RED DAVE

I am amazed an delighted that this thread is still going after all these weeks. I won't even try to summarize the course of the discussion. Instead, I'm going to jump right in.

On January 2nd, 99Percent offered the following set of Libertarian principles.

Let me consider them one at a time:

This is a classic expression of Libertarian method. "Man is a moral being ..." Where do you get this stuff? Man is a breathing being, inasmuch as breathing is part of our nature: no breath, no life. Or, likewise, we are eating beings. But to say we are I]moral[/I] beings is to say that we cannot exist without morality. Unless you want to argue that the average serial killer or Nazi is a moral being, the argument fails.

Yes, we have free will, but that has to be qualified. It is not unlimited. Just to observe that we die, without our consent, is to notice a limit on our free will.

Why perceived? I mean, yes, I can perceive happiness, but, more importantly I can experience it. I think that the point that is actually being made is that only the individual can achieve happiness. And that is untrue. There are a large number of happinesses (to coin a word) that can only be achieved by groups. I can't resist starting with sex because sexual happiness can be achieved by an individual or a very small group (two is the preferred number). However, since I started this thread by saying that Libertarianism is, in essence, a form of masturbation, I guess the happiness of the individual is of prime importantance to practitioners.

That cheap shot aside, history shows that the joy of freedom is achieved by groups.

Well, yes. So what? Given that the capitalist societies are characterized by extraordinary levels of violence, what are you going to do about that? From slavery to world war, imperialist intervention in foreign countries, tolerating incredibly high domestic violence, I think it is safe to say that capitalism is violence. Remember, all societies on Earth, from Afghanistan under the Taliban, to Sweden, are capitalist.

No, we're getting to the heart of the matter. "The fruits of his labor ("property"), or that obtained freely from others ..."

Back during the dinosaur days, old Karl M. toyed around with the concept of "surplus value." This is the amount of value created by the laborer, above and beyond the necessity of reproducing capital (equipment, raw materials, the bare necessities of life, etc.). Now, the essence of what's going on in society is [I]the struggle over who gets that surplus value[/]! This society is structured such that the capitialist gets most of it. This is what Agent 99 means when he says: "The fruits of his labor ("property"), or that obtained freely from others ..." Translation: I, the capitalist, get the fruit of my labor and I get the fruit of yours, which I obtain freely by owning the means of production and controlling the police and the army.

Really? In other words, I can fuck up my property in whatever way I want, bar none. And, whatever I extract from someone else (see above), through my control of the means of production, I can trade freely: sell to other countries, etc. Too bad we don't don't have slavery. Then I could sell you and not only the fruit of your labor.

Well, the next time I work on a shift, and take home only a fraction of the value I create, I'll remember that.

RED DAVE

99Percent

Do we have free will or not? Becauese extreme subjectivists would rather say not. If you admit we have free will, then we are moral beings, as simple as that. Serial killers and Nazi's are moral beings, they are in fact immoral, and thats why they are evil. However a subjectivists would simply say that for a serial killer he valued more his pleasure of killing that human life, of that Nazi's valued more their idea of pure race than the lives of Jews. Thats a pretty frightening "moral" theory IMO.

You just stumbled on your own fallacy. Happiness cannot be experienced or perceived or achieved or whatever by a group. Individuals that are participating in a group can, but only individually. Sometimes happiness is achieved, perceived or whatever with a trade - "I'll let you see mine if you let me see yours" kind of thing, which is the basis of capitalism.

False. Joy of freedom is only achieved individually. You feel free when there is no influence by others. Sure, you can join a group but you do so out of your own freedom to do so, or else its simply coercion.

All societies have elements of capitalism yes, even in prisons prisoners trade favors with cigarretes for example, but there are different degrees of capitalism. The less intervention from the government in economic affairs of men the more capitalistic a society is. You can't just simply portray them all as capitalism, that is not being intellectually honest. Capitalism in its purer forms are necessarily less violent because it involves free trade between free individuals something of which violence interferes directly. What government does in a capitalistic society is to keep violence in check, by jailing those who actually want to do things by force.
Well this is all marxist bullshit and I really do not want go into it deeply. I would just point out that labourer freely agrees to the conditions of his labour. Nobody is forcing him to work at the point of a pistol and he can quit anytime (or else its not free labour but slavery which goes against Libertarian principles). The labourer has an advantage over the capitalist which Marx very conveniently failed to show - the labourer does not participate in the possible losses of the enterprise set forth by capitalist when he risks his capital in trying out his capital making ideas.

