|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area.
|
On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes.
As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership.
|
On April 26 2015 00:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 22:45 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Wegandi, I am seriously interested in your historical and empirical defense of the statement that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe liberty and freedom is. I am not disputing that it is possible to find some undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties (often in particular economic freedoms and liberties), and I'm not disputing that some democratic societies have put some restrictions on the same freedoms and liberties, but the notion that dictatorships have on average been less restrictive than democratic societies.. That statement blows my mind. For one, you certainly don't seem to value freedom of speech and expression highly, values that are nearly universally championed by democratic states and nearly universally combated by dictatorships. Frankly, I'm left with the impression that when you talk of freedom and liberty, you are solely talking about restrictions on economy, and then you confuse will with ability, and by noticing that more developed (coincides with more democratic) societies are more capable of enforcing economic regulations, you make the conclusion that more democracy equates to more regulation. And this is me trying to give you credit - the notion that non-economic freedoms and liberties are more protected in undemocratic than democratic societies is just factually wrong. I mean, look at this map + Show Spoiler +This is the 'democracy index'. Fully democratic nations are dark green, the less democratic the lighter green, the more authoritarian the darker red. You seriously want to claim that liberties and freedoms are less safe in the dark green than the dark red states? Before I being, I just want to say your post proves my prior post. The attributes you give Democracy are actually Republican principles, not Democratic. I'm much more inimical towards Democracy than Republicanism for instance. Things such as guaranteed recognition and obeyance of our natural rights are not Democratic ideals - in fact, they're pretty opposed. You can't vote away someone elses' right of self-defense, expression, etc. You're not defending democracy, you're defending republicanism. Similarly, when democracy is expanded and you're allowed to vote on a wider range of activities this tendency is to limit liberty and freedom. On a micro scale, entities like Homeowner's Associations which have a shit ton of democracy are atrocious at recognizing liberty. Scale this up to the nation-state and the trend becomes even worse. Imagine giving the population to vote for economic and personal policy. It would make the USSR look tame in comparison. A microcosm are the state referendums that generally come up and mostly tend to reduce our liberties. Also, just so you're aware I don't separate economic and personal liberty - it is all one principle of self-ownership. Good luck legalizing prostitution, gambling, vices in general, etc. especially in our 'safety' paranoid society. A good view on this is also socialized healthcare actually. When this happens as it all ready is in Europe for instance (and you should be aware of this) is that personal choice tends to be at the whim of popular will - that's the exact opposite of freedom. You think you're going to have legalized heroine or cocaine or insert other 'dangerous' 'addictive' activity in that environment? No. Democracy is essentially the unlimited expansion of this intrusion by your neighbors. Being able to vote on anything and everything as plurality law is unbridled Democracy. In fact, it is so extreme and dangerous that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone defend it. Now, I never said that our liberties are better protected in a 'dictatorship'. From a state perspective the best option is city-state republicanism and then 'enlightened' Monarchy is after that. The point was that liberal values aren't inherit part of Democracy. Now if you a modern day example take the Drug War. There were no drug wars going on in 18th Century monarchies for the most part. Similarly, early Rome the citizens had more overall liberty than say their Greek counterparts in Athens. Again, I'm talking in aggregate. Anyways, you still haven't answered my first statement - that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe freedom and liberty is. You're under the false assumption that there exists only Democracy and or Dictatorship. It's a false dichotomy. To start off; I can see how my fuckup capitalizing Democratic meant 'attributed to politics favored by the democratic party' or whatever, and where your capitalization was actually a conscious choice because you wanted that meaning to be evident, where I actually meant 'democratic society as opposed to authoritarian' not in any way relating to the american political spectrum. Chalk it up to a linguistic misunderstanding on my behalf.  But yes, I initially interpreted you as to be saying that authoritarian regimes have on average through history been better for individual liberties than democratic societies. That would be a statement hinging on either a very weird understanding of world history, or a very selective understanding of personal liberties and freedoms. As for the 'freedom' debate, I think we have a fundamental disagreement relating to like, where one freedom starts and another ends. It's one of the big and essential debates, where one's point of view normally permeates over to every other aspect of morality and preferred societal construct. I personally think that regulations are essential to maintain other freedoms (like the freedom to breathe clean air is contingent on environmental regulations on industry, like the freedom to pursue happiness is contingent on access to quality education, etc). Anyway, I happily agree that Democratic ideals, as opposed to Republican, are more geared towards individuals changing for the betterment of society. (So creating the best society is the goal rather than always protecting individual freedoms and figuring that if people are not constrained then improvement comes as a natural consequence). I mean, these are simplifications, I do think Democratic ideals also concern themselves with the individuals within a society, and all but the most Thatcherite forms of Randism believe that society is a real thing which influences the people inhabiting it. But yes, there's certainly an element of republicans valuing freedom of choice and personal autonomy more. The 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' Kennedy quote is kinda the embodiment of this. Which in other ways doesn't make sense, because when I see right wing I also see New Public Management and when I see New Public Management I see workers being stripped of professional autonomy, but oh well. That's another discussion altogether - but I've never seen any libertarian argument against NPM. And finally, you mention 'Now if you a modern day example take the Drug War. There were no drug wars going on in 18th Century monarchies for the most part.'