|
On September 15 2010 21:00 Piretes wrote:
Yurebis - These posts are taking way to much of my free time, and I believe we will never understand each other. You live in some world of government conspiracies - You state the US somehow made the Japanese attack pearl harbor to be able to coerce their subjects into war.
I live on a different continent and culture and cannot understand the possibilities of markets and problems of government you see. I hope you understand that every politically engaged person I know here trusts the government and only looks at ways to improve on the system we have. Call this ignorance, serfdom, whatever, but I only see open minds and open hearts.
Thanks for the discussion.
thanku2
|
On September 16 2010 00:10 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 21:43 Yurebis wrote:On September 15 2010 18:18 MiraMax wrote:On September 15 2010 14:14 ghrur wrote:On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote:
(haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible? Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no. Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents... It's not a minority, if you know anything about the lvmi, the most famous institute on austrian economics... I would say at the very least 70% of the members and speakers are ancaps. The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. For one, I didn't choose ancap first and then looked for a justification, that is a ridiculous and empty accusation. I chose moral and economical consistency, and it then follows that the state, as a function of private property defense, is a complete contradiction in terms and in practice, for it violates exactly that which it claims to protect. I used to be a minarchist, by the way. I just got tired of lying to myself. There is a world outside the US, you know, and last time I checked Austria was in Europe. Anarcho-capitalism is almost exclusively an american phenomenon and it's kind of funny that you mention the Ludvig von Mises Institute. Most famous institute for austrian school economics? Who do you want to kid? Mises and Hayek both rejected anarchy (which you surely know as you have read their works, I guess) and most of their European and American scholars do too. It is only a minority among austrian scholars who think that ancap might work and their definition of ancap is rather conflicting especially with regard to how a law system should be established. Since they also prefer to write books and don't publish too much in economic journals, they take hardly any part in the academic discussion. If you really disagree with that, you are severely misrepresenting the actual debate in economics. Of course this doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that their view is an extreme position which is not "popular" among todays scholars, even among those in the austrian tradition. I also don't see how I equivocate or misrepresent your position. Is it not true that austrian scholars generally reject empiricism and argue in favor of their theories deductively? Is it further not true that there is no empirical data which favours that an ancap society could work, mainly due to the fact that it basically never came about historically (yes, I know, the wild wild west)? Where did I say that you chose ancap first and then found a justification?
Okay, a majority here in the US then. Mises and Hayek didn't focus on political science at all, they're awesome for their economical contributions.
The old argument of "if ancap is so good, why doesn't it exist" is an equivocation. No one said it should exist. And no one is saying everything is perfect for ancap to arise. No, it is undoubtedly the case that it well isn't, when everyone still thinks using guns to organize society is a good thing, certainly ancap may not find an opportunity at all. I'm saying that, in a world where people understand the inefficiencies of government, and the economical issues with it that I repeat so much, then ancap will arise and it will outcompete then. I don't know all the factors needed. Which is another reason why I made the thread.
You put a gun to my head and ask me to sing, and before I complete a verse you shoot. That's about the extent of the historical experiment with anarchism (let alone ancap).
Edit: To make it clear, I think it should exist, but it's not a norm, because there is no objective norm. I find it desirable, and I'm explaining why I think so. So do take my words with a grain of salt, and if you don't agree, well too bad, sorry for not being of use.
|
On September 16 2010 02:11 L wrote: Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position. But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
Oh hi L
|
On September 16 2010 02:23 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 10:09 Yurebis wrote:On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote:
So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?
doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)
-> not desireable in my opinion.
(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is) 1- Security is no different than any other service... you are as doomed as much as if you can't pay for your own food, your own shelter, your own anything; there's still private charity though, and even that will be more efficient in ancap where there isn't taxation on donations. 2- Define "completely dominate". 1- In Germany there is a state that won't let u die on the streets and give u food, shelter and security if you don't have any... what you say is true if there is no state. To make everyone a beggar and dependant on the good will of others... if he is weak ... i don't believe that this would work in any way better than in a social state... especially not in a system where everyone has to constantly fear about loosing his stuff. 2- dominate them more than they do in a social state that at least tries to balance stuff a bit... by wellfare.
1- An in statism, you're dependent on the state being nice and using the money they stole 'properly'. I don't think you're comparing correctly. Who's more likely to give you what you want, a clerk, or a politician? How and why?
2- Why do you call a private entity having full rights over exactly what they're due "domination", while the state who controls everything is "balance"? A little biased maybe?
|
You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved.
So Yurebis, do this for us:
Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics
Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
|
ok so lets say anarcho capitalism doenst work.
no worries, cz that has nothing to do with capitalism.
|
I dont know if this has come up yet but i'd be interested what you (yurebis) think of resource based economy and lifestyle at all. The way i would imagine this would be a government be it world or state based doesnt matter. Each individual is supplied with everything they would need to live (and do so comfortably without taking others the chance to live on an equal level of "luxury") Reasoning behind this being limited resources that are available to mankind which i would see becoming a problem for an anarcho-capitalistic design. Im no expert on this matter, in fact i'm a complete stranget to the topic but as i see it this kind of environment would encourage people to follow their real interests instead of "working for a living" (which should still be required up until a certain age in my resource based model). Each job "paying" the same there would be no reason to go for a job solely for monetary reasons, so in the end your personal interest will be what matters. Education for those who want it, "lower end jobs" for those who dont want to get educated.
