yes, Marxists are quite happy with private property so long as it isn’t a means of production. unfortunately for you, your toothbrush is a means of production. it is a tool for producing cleaner teeth-in-the-mouth. if it did not have transforming effects, I am confident you would not subjectively value it so highly.
Laborers are consumers. Workers don’t spend their paychecks?
As for capitalists, you seem to define capitalists as people who own “means of production.” So, you’re ideally advocating a society in which there is no one that owns any means of production. If there were, these people would be capitalists. So, no one owns any means of production. Now, presumably you think there should still be production in this ideal situation. People need food, and houses, and clothes. So there is no one around owning means of production, but there’s still production. So there’s still means of production… but they’re owned by no one. So who utilizes them? Presumably everyone, because there’s no one who owns them, so there’s no one with the right to exclude other people from using them. So, we have a situation where the means of production exist, but are owned by no one, and are able to be used by anyone at any time for any purpose. Tragedy of the commons, anyone?
So again, they only care about the quality of the end product. If they have two low-quality products (of the same perceptible low quality), but one is crappy because less labor went into it and the other is crappy because it was made with old, out-of-date machines, do they care then? No. They still care only about the quality of the end product. So… why does labor need mention at all?
Because you have not read Proudhon enough to know that he also said ‘Private property is liberty.’ Have you read Marx?
‘In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.’ - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
No actually it is Gustave de Molinari, considered one of the first Market anarchists.
So it is not true that labors face coerced contracts or starvation? They can in fact survive without them?
Disregarding what differentiates two products, labor still affected the consumer’s choice in choosing a product.
Yes, you have a personal preferance as a consumer. This really is a non-issue. Some consumers boycott nike Coca-Cola for their anti-worker actions, this I would say is an example of consumers caring about the labor. A Consumer, which exists because of services and products, in which those exist because of labor.
Able to charge lower wages, have bad working conditions ect. It takes away the bargaining ability of the workers.
seriously dude, in a free market there are dynamic forces at play which push the wages of workers towards their DMVP.
you know what that is right? because you studied something about the market economy?
Poverty is man’s default condition.
Nowhere have I said that the only thing which can cause a consumer to value a product is its physical properties. I would not buy a stolen plasma TV for fifty bucks, but I would buy a legit one for that price. Why, because that factor affects my subjective conception of the product. Subjective conception of the end product is the ONLY factor which determines value for a consumer. Sure, they may incorporate some conception of the labor that (they think) went into it in their evaluation, but if they don’t labor is irrelevant. If I don’t know the TV is stolen, the fact that it’s stolen is irrelevant to its value to me.
Consumers started boycotting Nike at some point in the past. Did the actual labor going into Nike products change from before the boycott to during it? No. So what did change? Consumers found out what was involved in making the products, and their subjective evaluations changed. Again, this is evidence against any inclusion of labor into value. Before boycott: shoes made with sweatshop labor, high value. After boycott: shoes made with sweatshop labor, lower value (to some people). Labor itself didn’t cause the decrease in value, subjective preferences did. Labor in and of itself is impotent. It (like every other aspect of a product) is important to value only if it affects the subjective evaluation of the consumer.
Complete sentences would really help me understand the point you’re trying to make here.
Non sequitur, begging the question, and blatant assertion.
They are welcome to be the starving class. Or they are welcome to increase their productivity and become the manager class. And they are welcome to underconsume, save, and invest to become the capitalist class.
Besides, most wage workers don’t work half as hard and long as entrepreneurs, who take all of the risk, and have no social safety net to fall into if things go south.
Do you understand Marxian theory yourself? Consumers caring about labour conditions (affecting their subjective valuation of the good) does not show that a good’s value is derived from the labour that went into it… you’re equivocating.
Yes, because each and every one of us is exactly equal in our abilities, talents, work ethics, etc. Also, because everyone is just as good as anyone at predicting the preferences of consumers and working to fulfill them (what consumers value).
Yes, we are each exactly equal in our abilities or would be so if there were no “fiscal exploitation”
Maybe instead of this nonsense you’re spouting above, you might want to admit that a wealth gap is, absent government intervention and fraud/force, an imprecise measure of the additional value that an entrepreneur is able to provide to his customers?
You would benefit tremendously from reading Mises’ short and brilliant Profit and Loss.
The truth is that in a free market, each worker is paid what he is worth (which derives ultimately from consumer preferences). If he wasn’t paid what he was worth, another capitalist could pay him slightly more to get the extra profit.
Just price theory is as old (if not older) than Thomism, and guess who won the debate on it? Those that realized the market price as the just price. Can you please not try to worm out of this one and accept you’re grasping at straws in a sense? I think you’re trying to tie ethics to economics in some way in your mind, or at least that’s the mental sketch I can make of your thought process from the conclusions you make and the ideas you espouse.
Absolutely true. That fiscal exploitation is called taxation.
Precisely.
In our current state of affairs, I genuinely believe that to be 100% true. However, there is no way to prove definitely one way or an other. I am talking about our current world of crony-capitalist statism.
Wiithout taxation, the state would not be able to hold a monopoly on the money supply. Without a monopoly on the money, the statesmen would not be able to inflate the money supply and give the new money to the rich elite class of parasites. That is how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
The poor are constantly trying to play catch up with price and interest rate inflation. The rich always stay ahead of the line because they get cheapest loans in the money market.
The poor get pay-day usuary loans from the pawn shops at exorbitant rates. The rich get virtually free money from the banks.
Now, having said that, if we were living in Libertariania, I would certainly think different. I am of the opinion that a true free market would manifest itself with a much more equitable distribution of wealth. Granted, there would certainly be disparities but nowhere near what we see today. This is just my descriptive opinion. I am not suggesting any of this as a positive policy prescription. I am just convinced that in a true anarchy, people who refused to share their wealth – to a degree – would be met with raging pitch-fork wielding crowds or ostracized from the community.
If your community refuses to do business with you because you are a meiser or whatever, that is as good as a death sentence.
why would anarchy suffer from a dearth of libertarians and such an excess of socialists?
I would think ancaps would associate with other ancaps and socialists with other socialists. And of course the socialists would either starve to death or become ancaps 
oh, so you disagree with charles anthony as well, coolbeans!
I am not sure your use of the labels is the same as mine. I use the terms “anarchist” and “libertarian” interchangeably.
Anyway, in Libertariania, the rich would not have their police service, courts or legal expenses subsidized as they do now in our current statist society. So, the threat of an uprising would always exist. In response, I would expect the “rich” to be wise enough to share their wealth or at least make the appearance of sharing so as to avert an uprising. You may disagree and frankly, that does not matter. My point still stands: in our current statist affairs, the rich inflate the money supply and hold an unfair advantage over the poor.
in your imagination of the libertarian/anarchist society the rich have to stay on the good side of the socialist libertarians ?