Why I am no longer a socialist

[stsoc]

You do if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you obviously ARE trolling.

The problem is that, even though that the explanation is not necessary to anyone possessive of common sense, I have already given it. Ok, let’s go one more time.

Relation between a person doing a service job and a person for whom the service job is done is one between equals, one is service provider and the other is the customer. Employer and employee relation is something else, it is a hiearchical relation where the subordinate alienates his labor, and the superior takes a part of the product of the subordinate’s labor.

But a laborer does. Thanks for proving my point.

Choosing one’s boss doesn’t make you control your work. Having direct and equal participation in the decision making that concerns your work means having control over your work.

But a laborer choosing his employer is.

Slave choosing his slaveowner or worker chosing his emplyer in no way contol their work, their only decision is to whom they will give contol of their work.

[Malachi]

An absolute unilateral veto power constitutes control. Since both parties in any mutually voluntary transaction always have this power over the transaction, they have equal power. Therefore, employer-employee relations are always between equals.

[stsoc]

Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That’s hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.

[Anenome]

@stsoc

Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That’s hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.

Not so. The employee can be self-employed should he choose, or become an employer himself. He could hunter-gatherer for a living. What a false conception of choice you provide.

As for characterizing it as ‘superior-subordinate’ you make a critical error. That relationship exists only for purposes of setting company-wide strategy. In terms of the trade of labor for wage, both the employee and employer have the right to terminate the contract at any time or to try to renegotiate it. That is equal power.

If there was a law saying that the employee had to do what the employer said, THAT would be an inequal relationship, because it would no longer be free association but compulsory association. And THAT would be antithesis to liberty. But as things stand now, all employment contracts are entered into on the basis of free association and are in fact expressions of liberty.

[ClaytonB]

Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That’s hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.

Yeah, the landscaping company that trims the bushes around my house is my bitch! Damn landscaper only gets to choose which houses in town he’s gonna take it from. Bend over and grab your ankles, you landscaping company owner!

Clayton -

[ClaytonB]

BTW, BirthdayPony, why do you keep constantly changing nics??

Clayton -

[Autolykos]

@stsoc

Choosing one’s boss doesn’t make you control your work. Having direct and equal participation in the decision making that concerns your work means having control over your work.

Would you say you have control over your work if no one’s willing to pay you anything for it?

[Malachi]

Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That’s hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.

what is this, argument by assertion? Employer-employee relationship is that of peers, indeed the relation only exists if terms are acceptable and agreed upon by both parties. The laborer has his pick of whichever employer he is willing to work with. Likewise, the employer has his choice of who he is willing to work with. This is freedom of association and the very essence of liberty.

[Anenome]

@stsoc

Employer-employee relationship is that of a superior-subordinate, the only say that laborer has is to which boss will he subordinate. That’s hierarchy and antithesis of liberty.

Why don’t you define ‘liberty’ for us as you conceive it?

Libertarians typically define liberty as the state in which there is an absence of aggressive-coercion. A man alone on an island obviously has perfect liberty, for there is no one to coerce him.

Two men together living non-aggressively and respecting property rights thereby, also exist in a state of liberty. If one hires the other to dig a ditch and pays him in coconuts, the state of liberty has not been breached, for they have both agreed freely, without coercion, to do so.

For you to claim that hierarchy is the antithesis of liberty you must show how, in theory, aggressive-coercion is inherent to hierarchy.

I assure you however that you cannot show this, for it does not exist. No force exists in the employer-employee contract. It is a contract of mutual agreement and consent, the very expression of liberty. It is a trade as surely as any other trade, merely a trade of service for a trade of goods rather than goods for goods. Why trading service for good should so confuse leftist-anarchs is beyond me. And why mere land should be treated different from any other ownable good, a priori, is also a mystery, for neither are consistent in principle.

[Vanitas_Nomen]

Under state capitalism the state has private property over, well, everything. Private property is a concept, it can be contrasted with socialistic notion of property, or communistic notion of possessions.

It doesn’t have private property over well, everything because what “it” is, is well, nothing. It is like saying the forest exerts control of all that inhabits the forest. But the forest doesn’t exist outside of the individual specimens that compose the forest. “The ordered organization of coecion” cannot act of it’s own will, it’s own volition, thus it cannot own something, only individuals can “own” something, thus only individuals can exert notions of property.
Classical Economics of thinking only in aggregates/classes leads perfectly to your line of reasoning, however it is essentially false.

[stsoc]

Employer-employee relationship is that of peers, indeed the relation only exists if terms are acceptable and agreed upon by both parties.

The fact that both parties give their formal consent can them make fraud and also robbery a “relationship of peers”. In fraud, the defrauded gives his consent, but in robbery, the threated one also gives his consent, he could always say no.

The laborer has his pick of whichever employer he is willing to work with.

To work for. He pick to whom to subordinate. That choice doesn’t make the relation non-hierarchical.

