RED DAVE

Old 99 says:

The problem is, there is tremedous force or threat of force involved in capitalism. The whole system of capitalism involves war. During the century just past, we went through two world wars, involving the deaths of over 75 million people, that were not started by Communists or by undeveloped countries but by the most highly developed capitalist countries.

Yes, Communists killed that order of people in their repression but: (1) we're not discussing Communism; (2) we're opposed to it, anyway; (3) Communism is State Capitalism (the entire society is one giant corporation).

The other form of force, which, as a defender of capitalism, 99 does not recognize, is the forcible extraction of value. Try to get from your employer, whether it's a corporation or the government, more value than they want to give you, and you will find out what force lies behind capitalism.

Old Karl said somewhere that the state is the executive committee of the ruling class. And elsewhere that the essence of the state is special bodies of armed men. You Libs better not get too enthusiastic about getting rid of the state or you might have to depend on company security guards to defend your asses.

I'm tempted to take 99 up on

But that betrays such an ignorance of history that it's not worth it. However, this little gem begs for attention:

The implication is that the workings of the "objective" system of Liberatarianism resemble those of mathematics. This is, I assume, a corrrelative of Ayn Rand's notion of Objectivism.

Let me tell you, mathematics don't work that way.

Mathematics is not immutable. Different systems of mathematics work under different conditions. The classic demonstration of this (and I think what 99 has in mind) is geometry. Socrates thought that the axioms, postulates and corollaries of geometry were eternal and tried to use them as the basis for an eternal system of reasoning. The problem is, it ain't so.

The classic refutation of this is noneuclidean geometry, which shows that any "law" of geometry can be violated and a logically consistent system can still be constructed. The "truth" of a system then becomes whether it "works" under different conditions. This is an empirical question that also begs the question of what "works," which is a value question.

Like the old song goes, Comrades, "It ain't necessarily so."

RED DAVE

99Percent

managalar:
Not really. Markets work both ways. It depends on both supply and demand. Once a seller starts selling its hoarded assets supply decreases and demand increases because there is less left over. For the seller to hoard all of the resources supply decreases drastically and exponentially, it becomes more and more difficult for the hoarder to achieve his goal. It become readily apparent to him that what he wants to achieve becomes impossible. Likewise it works the other way around to. As his hoarded merchandise becomes ever more valuable it becomes increasingly attractive to him to sell and gain a lot of profit in the short time he does so, though, he is satifying demand so simultaneously the prices are lowered automatically. It all balances out beautifully in the end. Like the law of gravity.No, in free markets, nobody has the luxury to set prices. Prices are automatic in function to supply and demand of the moment. I am quite confident that your history viewed with more objective analysis, will show that the "horribles types of tyranny" you think are, are actually the result of governmental interventions in markets either from mercantilism, feudalims, or crony capitalism.Hmmm, interesting you believe in division of labour yet you don't really specify how this division of labour is to be achieved. I suggest that people can find for themselves who is best fit to fulfill their jobs - through capitalism.I am still perplexed who is "the team of people". Who designates this team? Under what criteria? And why do you consider yourself defacto part of this "team"?Not objectively. Like my example. I find it extremely cruel that my neighbors won't allow me to bath in their nice swimming pool. I really do need to clean up and stress out, why won't my neighbors allow me to dip in their wonderful pool? It won't cost them a bit after all.No, irrationality cannot easily outlast a human lifespan. We, as human beings, are constantly using our reason and common sense and therefore our rationality in almost every instants of our lives. For example we dress up before we go outside, otherwise we would freeze or get cold. We are aware of the multitudes of little dangers in our daily lives that if we didn't have our rationality we would die very quickly, from knowing that we shouldn't cross on a red light, rape the first member of the opposite sex we find or kill our neighbor so we can eat the food in their fridge.Yes, we all need to eat. We also all need shelter and clothing and entertainment, and that is an objective fact. But what is subjective is the necessary levels of each. For example, I might value food more than shelter. I would rather spend my time hunting down a juicy gazelle than meticulously manufacture adobe bricks for a very solid home. For another person of an entirely different character or even one living in a very different climate, that person would rather spend his time and effort concentrating in building a very comfty home that protects him from the extremes of weather instead of pursuing a juicy gazelle. Capitalism works very well in this regard because it allocates resources to those who really want them and rewards those who work for what they want appropiately in perspective of the whole market and what everyone is trying to achieve.Don't confuse empiricism, or the realm of observable facts with our human essence. In human nature we must work with common sense and reason because we are moral beings, a subject that science or empiricism cannot and might never deal with because we aren't deterministic beings, like robots or animals that act in preprogrammed manners or instincts. In this realm is where we must use our common sense and reason because it develops our objective morality that leads us to the correct political system.
It is precisely because we have free will and the ability to invent and create that makes us moral beings - it allows us to choose to be false if we want to and therefore irrational. I don't find it so mysterious after thinking about this for quite sometime now.

99Percent

RED DAVE:
The past century was frought with many tremendous injustices deriving from many wrong ideologies, communism included. I think its very unfair that you just simply fault capitalism with millions of deaths without detailing how or why, causes and effects.Hmmm, you mean I must somehow force my employer to give me more value for my work without any reason. How about using instead reason to deal with this employer! The difference here is that capitalism works with non force, or even threat of force, in fact, trading value for value between parties that agree to do so. In this view, I might try to get more out of my employer by actually offering something in return instead of just assuming that I deserve it somehow, and in fact I might do deserve it without any additional effort of my part, I just need to negotiate with him.Are you a mathematician? I think its pretty well established that if an alien civilization were to communicate with us we can do so based on mathematical principles. Likewise, I think an alien civilization would probably shake their little green pointed heads when they see us fight and even kill over such ridiculous things like gods and collectivism

RED DAVE

99Percent writes:

An incredibly weak and whiney argument. I already disposed of Communism in the original posting he's quoting, so it's "very unfair" to "simply fault capitalism . . ."