. Here, I just have to state that as much as I hate the war on drugs (and I've been a very avid champion of drug legalization for more than a decade), I would actually consider the British-Chinese Opium Wars even more societally damaging and intrinsically immoral, but the foundation of the Opium Wars was opposite-ish of the more modern War on Drugs?
Again here a communication misunderstanding. I was talking about Democratic and Republican forms of Government - not the parties. It's the difference between 450BC Rome and 600BC Athens. Or for modern reference, the State of Florida and a Swiss Canton in a more generalized sense. My point was also that liberal values aren't an inherit feature of Democracy and you can have these values in non-Democratic societies. I mean, Joseph II of Austria followed through on a lot of liberal values and that was an absolute Monarchy. Let's just say I am for stripping all the power away from my fellow neighbor to take away my natural rights especially by vote. Imagine if eminent domain was the purview of community vote. Don't like that one guy - take his property. 51% of your county wants that Wal-Mart, sucks to be you. Plurality of your neighborhood doesn't personally approve of your vices, sexual orientation, etc. well lock you away. No, thank you. The less things the body politic has the ability to vote on the better, and this goes for republicanism as well.
Time preference also plays a huge role here too. Yeah, I am sure we have lots of disagreements, however I don't siphon rights and freedoms into pieces of pie. I only have a starting point - self-ownership, and from there flows naturally every other right. Why should there be no drug laws? Because I own my body to dispose of as I will. Why should there be no taxation? Because it is a theft of my labor/property. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc.
As for the opium wars, they were certainly an abomination, but Monarchs weren't going to make a huge percentage of their population outlaws. Monarchs have different pressures than our modern Governments. As another poster brought up - because 'we' are 'the Government' (in reality we aren't) who do we hold accountable? It's a lot more complex, but I haven't slept in a while, so we'll have to pick this up later.
|
On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership.
That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned).
They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism").
I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average.
Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc.
What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just theft, it is immoral.
|
On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area.
Violation of property rights is a social ill.
On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Show nested quote +Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral.
Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then.
And yes, all wars are immoral.
"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
|
On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership.
Everything is in the "as a practical matter". You're arguing that a socialist society can't be build. That's something I can be sympathetic of, but it has little to do with the initial discussion, which aimed at characterizing what is something "socialist". (also whitedog post is very good but from a different pov) That it cannot exist or is bound to degenerate into whatever can be a good argument, but that's a very different question here.
I'll just add as an aside, that, as a smart bearded men once said, "there has been history, but there is no longer any."
|
On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Show nested quote +Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral.
Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement.
|
On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral.
What?
|
On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral despite all the killing. Kant also believed that - he believed it was "humanism" that lead the revolution.
And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.
On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What?
"La propriété c'est le vol" (property is a theft) is a quote from Proudhon's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?
On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement.
Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame.
|
On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame.
What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason.
War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed.
|
On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed.
My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol...
Wars are not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life).
As for property rights being the most fundamental right, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ?
I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft).
|
On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft).
I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion.
Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully?
|
On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully?
The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs (it's the american who destroyed the population of bisons, not the indians).
Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy.
|
On April 26 2015 03:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism. Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie. Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully? The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs. Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy.
The cows are not the shared resource though, the grazing area is. The cows don't get ruined, the grazing area does.