Of course with a system like this theres a lot of potential to abuse it, but i guess we can agree that would be no different in an anarcho capitalistic system or any other system we have.
Being pretty much the exact opposite of your system i would like to see how you think about a resource based system rather than a currency based one. My reason behind bringing this up is pretty much my being a very social guy having no problem with getting the shit taxed out of my salary so the less fortunate might live on a level thats not even close to mine but still a whole lot better than having to live only on private charity.
|
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote:
You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved.
So Yurebis, do this for us:
Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics
Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
Oh wow okay.
Let me try something...
Investment and consumption together form market spenditure: M
government spending is spending which has first detracted from M through taxes,: G
taxes is T
G = T
final market spenditure M` = M-T
So... okay never mind, that's fail.
You can't put the broken window fallacy, and praxeology into math. You aggregate too much, and break methodological individualism...
Numbers and charts will never reflect human action... because human preference isn't quantifiable. Prices are just approximations, and the more you expand on such a shaky foundation, the more likely you'll be wrong in your predictions.
Trying to put millions of men's demands into math... who am I kidding, that would require a God.
|
On September 16 2010 10:32 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote:
You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved.
So Yurebis, do this for us:
Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics
Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math. *More word arguments instead of math*
Protip: Start small.
|
On September 16 2010 10:19 waffling1 wrote:
ok so lets say anarcho capitalism doenst work.
no worries, cz that has nothing to do with capitalism.
It has something to do, since it is the ultimate expression of capitalism.
But since capitalism is so burned these days, obviously it's a bad thing heh heh
|
On September 16 2010 10:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
I dont know if this has come up yet but i'd be interested what you (yurebis) think of resource based economy and lifestyle at all. The way i would imagine this would be a government be it world or state based doesnt matter. It would to a certain degree be like communism but at a more democratic level. Each individual is supplied with everything they would need to live (and do so comfortably without taking others the chance to live on an equal level of "luxury") Reasoning behind this being limited resources that are available to mankind which i would see becoming a problem for an anarcho-capitalistic design. Im no expert on this matter, in fact i'm a complete stranget to the topic but as i see it this kind of environment would encourage people to follow their real interests instead of "working for a living" (which should still be required up until a certain age in my resource based model). Each job "paying" the same there would be no reason to go for a job solely for monetary reasons, so in the end your personal interest will be what matters. Education for those who want it, "lower end jobs" for those who dont want to get educated.
Of course with a system like this theres a lot of potential to abuse it, but i guess we can agree that would be no different in an anarcho capitalistic system or any other system we have.
Being pretty much the exact opposite of your system i would like to see how you think about a resource based system rather than a currency based one. My reason behind bringing this up is pretty much my being a very social guy having no problem with getting the shit taxed out of my salary so the less fortunate might live on a level thats not even close to mine but still a whole lot better than having to live only on private charity.
If someone manages to make self-replicating robots that can supply good x abundantly for infinity, then he could choose between charging at the second best price, or giving it out for free. I don't see the need to abolish private property still, even if such a thing were to occur. You would still have a private property theory to at least establish who has the right to maintain the robots and infrastructure.
I say that there isn't a single system which doesn't have a theory of property rights. Even communism, tribalism, or the venus project has to have one. Even if not formalized or "not necessary" (I doubt it wouldn't be, you'd at least own your own body eh.)
|
On September 16 2010 10:34 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 10:32 Yurebis wrote:On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote:
You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved.
So Yurebis, do this for us:
Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics
Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math. *More word arguments instead of math* Protip: Start small.
Ok.
Crusoe economics.
Man's wants are W.
Man's means are M.
Means have inputs and outputs. I and O.
Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M.
Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E.
Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X.
A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.
So.. what can be done with this is...
W = M - Z
W = M - (X-E)
Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better
Catallactics.
Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange.
So trade only happens when E1*E2>0
Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C.
C is E1*E2<=0
The <= is debatable but w/e
I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me.
edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.
Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.
And that's just ex-ante
|
Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc
|
On September 16 2010 11:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc
You seem to be under the impression that employers make employment artificially scarce. Is this correct?
Also I support unschooling (as well?).
|
On September 16 2010 10:13 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 02:11 L wrote:The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position. But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly. Oh hi L
Case in point.
|
On September 16 2010 11:06 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 11:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc You seem to be under the impression that employers make employment artificially scarce. Is this correct? Also I support unschooling (as well?).