Who am I supposed to to blame? Feudalism? Tribalism? You can't get away from it. Imperialism, Colonialism, Fascism, Chattel Slavery, are all forms of Capitalism and millions died because of them. And it may well be that we are about to see another bloodbath in the conflict between the big daddy capitalist, the U.S., and one of his surly children, Iraqi capitalism.

One of the things that doesn't come in to Libertarian models of capitalism are wars.

Love that condescending Hmmm.

Where does 99 work? My employer is constantly trying to get more and more from me for less and less, and I do the same. The problem is that the firm has more power than I do! Iin the United States in the last thirty years, in the absence of a strong labor movement a some kind of countervailing force, real wages have declined, and the average American, like myself, works thirty days more per year than twenty years ago.

I love the little model that 99 uses: the individual worker and his/her employer, solemnly bargaining. If I tried that with my employer (a giant law firm), I would be out on my ass forthwith, with no place to go but down.

(The following is a late edit.)

I am not a mathematician because I chose not to make it my profession. I majored in math at NYU and studied under some pretty heavy hitters (e.g. Morris Klein). The issue of alien communication and mathematics is irrelevant. The question is the application of some realm of mathematics to a particular subject. The only way you can say that mathematics is universal is make that statement of mathematics as a whole. Any particular "part" of mathematics may or may not be relevant. Topology, for example, will not help you do your income taxes (unless your records are out of shape).

Likewise, to claim that the principles of Libertarianism are as invariant as those of mathematics shows only an ignorance of mathematics, history and politcs.

That's true. I have no idea why you capitalists (corporate, state or fascist) are always killing people over collectivism.

RED DAVE

John Hancock

Red Dave

I'm tempted to take 99 up on

Privatized police force.


I second the motion. With the Lib. scene no gun control hot diggdy dog. Renta cops? ROFL. Coupla fast quicks and I could afford some of the great modern night optics. Wow! forget the neighborhood theater Comeing to your NEIGHBORHOOD The Rebirth of the Adrenlin Junkie brought to you. In brillant red arterial blood color!! I'm begrinningly to recharge better go take some Xanax.

BTW Dave I really do get a kick outa the know nothings that title me Nam war era hero. When I personally regard you guys that not only didn't go but also organized resistance as the real era heros. Of course I think those who called returning soldiers names are the quintessencetal ASS HOLES!

Martin Buber

Autonemesis

That's what I thought you meant. Sorry, can't go there with you. You need to back this up with a lot more cogent arguments. I hardly know where to begin.

Libertarianism is product of modern thinking, and is a very modern idea. The principles behind libertarianism were not even conceived of more than a hundred years ago or so. The context in which the ideas of libertarianism arose simply did not exist before the modern industrial period. The modern concept of the individual, for instance, is of very recent vintage, and I am sure you must agree that without that, libertarianism is simply inconceivable.

So I cannot agree that libertarianism would have worked, let alone have been comprehensible, in past societies, any more than Marxism or middle-class liberalism would have worked, or have been comprehensible.

Autonemesis

I am having a difficult time wrapping my brain around the idea that an otherwise intelligent person would fail to see that "common sense" is about as subjective a thing as there ever was.

It would ease my cognitive dissonance a great deal if you could describe an objective method for identifying what common sense should tell us, so we can know whether or not we're exercising it properly. I don't think you can, but this is a way out of the difficulty for your arguments insofar as they depend on the reliablity of "common sense."

Autonemesis

Have you any idea how supercilious you are when you make statements like this? "I'll entertain any argument, as long as it doesn't refer to opposing theories, which are all bullshit."

I take it back, this is more than supercilious, this is pure fundamentalist arrogance. If I were moderator, I'd have closed the thread or moved it to ~~Elsewhere~~ after seeing that kind of remark.

Moderator, "heel" thyself!

managalar

Well, I wasn't going to respond right away (and I'll answer some of your direct questions later), but - human essence ?!?!

I'm almost inclined to say, case closed. If humans are outside of 'observable facts', then I don't think we have anything to talk about. As Kind Bud put it, I think the things you are saying are 'pure fundamentalist arrogance'. Words, like science, will always be restricted to 'observable facts'. You first called the basis of your ideas, 'common sense', but I think 'outside of observable facts' sounds more faith dependent than rational.
human essence -bah

99Percent

Kind Bud:
Although libertarianism has been more philosophically explored during the last 200 years, its essential ideas, in fact individualism itself, originated in Greece more than 2000 years ago. Regardless, its recent development does not in anyway discard its validity. Free markets have existed for millenia in ancient civilizations, in fact civilizations themselves would not come about without a minimum modicum of free markets. That its versions of capitalism were enforced through benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictators in no way invalidates the fact that capitalism indeed works to advance economically and therefore the standards of living of men.
The fact that we have free will for example is not based on science. In fact pure science or logic will dictate we do not have free will at all as we are bound by TLOP (The laws of physics). But in the human realm of understanding we do have free will because we can never determine what are the choices of other rational beings. This is what I mean by common sense for example and it is clearly not subjective in nature.

I did in fact address the argument in question but not as deeply as RED DAVE might have liked. Anyway Marxism has been found fatally flawed along time ago, both in theory and in practice. As to the "superciliousness" of my remark, well I don't censure the rampant Randism bashing either do I? Thats not the function of moderators here.

managalar: Yep, our human essence is our capacity to reason itself. You are doing yourself a great disservice by denying it, pretending that you are just a slightly more complex animal.