective and humane and has better utilitarian results, Bolshevik, fascists, and “liberal democracies” joined toghether to destroy it by force.
Authority is not tranferable, it is representable. Delages in political or economic or military structures of a socialist society would not have control over the body that delegated them, but would remain equal, he would be just someone filling a job position, which is like all job position, controled by the community in question.
Leherdemain- Deception; trickery?
Which would mean that by the merit of me not accepting that you own something I am legitimate to take it? Unless you want to throw coercion in the mix to stop me.
What I’m trying to figure out is whether this claim is axiomatic, or whether you have an unstated premise. In other words, are you saying that by definition “getting the full product of one’s labor” entails owning the means of production, or is there a reason that one must own the means of production in order to receive the full product of one’s labor?
Doesn’t that apply to the seller as well? He takes part of the product of someone else’s labor in payment for the machine.
What exactly do you mean by “without laboring”? The owner did labor. So then the problem lies in how/where/when/with-whom he labored? Or you just mean that, by definition, whatever labor the worker does is the worker’s, whatever labor the owner does is the owner’s, etc?
They aren’t identical, they are the same insofar as in each case the worker must hand over some of the product of his labor to someone else in order to obtain the capital he requires for production.
We can call “that” anything we like. Call it chicken soup. I call it employment. The point is that if you agree that “that” is legitimate, well then we have no disagreement, as you agree that what I consider employment is legitimate.
If I’m a cobbler with my own shop (I own all the capital), one way to do business is to make shoes and sit them in the store window for whoever might come along. Another way to do business is to find customers in advance, and make shoes to order. These customers might want specific kinds of shoes, delivered at a specific time, and at a specific location. Is the customer “telling” me what to do? Well, he’s telling me what he wants, but he’s not ordering me, he’s not forcing me. It’s the same as if I’m a worker in a shoe factory. The customers have certain demands, the owner organizes production to meet those demands (X shoes of a certain type ready for delivery on a certain date etc), and he then “tells” the workers what they need to do in order to achieve this goal. But he doesn’t order them, he doesn’t force them. Producers, whether self-employed or employed by others, are always being “told what to do” by their customers if by no one else. If you want to eliminate that, you’d have to either eliminate production altogether or take away the freedom of consumers to buy what they please, and force them to buy whatever the producers choose to produce.
says the guy who favors prohibition of voluntary relations as part of socialism. Depriving people of rents would create vastly more conflicts.
capital absolutely grows on trees. Or have you not heard of spears, fruit, vines and the like?
a wild gamelands is the instrument of producing wild game, youre employing special pleading.
capitalist taking income is justified by mutual consent.
so you have not worked in management after all. Thank you.
Fixed this for you
how reality works is that without capital accumulation by capitalists and investors they would have the living standard of cavemen, continually having to create spears and game snare anew, never progressing beyond an aboriginal way of life. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
that sounds exactly like what you would do to successful capitalist firms.
concomitant with your decision to contract as an independent service provider, you agree to vest your executive authority as a member of this community in the existing ceo. You are free to decline to do this, just as you are free to decline to associate with this worker’s community. You cant force people to associate in your system, right? Otherwise theyd be slaves.
bookkeeping. Worker managed enterprises, in order to be a member you agree to delegate your authority to a trusted manager, as a condition of employment. As a condition of employment, you agree to sell the products of your labor to the sales representative. No labor is alienated and every worker is represented by his chosen surrogate executive.
yes, I will resort to coercion to prevent you from depriving me of my property. Youre not involved in my affairs, you have no claim to my property nor any standing to bring a claim. Your willingness to aggress against me by attempting to misappropriate my property is in fact the abandonment of social relations, meaning you dont respect property norms. In this case youre just doing me the service of talking about it beforehand.
It’s not by definition, he can use someone else’s means of production, as long as he doesn’t have to pay for them. If you have to pay for a permission to labor, you never recieve the full product of your labor.
And transfers the machine to him. Capitalist never does such a thing, the machine remains his.
That’s the labor theory of property as socialists espuse it ever since the Owenites and Ricardians.
But you still remain in control of your productive life. He doesn’t tell you where, exactly how and at what times you have to make those shoes.
He doesn’t force them, but he does order them.
Socialists just want it to be “and by no one else”.
Giving and taking orders, subordination.
Then we have no futher point in talking about property being that you think it a personal preference, and not a normative concept.
Which only capitalists complain about. I doubt that any worker will see anything wrong with it.
I am confident that the vast majority of people (who do not rent anything to someone else, but have to rent out houses, money and means of production from others) will full-heartedly embrace that kind of system.
As I said, I will not participate in that. Capital = tools, machines, factories.
It is not. If a worker would recieve the full of the product of his labor, as he is entitled to, I doubt any workers would voluntarily give a part of it to a capitalist as a gift.