Why don’t you define ‘liberty’ for us as you conceive it?

I guess the simplest definition would be Mill’s “to be able to do what one wants”, but I’d say that best way to identify societal liberty is by not only absence of imposition of harm (which is much wider then NAP), but also absence of hierarchy, of there being no master who will boss you around.

Libertarians typically define liberty as the state in which there is an absence of aggressive-coercion.

Pretty nonsensical. Being that someone can lock you in a room and starve you to death, and that’s “liberty” being that he has not aggressed on your property, neither in person, neither external.

For you to claim that hierarchy is the antithesis of liberty you must show how, in theory, aggressive-coercion is inherent to hierarchy.

I do not have to. Aggression is not the only thing that is illegitimate, it is a small part of things illegitimate when interpersonal relations are concerned.

It is a trade as surely as any other trade, merely a trade of service for a trade of goods rather than goods for goods.

Employment is not a trade of service, but alienation of labor. Provider of service and his customer are equals and there is no alienation of labor; employer and employee are superior and subordinate where the subordinate alienates his labor, and the superior takes a part of his subordinate’s labor (thus violation his right to the full product of his labor, which is the right to property).

And why mere land should be treated different from any other ownable good, a priori, is also a mystery

It’s a mistery for those who are unable to practice critical thinking and leave the capitalist propaganda paradigm to think about first principles. Property comes into being as a product of labor (by “removing recources from the state of nature by mixing labor with them”). Being that land is not a product of labor, it cannot be property, but only possession; you cannot have a title over it, but only “occupancy-and-use”.

It doesn’t have private property over well, everything because what “it” is, is well, nothing.

The whole point of you propertarians to talk about how states should should not own anything, should not regulate the market, and should be abolished. But how can nothing do that, and how can nothing be abolished. Nonsensical.

however it is essentially false.

States exist, corporations exist, worker cooperatives exist, communes exist. Reality disproves you. Denying reality is a pathological delusion.

[Malachi]

The fact that both parties give their formal consent can them make fraud and also robbery a “relationship of peers”. In fraud, the defrauded gives his consent, but in robbery, the threated one also gives his consent, he could always say no.

fraud is defined by deception, there is no informed consent. Whether they are peers is largely irrelevant. And surely you recognize the threat of violence inherent in robbery means there is no power equality, therefore robbery cannot occur between peers.

To work for. He pick to whom to subordinate. That choice doesn’t make the relation non-hierarchical.

no, it makes it a voluntary, consensual temporal peer-to-peer exchange relationship. Its only hierarchy if you ignore the absolute veto power that both parties hold and assume for whatever reason that employees have to listen to the employer. They do not, they can always say no. Without threat of violence, I might add.

Employment is not a trade of service, but alienation of labor. Provider of service and his customer are equals and there is no alienation of labor; employer and employee are superior and subordinate where the subordinate alienates his labor, and the superior takes a part of his subordinate’s labor (thus violation his right to the full product of his labor, which is the right to property).

youre wrong. Employment is trade of service, the employee trades his time and effort for money, the employer trades money for someone elses time and effort. Its actually none of your business what that particular service is, as long as there is informed consent on both sides, and no aggression or threat of aggression has occurred. Youre trying to dictate what relations between peers are acceptable in society, this is effectively you pretending that everyone in society is subordinate to you. For some reason you dont have a problem with this hierarchy, perhaps because youre at the top. Hmmmmm.

[Anenome]

@stsoc

Property comes into being as a product of labor (by “removing recources from the state of nature by mixing labor with them”). Being that land is not a product of labor, it cannot be property, but only possession; you cannot have a title over it, but only “occupancy-and-use”.

You ignored my previous challenge to this idea, so I’ll ask again. If I dump tons of rock and dirt into the ocean and produce an island, do I own that land?

[cab21]

so if a person scuba diver dives and harvests the botton on the ocean, he would own the botton, if rocks were then dumped on the botton by someone else forming land, the scuba diver would own the land as the rocks are a agression again the seabed the scuba diver owned?

[DemiProphet]

Well, I just want to say I found this site yesterday I register Im reading Im liking, go on with this interesting debate.

Of course we really need the communist to contribute because he is the only one giving another point of view, or else everybody will be agreeing with everybody which would be kinda useless and boring.

[DemiProphet]

Ok Ill say something, Im not an advanced expert on politics, neither I am on communism/marxism/socialism, whatever we might call it, but I really have some inocent curiosity about it, some was answered already along this posts.

But for example can you explain me better…how is the life of an artist imagine a musician under your “regime”? how do you look to artistic or intelectual labor and property? I mean things get so confusing under your “regime”. You say that “land is not a product of labor, it cannnot be property” do you think the same about intelectual work? is it product of labor? can it be property? etc…Tks.