Yes you can fuck up your property in whatever way you want. "Fucking up" is probably subjective. What I would call fucking up your own property by saying painting it with "art" might actually enhance it. Who knows? You dig horrible holes and caves in your garden that seems to fuck it up, but you actually find oil in the process.
Sorry but humans are never property. Property can only be produced value by humans recognizable by other humans, directly or indirectly.
Yes, you do that. See how much of your work is actually going in taxes to support building roads and bridges you will never use, or the wages of bureaucrats and astronauts for example

RED DAVE

I'll just reply to this little canard before I go on lunch break.

Wow, I never knew that we laborers were better off under capitalist than our bosses. Marx lied!

Well, I guess I'm just one of those who says that laborers have rights, even inside the capitalist system. No, I don't freely agree. I have no choice, just like under so-called Communism. I must submit to the tyranny of one capitalist or another. So, I have no choice. Of course, I could become a capitalist and screw others as they try to screw me, but that's not my ideals.

Slavery, of course, was very much to the taste of that great Libertarian, Jefferson, especially, Sally Hemings.

And yes, we laborers do share in "the possible losses of the enterprise." And we share in losing something much worse than capital. We lose our jobs and our way of life. Take a look at the Rust Belt of the United States and see what happened to the lives of tens of millions of people who lost in the capitalist game that someone else was playing.

RED DAVE

August Spies

If you admit we have free will, then we are moral beings, as simple as that

how does this follow?

Nazi's are moral beings, they are in fact immoral,

can you be moral and immoral at the same time?

You feel free when there is no influence by others.

This is not necessairly true. Just on a basic level it takes cooperation to be FREE to do certain things. Personally I feel most free in the presence of my friends doing somethign we all enjoy.

- the labourer does not participate in the possible losses of the enterprise

Are you joking? do you live in America? when companies do bad they FIRE THE LABOURERS. CEO X screws up, they fire 2 million workers. How is this not having a risk in the enterprise?

when he risks his capital and the laborer risks his life.

Property can only be produced value by humans recognizable by other humans, directly or indirectly.

why? Capitalism and slavery have a long history together.

August Spies

99percent:

I don't think you will win an argument trying to claim Capitalists have it worse than labourers, if that is what you are claiming. Because if they really had it worse they would just be normal workers. They wouldn't try to be capitalists.

99Percent

Well if workers have it so bad, then why aren't they capitalists? It doesn't really take that much money to become one, and even so workers can pool their savings to start their own enterprises (and many do in fact).

99Percent

RED DAVE:
Yes, in fact he did lie!
You should take a better look at capitalism. Its not screwing others, if there is no force or threat of force involved.
No, the worker does in the end does not lose when the enterprise fails, he simply moves over to the next job he can find. The capitalist OTOH has lost actual money. He lost all his investment in the bankruptcy. Where as the worker earned wages of which he could have saved some in fact.

Suppose I have this "brilliant" idea. I think I can make a fortune selling earings made out of thrown away AOL CDs. I buy the machinery, and I hire you as my right arm and general do all. The first thing you are going to say is that that is a stupid idea, its not going to work. But I am convinced it will work and I am convinced you are the right man to help me out on this enterprise. I will pay you a good salary to work for me, or even a bad salary because its the only job you can find. The company fails miserably after a few months. I lost a lot of money. OTOH you earned a good wage (or bad one which is better than none, anyway) during these months. Your gain was that you did not participate in the risk of the business. This gain should not translate the other way around though. If in fact my "brilliant" idea is a smashing success this does not mean you must necessarily participate in the profits as one of the labourers as Marx claims should be. Marx would say that you as the worker have the right to take over my business and appropiate the means of production because you deserve all the profits. Thats just plain bullshit.

August Spies

actually it DOES take a lot of money to start a buisness. and as you point out they DO try to become capitalists. I don't know anyone who doesn't try to move up.

are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that someone who has put years into a company and has his skills there yada yada is not losing anything by being fired by his company? Years spent working IS investment.

no, it is not. And you are misunderstanding Marx. He is saying the PROLETARIAT class has the right to create a new society and overthrow the present day one.

he is NOT saying that IN THE CONTEXT of a capitalist society it would be okay for random person X to take over his bosses job. He is saying the bosses should not exist in the first place.