Actually, progress would be much faster without the capitalists taking large unearned incomes and keeping the ones that actually produce anything disempowered and deskilled in order for them to be more easily controled, defrauded and replaced.
Payback to all those three will be a b*.
I don’t see how. The decision making power will be in the worker coop as a whole.
By becoming a member you get in a system where people are jointly self-employed, and the worker coop as a whole always has the authority, and that authority is never delegated to anyone, and the manager position, if needed, will be a job position just like production line or janitor positions.
But it’s not your property unless I accept it as such. Being that, according to you, there is not such a thing as property in natural law/ ethics, it depends on being accepted by people, right?
So if a business owner nicely suggested that an employee act in a certain way or kindly leave his premises, then there is no hierarchy. Surely, you don’t consider it to be hierarchical on your part when you kindly suggest that your dinner guest stops belching and throwing plates at your wife or kindly leave your house?
How many non-working capitalists and non-capital-owning workers (i.e. with zero-share ownership in means of production on which others labor) are you aware exist today?
In your “ban whatever I don’t like rampage” is it possible that you may (just may) have missed something very important which even a simple janitor has figured out? Namely, assume an expert operator of a machine that costs $200,000. He has $200,000 in his account and is faced with two choices: (1) Buy the machine, work with it, and enjoy the “full product of his labor”, down to and including going completely bust if no one bought his widgets, or (2) Offer his expert services to someone else who owns the machine, and invest $10,000 each in 20 other businesses in which other expert operators make different widgets with different machines? Only someone completely oblivious to risk and uncertainty would not only consider (1) to be by far the better choice but then go ahead and outright ban others from choosing (2).
EDIT: You still haven’t provided a single example for an employment contract which you deem would be impossible to re-write as a service contract using your definitions of both terms.
norms are social constructs. Property is normative. i never understood why you lefties think you can dismiss something by labeling it a “social construct.” Language is a social construct. Human law is a social construct. Norms are social constructs.
the would see a lot wrong with it the moment you attempt to interfere with their employment.
because they would rather be forced into homelessness by you then allowed to continue the arrangement they have already chosen? They are just waiting for you to come along and liberate them from their lease so they can go love on a park bench, right?
yep, youre denying the facts of reality here.
blah blah blah, you cant win an argument by repeating fallacies. The laborer isnt entitled to the capitalists share of the products. If he doesnt want to capitalist to take his (the capitalist’s) fair share, he can always start a business by himself, as you said, capital is unnecessary, all he needs is labor.
then why dont the workers accumulate capital themselves? Its because they prefer to labor for a secure wage rather than make more money by assuming risk. Rather than accumulate capital, the would prefer to consume their proceeds. Theres nothing wrong with that, it just means capitalists play a vital role in the market.
sounds like collectivist tripe to me. When an offer of employment is tendered, it is tendered upon condition that the prospective employee delegates his authority to the current ceo. If he prefers not to do so, the offer of employment is withdrawn. The executory act for reclaiming this authority is to leave the company property for 24 consecutive hours. The executory act for resigning employment is to leave the company property for 24 hours. Therefore all current employees have willingly delegated their management authority to the current ceo.
you just said above that the workers could appoint a representative. In this case, appointing the current ceo as representative is a necessary condition of membership in the worker’s collective.
wrong. One monkey doesnt stop the show. You are bound by antecedent social relations, such as my property rights, you cant just decided that “property is a social relation, and as a social participant, I decide that I own my neighbor’s 16-year-old daughter.” your mutualist revolution could only happen after you have resolved the contradictions in your system, because that would be necessary for convincing people to accept your preferred norms. If, in the meantime, you demonstrate that you dont repect my property, then you have just proven to everyone that you dont care about norms, you dont care about social relations, you dont care about property rights, what you care about is your own profit material gain and fulfillment of wants.
But stoc your whole philosophy is based on the idea that labouring for someone else is not legitimate. What about sub contracting? There is little difference between sub contracting and being an employee, one of the differences is that the sub contractor has to deal with his own administration while the employee, his employer handles the administration and often takes on some of the risk associated with the labour as well.
If you are an employee you get a fixed salary even if the business is not doing well, while if you are in a coop or an independent contractor if there is no work you don’t get paid. There are also many other benefits for being an employee that you are not taking into consideration. You just see it as illegitimate because you are hung up on this idea that man should get to keep the full fruits of his labour, whatever that means.
Because they will own their house, their money and their means of production, and they will be able to live by their labor without anyone parasitizing on them.
Because he cannot be entitled to something that is nonexistent.
And he will be able to easily do so in socialism.
Because they are oppressed by hierarchical structures.
Socialism doesn’t want to keep capitalism and just rename it, we want to abolish the way it fuctions. Workers would apply to be an employee of the coop, but would join coops.
In the need for coordination in large scale coops.
Which has nothing to do with delegating authority.