[eliotn]

Welcome to the forums DemiProphet. Glad to hear that you are enjoying the debate. If you want to find other debates on mises.org, or look at some more resources, then follow this link and explore: The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread

Everyone agreeing with everyone on a subject isn’t necessarily boring, sometimes it helps to hear responses without it becoming a debate.

The hard thing about this debate is that I find it hard to articulate the points that stosc is making. For the point on property that you are referencing, there is an apparent contradiction. He states that property is made by taking things out of a state of nature. However, that apparently contradicts with his statement that land cannot be property, because land can be used and changed.

I agree that this definition has holes in defining property, and needs to be explained further.

As for intellectual property, there have been big debates on this subject. For myself, I think that anything that is purely intellectual cannot be property. For example, a painting can be property, but an idea cannot (although ideas can certainly be revealed for a price). However, the absence of a copyright or patent does not doom these intellectual professions. But if this is what you want to discuss, I think it would be best on another thread.

[Anenome]

Demiprophet, welcome to the forums. I’ll save you months of time and jump-start you by pointing you to this book that every libertarian should read, and will read eventually in most cases:

Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

It’s an easy and enjoyable read; he writes it for the masses not merely for intellectuals. It’s available free as a digital download on this site. Enjoy.

You can also buy a physical copy from the Mises book store, or download a free audiobook of it here.

[stsoc]

“Malachi”

no, it makes it a voluntary, consensual temporal peer-to-peer exchange relationship.

It makes it voluntary and consensual, not peer-to-peer. Slave choosing his owner makes it voluntary and consensual, but not non-hierarchical. Likewise with any subordination, to feudalist, capitalism, state, etc.

Its only hierarchy if you ignore the absolute veto power

Ih hierarchy is voluntary that doesn’t magically makes it stop being a hierarchy.

Employment is trade of service,

You are wrong, it is not. If I’m a e.g. plumber, when I come to fix some pipes of yours, I am your service provider, and you are my customer. When you don’t pay me, but my boss, that boss is my employer and I am his employee, you get a serice from me, but my alienated labor and the money I earned.

“Anenome”

If I dump tons of rock and dirt into the ocean and produce an island, do I own that land?

Guess so.

“DemiProphet”

But for example can you explain me better…how is the life of an artist imagine a musician under your “regime”?

In socialism, in the communities functioning by mutualism, they would function as producers and sellers of their products. If people want to buy them, they’re buy them. In communities functioning by collectivism or communism, he’d have to contribute vitally important work to the community and could do art in his free time, or would have to convince the community fo accept that his art is enough of contribution to the community that he should take part in community’s food and similar products on the basis of providing art.

how do you look to artistic or intelectual labor and property?

There is no such thing as intellectual property. It cannot be property because it is in contradictioin with other people’s legitimate property (in hampers the freedom of use of your legitimate property that neither harm not limits the freedom of anyone else).

He states that property is made by taking things out of a state of nature. However, that apparently contradicts with his statement that land cannot be property, because land can be used and changed.

Areas of land cannot be changed, because they are intangible.

“In economics, land comprises all naturally occurring resources whose supply is inherently fixed. Examples are any and all particular geographical locations, mineral deposits, and even geostationary orbit locations and portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.”

The first problem is with the “geographical locations” part, you cannot own intangible things.

The second problem here is that when you stop tilling soil and don’t use it, it will return to it’s untilled state of nature, meaning that it returns into the category outside property.

Property means exclusive use until the transfer of title. Possession means exclusive use during use. So land can be only possession, not property.

Likewise with similar natural recourses, e.g. in quarries. You own what you mine, but when you stop mining, someone else can start mining there, you can’t legitimately stop him because you have a paper that says that that quarry is yours because you mined it.

[DemiProphet]

Well first of all thanks to Anemone and Eliotn for the welcome and Stsoc for reply.

Eliotn about intelectual property I also hate the “quotings” for example, as if ideas really belong to anyone, I mean I already thought so many stuff that I see quoted, sometimes they quote people to say that “the sky is blue”… even Libertarianism I never heard about it, but my ideas seem to be close to it, actually even comunism when I was a kid I thought the government could own all factorys and share the profits with everyone, later I found out comunism said something similar (much more in detail). But I think there should be intelectual property till some extent to reward the “thinkers” or artists, because that is a labor harder than any other.

About Stsoc, I was hoping you would contradict youserlf, you realize when you say “land doesnt come from labor, it cant be property” and you say intelectual work cant be property, you are saying that intelectual work doesnt come from labor, just like when you say that artists (philosophers etc) would have to lets say farm (DO THE REAL LABOR) and do their stuff on their free time (imagining they would have free time) . Which doesnt surprise me, the whole problem with Marxism is the materialism. I dont want to talk much about it and make a huge text about it, but for me labor is not just sweating, thinking is imaterial labor and the most effective labor of all, thanks to that labor we talking about marxism here, actually thanks to that labor we using internet, and everything around us.