I cant really tell you if its true or not, but it certainly seems this way to me. Employers only get who they want and the rest can die of poverty for all they care since its not longer their concern. Employers are after employees that increase their monetary wealth, so theyll get only as many as they need to stay in the competition game with other companies. In my system there wouldnt be an "employer" in the sense of the word but rather an obligation to contribute to society in some way or another. This would mean there is no real limit to how many people get employed and with the limited salary each individual is granted, there should(!) be no problem in making sure people dont get left behind because of miscalculations etc; of course this is highly theoretical and most commmunist states have proved that its not as easy as i picture it. What i dont like about the current situation is the amount of waste our economy produces. With the need to constantly and instantly supply people theres a lot of excess production especially in the food industry which makes me rage hard. People starving in certain regions of the world just so that John Doe can get his Big Mac in less than a minute? The amount of food (and other goods) simply thrown away is a testament to the opportunistic way western businesses have to please the customer to stay in the competition. Im not a big fan of this wasteful behaviour even tho im not better than most probably, but whatever. What would life be if you couldnt do some ranting.
|
On September 16 2010 11:24 L wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 10:13 Yurebis wrote:On September 16 2010 02:11 L wrote:The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position. But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly. Oh hi L Case in point.
I really don't think I need empirical proof, as much as an abolitionist didn't.
And I already said, there is no double standard, one can desire a state for any number of ends, praxeologically so. Just as much people can jump off buildings thinking they can fly. The role of the libertarian is not to prove that it should always be the case that people will prefer peace, just to argue that peace is a much better means for almost any wants, long term.
|
On September 16 2010 11:26 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 11:06 Yurebis wrote:On September 16 2010 11:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc You seem to be under the impression that employers make employment artificially scarce. Is this correct? Also I support unschooling (as well?). I cant really tell you if its true or not, but it certainly seems this way to me. Employers only get who they want and the rest can die of poverty for all they care since its not longer their concern. Employers are after employees that increase their monetary wealth, so theyll get only as many as they need to stay in the competition game with other companies. In my system there wouldnt be an "employer" in the sense of the word but rather an obligation to contribute to society in some way or another. This would mean there is no real limit to how many people get employed and with the limited salary each individual is granted, there should(!) be no problem in making sure people dont get left behind because of miscalculations etc; of course this is highly theoretical and most commmunist states have proved that its not as easy as i picture it. What i dont like about the current situation is the amount of waste our economy produces. With the need to constantly and instantly supply people theres a lot of excess production especially in the food industry which makes me rage hard. People starving in certain regions of the world just so that John Doe can get his Big Mac in less than a minute? The amount of food (and other goods) simply thrown away is a testament to the opportunistic way western businesses have to please the customer to stay in the competition. Im not a big fan of this wasteful behaviour even tho im not better than most probably, but whatever. What would life be if you couldnt do some ranting.
So you find it unfair that employees can only be employed if the employer wants?
Well, do you also find it unfair with the employer that he can only employ those who want to be employed?
Aren't you ignoring the other side of the exchange?
In your system, if there's a positive obligation to work, and there's an enforcer for that obligation, then that enforcer is the employer - that employer is the owner of the means of production...
Even if it's owned by a syndicate, it's still owned by them, and they will try to stop anyone else from taking over or 'misusing' the capital.
Try to formalize the theory of property, it will make more sense for both you and I.
|
I didnt say i find it unfair, i said that in the current system owning a company is about generating monetary wealth rather than "social" wealth. What i wanted to point out is that unemployment comes with the ability to choose your employees.
As for the enforcement part, its no different than in any other system really. If you want to live you have to work for it. Who enforces it is of no real interest (at least to me). Of course you could argue that with only one employer the power lies with this one employer rather than multiple employers in the ancap system. Both systems have their flaws, but ill just defend my resource based economy for now. With only one employer theres no pressure to outperform your competitors which means that there would be no reason to exploit anything (or anyone) in order to get ahead of your competition. Thats the main profit of having a central employer responsible of every employee. No exploitation of workers is for me better than potentially offering your employees a superior working area and salary at the expense of everyone elses.
edit: that being said ill go to bed now, thanks for answering to my post.
|
On September 16 2010 12:01 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
I didnt say i find it unfair, i said that in the current system owning a company is about generating monetary wealth rather than "social" wealth. What i wanted to point out is that unemployment comes with the ability to choose your employees.
As for the enforcement part, its no different than in any other system really. If you want to live you have to work for it. Who enforces it is of no real interest (at least to me). Of course you could argue that with only one employer the power lies with this one employer rather than multiple employers in the ancap system. Both systems have their flaws, but ill just defend my resource based economy for now. With only one employer theres no pressure to outperform your competitors which means that there would be no reason to exploit anything (or anyone) in order to get ahead of your competition. Thats the main profit of having a central employer responsible of every employee. No exploitation of workers is for me better than potentially offering your employees a superior working area and salary at the expense of everyone elses.
edit: that being said ill go to bed now, thanks for answering to my post.
What incentive the central employer has to not do the exact same things you accuse the private employers of doing?
Okay bb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