So basically, you are forcing your personal preferences on me because you’re have the power? And socialism is “tyrrany”? Yeah right.
There are no contradictions in socialism, and socialist revolution will happen when enough people organize well enough.
Just like abolitionists didn’t respect slaveowners’ property.
I can tell you right now that if you try to take away someone’s job, they are going to be pissed at you, and if you try to take away someone’s factory, the are going to be pissed at you. If you likewise try to steal someone’s investment home and at the same time deprive their tenant of his lease, then none of these four people is going to tolerate your behavior. So how is it that you propose to do such an irrational, nonsensical thing without anything that could be described as a hierarchy? you have to convince those people to go along with you, right? Or are you just going to force your will upon them?
how would they own the house and the means of production if they did not do so already? Youre talking about theft. If you were concerned with proper ownership, you would recognize that when the landlord and capitalist become aware of the new criteria for ownership, they would decline to cede ownership of their capital, and instead work it themselves. Your workers and tenants would become homeless and jobless.
yes, ownership of land, which you somehow still believe in when it suits your purpose. They can own a hoise if their a worker, but not if they are a landlord. You havent explained why.
meaning, you want to force them into specific types of rigid social relationships instead of respecting their right to self-determination.
right, and they accept the pre-existing coordination mechanism as a condition of membership.
I believe you missed the part where I said that it does.
By responding to your force with force, I am respecting your personal preferences in human relations. One could say you were attempting to force your personal preferences upon me but for the simple fact that you were kind enough to announce that you do not in fact respect social norms, and so I was prepared for your assault upon my liberty.
I’m glad we agree.
you have been quite helpful in illustrating the contrary to the former, and the latter goal is impossible without voluntary hierarchical relations, as you call them. Theyre actually quite equilateral as long as the order carries no coercive force. The imperative format is a grammatical expediency
nothing could be more different. You think the manufacturers of capital goods should be yuor slaves.
My religious views are irrelevant to the topic. Imposition of harm and hierarchies are wrong just like 2+2=5 is wrong.
Of course, slaveowner were pissed when their property was taken away from them, too.
Capitalists would be expropriated.
Theft is taking legitimate property. So it wouldn’t be theft.
Yeah, that’s how slavery was abolished, slaveowners “became aware” that their property is illegitimate.
It would be expropriated from and taken by the workers as a recompensation for the thievery they have endured.
I have never said that land can be owned, exactly the opposite.
Rent as an earned income would be abolished.
Yes, we will “force” people not to be slaves.
And you missed the part where I said that is doesn’t. Being a delegate would be no more of a position of authority then being a janitor.
I would not apply any force to you. I would just take something that you consider you property, but it is not your property, being that property in itself doesn’t exist.
You have failed in pointing out a single one.
Workers are the manufacturers of capital. And they should be free of the capitalists.
Then perhaps you might be kind enough to explain how you have managed to transcend the fact/value dichotomy. Please.
I’m not sure that the slaves were ever their property. Remember, property is a social relation. The opinion of the slave needs to be considered here.
so, the truth comes out at last, plunder is what you are really after.
earlier you said the tenant would own his house, because the landlord would be expropriated.
if two people agree to rent, you would agress upon them rather than respect their social relation. Thats aggression.
I think you mean :
as the force isnt a question here, you admit to that. You somehow think someone can consent to “slavery” and its “just as bad” as someone who is forced into actual slavery defined as involuntary servitude. to the point where you equivocate between freeing a captured involuntary slave with splitting up a husband and wife who enjoy kinky games. Youre off your rocker and you need to start thinking about how the social component of ownership involves people besides yourself.
yet another internal contradiction of the worker’s paradise. “delegating authority doesnt mean delegating authority.”
youre just not payng attention, and using language games to fool yourself. Words are just symbols for concepts, you cant conceptualize an m.c. Escher economy, then define your terms so everything is grammatical, then coherently argue that water runs uphill. Youve actually done all of that except the coherence part. Good job. Now are you ready to actually make sense? Words are just symbols for concepts, they are social constructs. Try expanding your horizons.
thats like saying “businesses should be free of customers.” who do you think paid for the capital to be manufactured?
They are value-free ethical exioms, being that they are a priori norms of communication (through which alone anything can be justified).
They were considered as such by law.
Reclamation.
And the house is synonimous with land how?
I don’t think it’s just as bad, but that doesn’t make it good. Slavery and all other hierarchies will be abolished in socialism.
The metaphor with the closes meaning would be “slaves should be free from their owners”, your example has nothing to do with mine, being that buyer/seller of a commodity are not in a hierarchical relationship.
Hierarchies are not innately wrong. Only using force to establish a hierarchy is wrong. That is, as with all other issues, it is the aggression element that makes it unethical. Sex is not wrong, but sex + aggression is rape. Trade is not wrong, but trade + aggression is extortion. Etc.