Not to mention the whole idea of "property is theft" is kinda ridiculous. How can you have theft if you don't accept the idea of property in the first place?
|
On April 26 2015 03:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie.
Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie.
Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes. As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully? The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs. Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy. The cows are not the shared resource though, the grazing area is. The cows don't get ruined, the grazing area does. Not to mention the whole idea of "property is theft" is kinda ridiculous. How can you have theft if you don't accept the idea of property in the first place?
That's exactly what I said. The cow are privatly owned, using the grazing area create what I called "social cost" - not taken into account in the profit (private property), made by the farmer, and that does not count the social costs. So the core of the problem is the profit, not the existence of non privatly owned properties.
It's not property is theft, it's private property is theft.
|
Well if private property is theft, and orthodox state ownership doesn't work either, how is everything supposed to be organized, like an Israelian Kibbutz?
|
On April 26 2015 03:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:18 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 03:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully? The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs. Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy. The cows are not the shared resource though, the grazing area is. The cows don't get ruined, the grazing area does. Not to mention the whole idea of "property is theft" is kinda ridiculous. How can you have theft if you don't accept the idea of property in the first place? That's exactly what I said. The cow are privatly owned, using the grazing area create what I called "social cost" - not taken into account in the profit made by the farmer. So the core of the problem is the profit, not the existence of non privatly owned properties. It's not property is theft, it's private property is theft.
The problem is not the cows, the problem is no one is responsible for the grazing area. I don't think you understand the tragedy of the commons.
|
On April 26 2015 03:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:18 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 03:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient. They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 01:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
As a practical matter that brand of socialism doesn't work, so the state is used as a proxy for worker ownership. That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned). They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism"). I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average. Why are wars immoral? Because it violates the principles of self-ownership - theft, murder, property destruction, etc. Why should pollution be illegal? Because it violates my right of property which stems from my self-ownership, etc. What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully? The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs. Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy. The cows are not the shared resource though, the grazing area is. The cows don't get ruined, the grazing area does. Not to mention the whole idea of "property is theft" is kinda ridiculous. How can you have theft if you don't accept the idea of property in the first place? That's exactly what I said. The cow are privatly owned, using the grazing area create what I called "social cost" - not taken into account in the profit (private property), made by the farmer, and that does not count the social costs. So the core of the problem is the profit, not the existence of non privatly owned properties. It's not property is theft, it's private property is theft.
This system doesn't make sense because it doesn't have any mechanism of telling us how many cows should be grazing, and what to do with them once they are fat.
|
On April 26 2015 03:27 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:18 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 03:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient.
They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism").
[quote]
What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned).
They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism").
I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average.
[quote]
What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully? The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs. Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy. The cows are not the shared resource though, the grazing area is. The cows don't get ruined, the grazing area does. Not to mention the whole idea of "property is theft" is kinda ridiculous. How can you have theft if you don't accept the idea of property in the first place? That's exactly what I said. The cow are privatly owned, using the grazing area create what I called "social cost" - not taken into account in the profit made by the farmer. So the core of the problem is the profit, not the existence of non privatly owned properties. It's not property is theft, it's private property is theft. The problem is not the cows, the problem is no one is responsible for the grazing area. I don't think you understand the tragedy of the commons.
I don't think you read well. In Hardin's tragedy of commons, the existence of private property is a given, it has nothing to do with Rousseau or Proudhon's arguments. What create the tragedy of commons is the existence of common goods in a society driven by profit : cost (private cost) are not well defined due to the existence of common goods, and using those common goods has social costs (known as externalities) that are not taken into consideration in prices (which provoke an overusage, not optimal usage if you prefer, of those goods).
I reiterate, Bisons were common goods in newly born america, and it was not the indian who destroyed them but the settlers, driven by profit. So common goods are pretty well managed by non profit driven societies.
On April 26 2015 03:30 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:20 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:18 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 03:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 03:04 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:58 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:52 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:On April 26 2015 02:12 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2015 01:04 oneofthem wrote:
you are again reading badly. i did not say you don't care about e.g. bad outcomes under theoretical libertarian utopia, i said pure libertarianism is insufficient in preventing such outcomes, and also must be violated in order to prevent or ameliorate them.
although, given historical preference for upholding property rights over correcting social ills, it is also fair to question libertarian commitment in this area. Violation of property rights is a social ill. On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all build industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient.