RED DAVE

I'm sorry that I let myself get sucked into that stupid 19th Century bullshit about how the poor capitalist risks his money, and we fortunate proletarians can just move on when we lose our jobs.

It was old a hundred years ago when Ellsworth Baker put it out in propaganda like "A Message to Garcia."

Maybe Libertarians are the last, beknighted defender of the "unknown ideal" of capitalism in a darkening world where it's under attack (on this thread)

or

Maybe they're petit-bourgeois, intellectual lackeys of the ruling class, using their minds to defend the capitalist depredation of the world.

or

Maybe some people just love capitalism, like some people like crack, and you can't get it out of their system.

RED DAVE

managalar

Yes, it is a stupid idea, which was why I didn�t consider it. I asked about someone who does not, or claims to not understand the effects of their actions. If one person owns all super bowl tickets, he can set the price. If one person owns all of X resource that everyone needs (like the grain in the grain silos), and they are �free� to do with it whatever they want, they can charge whatever they want, and sell to who ever they want. You cannot argue that they would naturally fail to profit from setting prices, serving rich and powerful customers only, as most Libertarians like to argue, because it has happened countless times in history. Whenever libertarian economies are in place, ownership moves towards fewer and fewer hands, until you have a horrorable type of tyranny. It has happened, it will happen, and democratic governments practically exist to prevent monopolistic oppression. The only way such �irrational� things are prevented is through unions of people working together to enforce fairness on everyone, not through educated people recognize it as obviously as �irrational�.

I can�t by myself. One of the primary tenants of division of labor, we split up roles because you and I can�t do everything�.so yes, a group of people can study cruelty better than any one person can. We generally agree about what is cruel based on biological and psychological health, and many people spend their lives studying the impact of cruel actions: doctors, psychologists ect.

We = the team of people who�s goal it is to increase the quality of life of everyone.

You can have cruel without violence�like hoarding resources, leading to mal-nutrition in the most obvious example, but overcharging on life�s necessities is very similar to any monopolistic control.


As you used it, you were trying to say your rational ideas would work because irrationality �by it�s very nature cannot survive�. I agree in principle, but I was objecting based on the observation that irrationality can easily outlast human life spans, making your suggestion that your rational plan would just work, nonsense.
This whole section is very weak. We (myself and the system that created me) can force people to not consume unhealthy things. Usually, very unhealthy things are hard to get your hands on, while not so unhealthy things only have to have warnings. As for eating food, yes, I will say, �all people NEED to eat food (bodily fuel)�, its curious that you would ask me if I would say something so obvious. As for what is �good�, the average individual is not a doctor, and will likely eat himself into obesity and poor health (unless he studies and acts on the advice of professionals). I cite US obesity stats.

UMMM? That makes no sense. You can�t just declare something as �true� based on �common sense�. Common sense could tell you the earth is flat, or that there isn�t a huge multiverse, it can�t just tell you something is �true�. We will never have the �truest� plan to promote human life, the system of morals will only ever be as good as has been thought of�thus NEVER objective, in the absolute concrete sense you are using it in.

Black and White!?! The common sense you base your assertion, �Libertarianism is correct political system�, is not very solid. You claim, �That some people refuse or cannot identify objective truth...� Thru the entire course of human history, ideas about how to best team up have continued to change, usually in a way that promotes the success and quality of human life. Do you mean to tell me that all the people everywhere, even those in the future (very much like how we disagree with divine right of despots), who disagree with your �common sense� are wrong? �wrong because your common sense is the �truth�? I�m sorry, but that sounds pretty arrogant and religious. I agree that we should use common sense to the best of our ability, but we should never assume that we have reached a point where, �we have it all figured out �objectively�, true in the past, true now, and always true�. History has taught us we can improve almost anything (science, engineering, and political ideas), and its pretty bad if you think Libertarianism is it, the �correct� system.


Thanks for responding to my questions 99percent. You have given up some ground, like how irrationality CAN exist, but for an unspecified �shorter� amount of time. But many things are just a matter of understanding your idea of common sense, and your abuse of the word objective�because you consider your common sense as some kind of absolute truth. I don�t understand this reasoning because it is not rational.