Participants in a self-sale contracts didn’t have to submit them to abolitionists for approval either.
Theres nothing wrong with self-sale contracts, they just cant be legally enforced. Its aggression to try and stop two consenting adults from transacting.
Correct. The problem with past slaveries was governments enforcing aggression contracts, not with the attempt to sell onesself into slavery per se.
In a libertarian society, there could be no enforcement of a slavery contract under protection of property rights, and thus no slavery.
It’s not aggression to stop fraud.
Determination of fraud is entirely dependent on factors within the transactors. You, being a random busybody, have no place injecting yourself. Its cant be fraud from your perspective because you have no claim upon which to be decieved as to its delivery.
The most you can do as a 3rd party observer to a transaction is try to explain to one party why they’ve been defrauded. Since fraud is not violent there’s no cause to actually interfere with a transaction in process, since the supposedly defrauded party can seek damages at any point thereafter.
Fraud is not like witnessing violent attack which would justify stepping in to make sure everything’s kosher. However, if both parties still tell you to get lost, then you must cease interference.
Your moral preferences can’t exist without justifying aggression to yourself. You know that if you admit that you have no basis for interfering in voluntary contracts that your case is lost, for the world will simply leave you behind to deal with others who agree with you.
Well this has been a metastrophe. We exchanged a meta-discussion for a discussion.
Yea, way to go champ.
… Do you see now why we can’t have nice things?
Because communists will break them. I get it now. I am neocon for commies. Mission accomplished bitches, here comes the war machine!
Let it begin
It is fraud whether I am the transactor or not, and it is fraud whether the transactors recognize it as such or not.
That’s what socialist activism does. When anough people see the fraud, we will jointly overthrow the system that is based on it.
as a logical proposition, this statement is unjustifiable using any accepted definition of “fraud.”
in that case, please be so kind as to explain how mutually voluntary employment contracts are fradulent, given two informed parties who consent to transact.
Quick, stsoc, ask him “who are you?”!
I am John Fucking Rambo, the only man ever to simultaneously operate all three stations in a t-72
You’re assuming that any given individual capitalist has the power to deny any given individual worker the opportunity to make a living because if all capitalists teamed up then indeed they could deny that worker all opportunity to make a living. You don’t see how fallacious that it? It’s like saying I have the power to deprive the world of drinking water because I own some drinking water.
I see.
Why do you assume it’s so much easier to find new customers than it is to find new employment?
Sure. Providing the initial capital, paying the workers before the products are produced and sold, taking all the risk, and managing the company (you realize production involves more than working the machines?)…that’s nothing. /sarc
Okay, so then what’s an “order” in your view? All this talk about hierarchy and you still haven’t really defined what constitutes unequal power relations. Obviously. you feel that there can be unequal power relations even without violence or the threat thereof. So we’re talking about the non-violent influencing of one person by another. So, where to draw the line? What’s too much influence?
N.B. This kind of thinking is the legacy of John Stuart Mill, who replaced the idea of liberty (freedom from aggression) with “autonomy,” (freedom from external influence in some vague sense) which either means nothing at all too clearly (e.g. whatever the State decides it means), or it means complete isolation and self-sufficiency: which in turn would mean the end of labor specialization, the end of exchange…the end of civilization. You see the fingerprints of John Stuart Mill throughout Leftist thought.
According to you and your premises, but not them and their premises. What gives you the right to interfere then? If you try to interfere and they disagree that they’ve been wronged and ask you to go away, will you use force to right the wrong that only your perceive still?
Such borders on schizophrenia, seeing imaginary slights where none exist.
It isn’t because they do team up, that’s how capitalism works.
Being that the customers are everyone, and the capitalists are a minority that rules everyone else.
Yes, that is nothing. All that is not only possible, but would be done more easily in a socialist society.
You can check some questions here: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secBcon.html
But I’d recomend reading the entire section.
Yes, he was for worker self-management, but it’s not the legacy of Mill, it’s the legacy of enlightenment, Rousseau, Humboldt, Kant, etc, it’s central notion was that men are free and no man should be a machine under the command of another man.
They can accept 2+2=5 all they want, but it’s 4. It’s 4 even if the only one in the world who says so, and that wouldn’t mean I’m schizophrenic, but that everyone else is brainwashed. But this kind of hypotetical sitation is as unlikely as the one you mention- someone in socialism accepting employment as not being fraud. Socialism being established will mean that the brain-washing machinery of capitalism is abolished, and just like today no sane person wants to sell themselves and be a tool used to enrich it’s owner, likewise in socialism no able-minded person will want to rent themselves and be a tool used to enrich it’s rentier.
thats nonsense.
But this kind of hypotetical sitation is as unlikely as the one you mention- someone in socialism accepting employment as not being fraud. Socialism being established will mean that the brain-washing machinery of capitalism is abolished, and just like today no sane person wants to sell themselves and be a tool used to enrich it’s owner, likewise in socialism no able-minded person will want to rent themselves and be a tool used to enrich it’s rentier.
Clearly then, the socialism you have in mind is not a free society. I hope you realize that.
When you say socialism would be “established” what you mean is that you and people whom agree with you would take by force a monopoly in deciding what is ethical in the society. You would become tyrants, interfering with voluntary associations and structures. That’s what tyranny is.
The virtue of the free libertarian society that we desire is that it is the natural state of humankind. It is the state that exists for all people when you remove all outwardly imposed power from a social system and leave everyone equals. If you do that, then our anarcho-capitalism results (and not your anarcho-socialism btw). For at that point, people engage in free transactions, purchase dispute resolution and rights-protection, and generally will get along well and be at their maximum wealth and productivity.
If your version of the ultimate society requires you to ban anything against people’s will, then it’s not a free society. It’s one you’ve imposed upon them artificially. All this talk of interfering with contracts where there is no victim, that’s not possible in a free society, it’s possible only in one where someone has power, power to force things against another’s will, which btw means hierarchy too. Only in a free society is there a complete lack of legitimate aggressive-coercion or coerced-hierarchy.