They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism").
[quote]
What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Killing is a violation of property rights. You own your body. Killing is basically the worst form of vandalism then. And yes, all wars are immoral. "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good." - Jimmy Carter "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe the revolution, which was a civil war, moral. Kant also believed that. And about killing that's your own point of view. One could say that a man has the right to live and that killing is immoral in regard to this very principle. You're the one putting property rights above everything.On April 26 2015 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?On April 26 2015 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 26 2015 02:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's the opposite, and you think it doesn't work because you don't know much about this particular history. Ever heard about Owen, or Gaudin ? Even Fourier ? They all built industries based on that very principle, and it worked, they were profitable and efficient (but socially owned).
They worked, it was just too local to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Hence why Marx said they were utopist ("utopian socialism").
I'll just add some point : Fourier was immensely known in the US and I believed he made some project there. And in France, even today, there is a legal frame that permit firms owned by the workers, called the "SCOP" (cooperative and participative societies) that are pretty efficient. Some work has been made on those few firms, and economists showed they did better than other type of firms during the crisis, suffering less and firing less people. They even grew when all the others were not, on average.
[quote]
What a load of crap. Wars are immoral because they kill (and not all wars are immoral). Self ownership of means of production is just thief, it is immoral. Yeah we have coops in the US. The problem is that you're talking about things than can only exist in certain circumstances. If you want to extrapolate to the whole nation it just doesn't work, hence the need for state involvement. Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame. What is your point? I readily admit I'm putting property rights ahead of everything else. Because property rights are the most fundamental rights. Everything else can be derived from property rights. You simply assert killing is immoral, just because. I at least have a reason. War is sometimes necessary, but it is never good. It would have been preferable if the Revolution could have been done without bloodshed. My point is everything you say is nothing but your own point of view lol... War is not always bad, I just gave you an exemple of a civil war, that shed a lot of blood, and that was considered as moral not only by the population but also by famous philosopher such as E. Kant (who by the way had a moral and pretty boring life). As for property rights being the most fundamental rights, it's the same thing : nothing but your take on the subject. Proudhon or Rousseau thought property rights were immoral, can you prove them wrong ? I believe freedom and equality are more important than any property rights, and no one can prove me wrong - you can disagree tho. If your property rights suppose my own domination, I'll strip you of your property and It'll feel right. Which is the reason why anarchist make a distinction between personal property (the ownership of things that are not used to dominate others) and private property (a theft). I can prove them wrong because they've never heard of the tragedy of the commons. A shared resource which no one is responsible for will be ruined. If no one owns land or the means of production or whatever else, it will be abused into oblivion. Would it not have been preferable if that civil war had not happened and instead the disagreement had been settled peacefully? The tragedy of the commons lol. What ? How do you prove them wrong ? A ressource can be socially managed, many are. In Indian societies, natural ressources were not overused. It's the desire for profit that lead farmers to overuse common goods in the tragedy of commons, by opposing private cost, benefice, and not taking into consideration social costs. Proudhon would then say that it's private property, which is the property of the cows and the desire to make profit out of them, that create the tragedy. The cows are not the shared resource though, the grazing area is. The cows don't get ruined, the grazing area does. Not to mention the whole idea of "property is theft" is kinda ridiculous. How can you have theft if you don't accept the idea of property in the first place? That's exactly what I said. The cow are privatly owned, using the grazing area create what I called "social cost" - not taken into account in the profit (private property), made by the farmer, and that does not count the social costs. So the core of the problem is the profit, not the existence of non privatly owned properties. It's not property is theft, it's private property is theft. This system doesn't make sense because it doesn't have any mechanism of telling us how many cows should be grazing, and what to do with them once they are fat.
And how do you know at which time you need to meet with your grand parents for the thanksgiving ?
|
Exactly like privatly owned firm, they can't exist without a legal frame.
Many legal frameworks exists. Capitalism is flexible like that.
The problem is that, as a practical matter, having the workers own the business is a pain in the ass for everyone involved. Things like transfer of ownership, expansion, contraction, risk management, retirement, all these things become awkward the more you lock employment and a firms capital structure together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png/1280px-EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png)
